31–40 of 117 posts
Xenophobia is a well-known behavioral trait, this study seems to indicate xenophilia exists as well (i.e., Americans being more accepting of American causalities than Iraqi).
I call BS on the test. Interesting. You state that Casey Jones should divert the train, yet this will cause the death of the person trapped on the railway siding. This seems to be inconsistent with your belief that it is always wrong to cause another person's death. It is somewhat perplexing that you responded this way, since you do not believe that this course of action is necessiated by any general moral requiremen…
>> It's simply the better of two options. What if it's pushing a philanthropist onto the rails to save 5 serial killers? I'm not entirely sure what's the goal of this exercise. I'd imagine that in real life, regardless of who's getting killed, most people would simply let things run their courses since inaction is generally less risky than action. Then, if confronted, I'd guess most people would probably come up with…
Key quote from the article (IMHO): "The idea is not that people are or are not utilitarian; it’s that they will cite being utilitarian when it behooves them. People are aren’t using these principles and then applying them. They arrive at a judgement and seek a principle."
The book "Ill Gotten Gains" by Leo Katz explores this subject in depth from the perspective of a lawyer. His thesis is that libertarianism can not be founded on utilitarianism, rather, it must have (and does) have a deontological foundation. It's a must read for anyone who finds this sort of thing interesting. http://www.amazon.com/Ill-Gotten-Gains-Evasion-Blackmail-Kin...
I think it's important to point out that the names chosen are not only denotations of race, they are denotations of class. Maybe instead of the liberals feeling better about killing the white guy to save the black guys, they feel better about killing the rich guy to save the poor guys. There is a tendency to conflate class issues with race issues in America, and I think that really muddles the debate somewhat.
Does it make it absolutely moral to make that assumption? Of course not, people should be treated without regard to previous biases, etc. But it doesn't mean the statistical inference is invalid.
Why is this so hard? The law clearly states, if you do nothing you are free. If you do something, you have taken the liability of said action. Unless by doing nothing, you are in violation of your duty. But still I would gladly accept an administrative slap, than a legal one... 100 people or not.
Why is this so hard? The law clearly states, if you do nothing you are free. If you do something, you have taken the liability of said action. Unless by doing nothing, you are in violation of your duty. But still I would gladly accept an administrative slap, than a legal one... 100 people or not.
...clearly, a utilitarian argument.
I call BS on the test. Interesting. You state that Casey Jones should divert the train, yet this will cause the death of the person trapped on the railway siding. This seems to be inconsistent with your belief that it is always wrong to cause another person's death. It is somewhat perplexing that you responded this way, since you do not believe that this course of action is necessiated by any general moral requiremen…
That is a moral code. The whole point of the question is whether your code is absolute : can you kill someone if the alternative is worse, or can you absolutely not kill someone regardless of the alternative?
I find the bit about Iraqis vs. Americans a bit superficial. As a liberal, I would consider collateral damage less of a problem when Americans die because all Americans are responsible for the present situation in Iraq, while most Iraqis are innocent bystanders. I view this as utilitarian: if people who start wars have a greater chance of death than people who don't start wars, this should in theory decrease the inci…
Why would you say that?
If you'll grant me for the sake of argument that the war is justified, then the Iraqi people are every bit as guilty as we are. In both cases, we (and the Iraqis) have allowed our respective governments to do immoral things. The fact that Iraq is not a democracy might temper the blame that we assign, but the fact is that they've failed to rise up to overthrow their evil government. When evil things are being enabled by the contribution one makes to the society, it is (I believe) morally required that it be stopped. (And I note that I am guilty of failing to do so, underscoring the point of the OP)
I am similarly perplexed by people damning the US government, yet maintaining the nobility of our soldiers. If the war is wrong, then the soldiers are wrong for following the orders to fight it. "We did as we were told" is not a moral defense.
First, you're putting people in a position where they are on the boundaries of what they consider acceptable. Anything that affects those boundaries, will affect their choice.
Conservatives in general have no problem with tribalism. In the abstract any life is equal to any other life, but it is only reasonable that I should personally protect the lives of my tribe (be that ethnic group, social class, country) more diligently than I do another tribe. So conservatives tilt towards protecting their tribe.
Liberals are not only not comfortable with overt tribalism, they are sensitive to accusations of racism. So when pushed to the boundary, they won't tell the interviewer that they'll kill the black guy - that could be seen as racist. But the white guy doesn't have that protection, so off he goes.
Liberals no more want to off the white guy than conservatives do the black. But silly things like "my tribe" or "I don't want to be seen as racist" affect choices on the boundary.