20 Feb 07
Originally posted by no1marauderFirst, to point out the obvious, there was nothing in your hypothetical as originally stated about a fatal shot being the only available option.
Such dancing on the head of a pin "logic" is what makes PDE such a completely useless guide to moral action. It is, of course, also factually inaccurate - try "temporarily disabling" someone by a shot. The scenario was set up so that a "disabling shot" was not possible (as it is not possible for most people who are not expert marksman - and even an exper ...[text shortened]... f shooting to disable IF by doing so he was increasing the risk to the child in the hypo).
Second, that you think the logic here is "dancing on a pin" is your opinion - it's either logical or it's not. If it's logical then what's your problem?
Third, your repeated assertion (say it another dozen times if you like - it still does not make you correct) about PDE being a useless guide to moral action is also an unsubstantiated opinion. As I said, most people use PDE quite naturally. In this case, if the person in question made the judgment (which may be a quick and almost-intuitive one -- but a judgment nevertheless) to shoot the woman to save the child and aware of the possibility of killing the woman but not with that intention, then he has essentially done a PDE-analysis.
20 Feb 07
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderSimilar to what I said earlier, I refuse to be held hostage to ridiculous conditions of casuistry.
I refuse to give people perfect and complete information in the hypo when they could not have it in real life. That's ridiculous and would invalidate the hypos. If you find that "telling", that's your problem. If your position is that you can't tell whether saving the life of a child that is about to be killed by killing the would be murderer would be a morally permissible act, so be it.
I've asked you repeatedly to clarify one thing for me (and everyone else attempting to address your hypotheticals) -- am I supposed to put myself in the place of the person committing the act and therefore answer the question of whether there are conditions under which the acts would be morally permissible? Or am I simply a bystander (or, perhaps, a member of the jury listening to the case later)? Which of these scenarios is true about the reader of your hypotheticals is critical to his/her arriving at a judgment about the moral permissibility of the act. You keep vacillating between the two and simply refuse to clarify which is the case. That's not "invalidating the hypos" - it's equivocation.
If you would simply answer the questions in bold above we can constructively move on with this discussion and hope to dialogue.
EDIT: If you simply refuse to provide any clarification or additional information, I will just assume the "bystander" position and answer accordingly. In which case I have to say that I cannot determine the moral permissibility of some of these hypotheticals. That doesn't mean PDE is "useless" -- it doesn't prevent me from using PDE in my own life and arriving at correct moral judgments about the things I do.
20 Feb 07
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerFirst, yes there is: Woman A about to plunge a dagger into the head of one month old Baby B.
First, to point out the obvious, there was nothing in your hypothetical as originally stated about a fatal shot being the only available option.
Second, that you think the logic here is "dancing on a pin" is your opinion - it's either logical or it's not. If it's logical then what's your problem?
Third, your repeated assertion (say it another do ...[text shortened]... illing the woman but not with that intention, then he has essentially done a PDE-analysis.
Most people would know that there weren't the unlimited options you seem to think exist.
Second, logic was placed in quotes - I don't find your "analysis" (see that?) particulary logical.
Third, most people would intend the killing of the would be murderer and would regard that as a morally permissible act under the existing circumstances. Thus, they would not perform PDE analysis at all.
20 Feb 07
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerHow many times do you want that question answered? The questions were based on someone making a moral judgment of the actor (not necessarily a bystander). However, most people when making a moral judgment of someone else's actions place themselves mentally in the position of the actor. If you have some different procedure, please do tell. There's been no vacillation by me and certainly no equivocation.
[b/]Similar to what I said earlier, I refuse to be held hostage to ridiculous conditions of casuistry.
I've asked you repeatedly to clarify one thing for me (and everyone else attempting to address your hypotheticals) -- am I supposed to put myself in the place of the person committing the act and therefore answer the question of whether there are c ions in bold above we can constructively move on with this discussion and hope to dialogue.
20 Feb 07
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauder1. Sorry, that doesn't mean that a fatal shot is the only available option. Your comment about "unlimited options" is a red herring - I never claimed there were.
First, yes there is: Woman A [b]about to plunge a dagger into the head of one month old Baby B.
Most people would know that there weren't the unlimited options you seem to think exist.
Second, logic was placed in quotes - I don't find your "analysis" (see that?) particulary logical.
Third, most people would intend the ki ...[text shortened]... regard that as a morally permissible act. Thus, they would not perform PDE analysis at all.[/b]
2. If you don't find it "logical" (in "scare quotes" ), then please point out the fallacy. Your opinion does not count as a refutation.
3. Would most people ensure the woman's dead (e.g. by taking a second shot at her) if the child has been removed safely from her grasp?
I submit that you're simply wrong on this count. Most people in that situation aren't thinking "She should be killed" -- they're thinking "She should be stopped" or "The child should be saved".
