the trick is really to design something that works like a rorschach test, and not like a riddle with an answer to come to. Morality isn’t an exact science, but with some persuasion and salesmanship, it comes close.

The challenge is to leave those loopholes of the devil in impossible places, so that one’s answer becomes one’s mirror. And that’s indeed quite a challenge.

~ Driz

~ Dane

‘For we are men / and need our balls.’

I’ll see if I can’t perhaps design a few of these problems myself, maybe see what kind of reaction I can drag out of you. =P

~ Driz

No worries. Your critiques are very much appreciated. I’m gaining much knowledge from your responses as I can see you are very schooled in this arena. As I have only my subtle and simple thoughts to fall back on and being wrong is the least of my worries, for learning is a non-stop process over time.

As I come up with more scenarios, I look forward to your analysis. Feel free to tear it up to whatever extent you like. The purpose is to allow people to think deeply and discover. You certainly have a way of digging into the bare bones!

Thanks for reading!

(I was also corrected via my wife in my viewpoint. Therefore, as the husband I must fold. Good Game everyone! I was already down and received a final blow! ~sarcastically.)

Thanks for your insight and thoughts! :)

My assertion that the man is evil, (which is the core of my argument that the two examples are the same), stems from your text, very specifically. I did not jump to the forefront and point a finger; much to the contrary, I was lead directly to this assessment.

First, you labeled his act as a crime. With that word comes the societal perception of a branding of ‘evil’, unworthy of society, etc. In paralleling the hypothetical society with our own, complete with punishments reflecting our own, you unfortunately lost that backdoor exit into moral relativism.

I see what you’re trying to do here, but in the example as you’ve presented it, it simply isn’t a stretch one can make logically. You switch tracks from logical (if, again, a little grim) conclusion and assessment, to something resembling hope that the situation will improve in a certain sort of way, and if it does, you’ll return to the problem on your own terms.

Despite the obvious complication with such a jumping of tracks, is that the driving value behind considering such problems is the maxim that life, most definitely, does not explain itself to us in our terms. We are forced to live, often, netted carefully within the brackets of existence, and it’s these constraints which make such decisions difficult.

Perhaps the ultimate confusion, if you’re designing these examples yourself, is a breakdown between your intended and particular ethical argument, and the manner in which you present it.

In answering these (and I’ll mention I do enjoy doing so), I’m rigidly restricting myself to the language used and trying to respond from a platform internal to the scenario.

Regarding the subject of death, I’m sure I could speak volumes, in and of my own. But you’ve very completely paralleled your example with ours, and in that act, our values, writ large, come with it when determining what to do.

You suggest that the ‘logical’ conclusion would be to take action whn the consequences magically fall upon yourself. But you absolutely no information to base such a hope on, given your example. Indeed, if left with assumption, it’s reasonable to suggest that if this criminal would assert power of you to keep you silent once, he would do so again.

If I may make a suggestion, perhaps for future experiments:

Many people have trouble with these sorts of problems when they lack several details they, for whatever reason, deem key and central to the problem.

I really don’t. I don’t mind working within the framework given, and doing the best I can from the perspective afforded me.

However, if you’re going to suggest the conclusion you like to see reached is largely unsupportable by the information, you need to ensure there is some logical basis for it.

The underlying assumption, when missing information of any sort, is that there is a sort of semi-predictable reality and backdrop to the problem that allows you to act within it.

My argument remains as before, if perhaps a little more further elaborated upon. The examples are still essentially the same. I do see the direction you intended this one to head in, but I’m afraid it wasn’t built to get there.

Please see my criticism as constructive and well-meaning - I only hope to explore these and later ideas from a more refined position.

~ Driz

But perhaps, the idea was revolved more along the lines of: “When your body dies, as does your soul, and there will be nothing left for you.”

How would you live your life from then on?

I was in church in sicily when I thought of this. Watching everyone, listening to what they were saying and singing, and wondering if this situation were to occur, would they really know the answer.

In the first, the good of the one seems to outweigh the good of the many. This one is reversed based of societal concepts of good and bad.

The only time in our society that death or ‘bad’ is acceptable is from reasonable ignorance and war. Reason is also cultural (inserting correct term). We automatically place EVIL with the words rich and powerful. But, I find my question lacking in much needed information to base a strong conclusion.

We assume the man to be bad; the cause of innocent deaths. What of the outcome? Can we compare this to Hiroshima? There must be a reason for the actions, whether for personal greed or perhaps he was fighting for Human Rights that got out of hand perpetuating a crime. And would we be more forgiving of the former? Does the man even know your family is being threatened?

In my opinion, the logical conclusion would be to use reasonable ignorance to lie under oath, protect my family, and take proper actions after, with the acceptance of the consequences to fall upon only me.

Rule #22

Again, this is not a situation one would ask for, and doing the ‘right’ thing results is a personal loss for a societal gain.

Again, the opponent is an undeniable agent of evil, and random chance alone presented you, the individual considering what to do, the option to act.

And again, action must be taken, or in this case, testimony must be given, against evil, for all the same reasons.

It’s also worth nothing that a rich, powerful, evil man who willingly commits a crimes which kills hundreds of innocents has every possibility of repeating this offense, or perhaps committing a worse one. Thus, the idea of a multiplying evil exists here, too, and the sum total of the damage to be done by this man is a scary unknown.

One would do well to take into account the very real possibility, (if numbers and not principle was the guiding force behind the action taken) that the potential death toll of, effectively, releasing this man, would end up being more than mere hundreds.

~ Driz