Friday, October 24, 2014

[PHI 2200] Sacrificing one for the good of many

Here are the results of the surveys we conducted in class today using Socrative:





One interesting thing to note about these results is that in both the Riots case (should you bear false witness against an innocent person to stop the riots?) and the Firing Squad case (should you shoot one person to spare the lives of the other four?) the utilitarian idea is sacrifice one to save many. But judgments about what one should do in these cases vary from 29/30 (97%) for "shouldn't bear false witness to stop the riots" to only 15/30 (50%) for "shouldn't shoot one to save four." Why is that?

11 comments:

  1. I think this is because with the bearing false witness case there is no guarantee that people will die, whereas with the firing squad case you are directly choosing to have them all die or only one. With the riots if there are deaths it is caused by the rioting people, but the firing squad you have the full responsibility of who dies. So because the firing squad is a more intense moral decision, I think that's why the votes were more split. The first one was more over choosing to be honest/dishonest to avoid potential damage, while the second is actually choosing peoples deaths.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with Natasha that the moral decision in the firing squad situation is more intense. It seems more likely that in the first situation you are only harming the innocent person with no guaranteed that he or she will die. In the second situation you are directly doing the action of killing someone.
      We also talked about how similar the firing squad situation was similar to the trolley one. In the trolley moral problem there was a huge support to kill the one to save the four , while in the firing squad there was a half and half score. What I think makes this difference is that people attribute a value for the people in both situation. In the trolley people would think they are regular workers while in the firing squad , the people were assumed to be criminals. I think is wrong way to approach this situation. We should just treat them as individuals.

      Delete
  2. I think this shows the true nature of people, which is that most people are pretty selfish. They want to do the right thing, as long as it doesn't negatively effect them. Not giving back the gun and not bearing false witness does not really affect the person. Killing someone, however, would be on their conscious for the rest of their life. As soon as it could have a negative effect on the person, doing the "right" thing becomes much harder.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think that it is much easier for us to say that we essentially would not lie because regardless of our culture or background, there is an existing element of “your word being your bond” and unless to serve a higher ethical purpose, lying should generally not be accepted. By bearing false witness, we can possibly take away the free will of an innocent human being. Perhaps it is our conscience or moral compass acting as the reason why we feel it is wrong. On the flipside of that, I think a big reason why we are more inclined to sacrifice the life of one to save many is because we are sadly numb to the idea. Just the notion of using a firearm is almost normal considering the events of domestic and international violence and terrorism that are so commonplace today. Even the media and entertainment plays a role when you think about the movies, TV shows, and video games that focus on violence as being a selling point. We can all say we would be quick to pull the trigger and take the life of another but when actually pressed in the situation, I think and hope that most, if not all of us would back down from doing so.

    ReplyDelete
  4. We all have lied at some point in our life not saying lying is the right thing to do or if it is morally right at all. People are put in jail from false testimonies all the time. The system we have created to protect our rights has its own flaws but a lot of that stems from unjust individuals bearing false witness and outright lying. I think we are more inclined to sacrifice the one to save the many because it might just seem like the right thing to do or the easier thing to do depending on the situation. Although if there were three choices instead of two and one of those was to do nothing we would all be quick to stand by and let nature run its course. Still don’t we have a moral obligation to do something? Don’t we owe something to society to live a just and moral life? People don’t want to get involved if they don’t have to. It’s just easier to let the world go by and not take part sometimes. I think with the case of the firing squad according to the results show that many people were torn with that situation. It’s a more intense moral situation that requires serious thought. You are choosing to put people to death in the firing squad but in the first case you choose whether or not you want to be honest or dishonest.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I think the reason lies in the many conflicting moral dilemmas that the class faced in the various predicaments presented here. Given that one of these cases (bear false witness) voted "should" in error, it doesn't take away from the fact that the moral conflict behind it remains. Should one lie to prevent a riot and save many lives and at the same time condemn an innocent man?? By the utilitarian principle we should but if one looks at it in a futuristic ideology we would see that action would keep the actual killer on the streets, promote crime, etc etc. Should one give back a gun if one knows it would be used to kill another unknown person? Most answered no, but some in the class brought up scenarios in which "yes" would make sense. If the owner of the gun wants it back, he probably is dangerous...you should give it to him or else you will be his next target...These ideas, even though they are valid, are not part of the scenario presented to us, and thus are not part of the moral dilemma we are to decide on. Are we to lie, or are we to save a life? I think most decided on saving a life. Conflicting moral dilemmas, and what people decided on was more important is what caused the varying percentages in the results.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I think that in the riots case it was unclear whether or not people were dying, and even if they were, “we” weren’t personally responsible for their deaths as a result of the riots, so we were more concerned about the innocent man’s life (whose conviction we would be personally responsible for). In the firing squad we were personally responsible for the deaths of the prisoners by actually killing them, so it was more involved compared to the innocent man’s trial. Also, in the riots case we knew that the person was innocent, while the people in the firing squad example were unknown, so there might have been a reason they were rounded up to be shot.

    ReplyDelete
  7. When we are looking at those cases we put ourselves in the situations altering how we evaluated their value. We also added a lot of factors into it being humans and wanting to gather the most information about a problem so we began to think beyond the constraints that the questions asked of us. In the initial question it was more the impact of having someone take the fall for something they didn't do versus a deliberate action of taking a life it may be a shift in moral obligation to act or in this case not to act toward the person(s) affected. In my mind shooting someone is worse when you do not have an idea why you are taking such harsh action and choosing to convict an innocent person is a more common occurrence so it makes someone desensitized to its effect.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I think is shows who people really are. In the world today with riots if it doesn't affect most people they don't do anything about it. Actually killing someone in a firing squad is an actual feeling or something that directly affects someone. That is why I feel that these numbers are the way they are

    ReplyDelete
  9. In terms of the argument of shooting one to save four I feel like if you are put in to this situation, you have to do what is right for the greater good. If you are forced to make a decision of the magnitude you must do what's right for the greater good. All circumstances accounted for the right thing to do is what is beneficiary for the greater member of society.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I think once its going to negatively affect an individual they will not do it. There is more discrepancies when it comes on to killing one person in order to save four because you are directly involved. It will forever be on your conscience and affect your life. In comparison to bearing false witness. It really doesn't affect the person.

    ReplyDelete

This is an academic blog about critical thinking, logic, and philosophy. So please refrain from making insulting, disparaging, and otherwise inappropriate comments. Also, if I publish your comment, that does not mean I agree with it. Thanks for reading and commenting on my blog.