20 Feb 07
Originally posted by no1marauderOkay, then your question essentially boils down to whether those actions are morally permissible under certain conditions. Thanks. You could've just said that the first time I asked.
How many times do you want that question answered? The questions were based on someone making a moral judgment of the actor (not necessarily a bystander). However, most people when making a moral judgment of someone else's actions place themselves mentally in the position of the actor. If you have some different procedure, please do tell. There's been no vacillation by me and certainly no equivocation.
20 Feb 07
Originally posted by lucifershammer1-2 are a waste of further time.
1. Sorry, that doesn't mean that a fatal shot is the only available option. Your comment about "unlimited options" is a red herring - I never claimed there were.
2. If you don't find it "logical" (in "scare quotes" ), then please point out the fallacy. Your opinion does not count as a refutation.
3. Would most people ensure the woman's dead (e.g ...[text shortened]... hey're thinking "She should be [b]stopped" or "The child should be saved".[/b]
3) Are you serious? Most people wouldn't be thinking that someone about to stab a baby in the head should be killed? I submit they would be. And I submit that this perfectly natural reaction does not equate to moral wrongfulness when they do kill the would be murderer. That is why PDE is so absurd.
20 Feb 07
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauder1-2) You keep repeating your opinions and then refuse to countenance counter-arguments by calling them a "waste of time". That's neither dialogue nor debate.
1-2 are a waste of further time.
3) Are you serious? Most people wouldn't be thinking that someone about to stab a baby in the head should be killed? I submit they would be. And I submit that this perfectly natural reaction does not equate to moral wrongfulness when they do kill the would be murderer. That is why PDE is so absurd.
3) I'm quite serious. You're conflating the intent of the actor in shooting the woman with his subsequent reaction to the situation. Even bystanders who do not stop the woman will be thinking, "Somebody stop her" or "Somebody save the kid". I simply do not agree that they're all standing around thinking, "Kill her!" That may happen later, sure.
EDIT: And that doesn't make PDE absurd. People in a mob "naturally" lynch people death -- that doesn't make it morally permissible. And the judgment of the moral status of actions such as those, done in the cold light of reason, use criteria such as PDE.
20 Feb 07
Originally posted by no1marauderIt's always hard or impossible to tell how anyone, including oneself, would react in an extreme situation, so I can't be 100% sure that I wouldn't think that the woman who's about to stab the baby should be killed. But I find it extremely unlikely that I would, as it would be completely against my normal (i.e. while not in an extreme situation) beliefs, feelings and reactions. Now I know my reactions and feelings and maybe even my beliefs are often far from typical, but are they really that untypical in this case?
3) Are you serious? Most people wouldn't be thinking that someone about to stab a baby in the head should be killed? I submit they would be.
20 Feb 07
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderI can't open the Army of God website. But, from what I read in the Wikipedia summary [1], Kopp's act is morally impermissible according to PDE. The clearest reason is the proportionality condition (4) in PDE -- although Dr. Slepian was certainly going to commit further abortions he was in no immediate danger of doing so and therefore there were certainly other avenues to be pursued which would not allow for the evil effect here.
Since you can't make a decision as to the moral permissibility of most of the hypos, perhaps you'd care to answer the question from the Army of God website:
Why should the safety of Dr. Slepian [doctor murdered by James Kopp] be put over the safety of unborn children?"
__________________________________________________________________
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Charles_Kopp
20 Feb 07
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerSo shooting him at his home is morally impermissable. How about as he was about to make the first incision in the operating room?
I can't open the Army of God website. But, from what I read in the Wikipedia summary [1], Kopp's act is morally impermissible according to PDE. The clearest reason is the proportionality condition (4) in PDE -- although Dr. Slepian was certainly going to commit further abortions he was in no immediate danger of doing so and therefore there were ...[text shortened]... _______________________________________
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Charles_Kopp
20 Feb 07
Originally posted by NordlysYes, you are.
It's always hard or impossible to tell how anyone, including oneself, would react in an extreme situation, so I can't be 100% sure that I wouldn't think that the woman who's about to stab the baby should be killed. But I find it extremely unlikely that I would, as it would be completely against my normal (i.e. while not in an extreme situation) beliefs, feel ...[text shortened]... even my beliefs are often far from typical, but are they really that untypical in this case?
20 Feb 07
Originally posted by lucifershammerPeople don't compartmentalize their thoughts in the manner you and PDE propose. And the fact they don't makes PDE useless. It seems to be used primarily for after the fact justification to get to the "right" result as the examples in your link makes clear (terrorist bombing - bad; hiroshima -OK).
1-2) You keep repeating your opinions and then refuse to countenance counter-arguments by calling them a "waste of time". That's neither dialogue nor debate.
3) I'm quite serious. You're conflating the intent of the actor in shooting the woman with his subsequent reaction to the situation. Even bystanders who do not stop the woman will be thinking, ...[text shortened]... tions such as those, done in the cold light of reason, use criteria such as PDE.