What Would You Do?

[c0de]

@ Postmaster

The only constant I have found in the sufi orders is their insistence that the "initiate" be guided by a "teacher", who is above him in "understanding". This I feel is unnecessary, and only creates a hierarchy.


@ Path

The principle is: thou shalt not kill. Whatever happens through inaction is meaningless if the action causes one to overstep this ideal. You asked me what I would do if I was a pandemic planner, well, I would not quarantine anyone, if I know that this action of mine will cause innocent lives to perish. I have no right to condemn those people to a torturous death... I want you to keep in mind that a person like me, (i.e. a psycho) who believes in fate, does not believe that he has any control over life and death anyway...

 

[nativeastral]

That means accepting bad as being divine too.. Which defies us seeking the divine.

well yes l think a few of them turned to the vine for 'inspiration';but more so they didn't adhere to rules and gained followers themselves therefore shirk [idolatry] invoked; they melded into other cultures belief systems in a spirit of oneness and inclusiveness, especially in india.

 

[Postmaster]

Our choices force someone in society to act, and are choices are action. That God gave us the capacity to make these decisions, to calculate, to reason... this is part of the gifts we were given. Who is to say we are not part of people's destiny when we are put into their lives with the capacity for change and for knowledge?

This part of your argument can be used for either option.

 

[Postmaster]

well yes l think a few of them turned to the vine for 'inspiration';but more so they didn't adhere to rules and gained followers themselves therefore shirk [idolatry] invoked; they melded into other cultures belief systems in a spirit of oneness and inclusiveness, especially in india.

nice I like that..... Won’t be long until this turns arrogant though?

 

[Postmaster]

@ Postmaster

The only constant I have found in the sufi orders is their insistence that the "initiate" be guided by a "teacher", who is above him in "understanding". This I feel is unnecessary, and only creates a hierarchy.

I guess but in some cases Ive been happy to be taught knowledge.

 

[nativeastral]

nice I like that..... Won’t be long until this turns arrogant though?

l think it was meant to be dissolution of self and paradoxically entailed total union; nipped in the bud 909 when al hallaj said 'l and thou are one' = imprisoned for 9 years then crucified and decapitated [m.ruthven]. to do with discrepancies between sunni majority and shia [who were obviously more inclined to 'hide' their beliefs in the face of such punishments].

 

[Postmaster]

But why make a denomination out of something that you can do within any religion? (should be doing) my questions are probbably getting annoying now lol sorry hehe

 

[nativeastral]

But why make a denomination out of something that you can do within any religion? (should be doing) my questions are probbably getting annoying now lol sorry hehe

lol nah, obviously you can't otherwise why so many 'denominations' in every religion? mystics werent making a denomination but being too individualistic ie not complying with the strictures already in place ie 'correct' interpretation and orthopraxy [tho am sure they still did/do the 5 pilllars].
you have to look at the history of every religion to understand the whys; the doctrine of tawid or divine unicity was compromised by mysticism ie differential hermeneutics, and so had ramifications with the law, bound up inextricably in Islam.

 

[Postmaster]

thanks ok no more questions

 

[c0de]

On the Question of Quarantine:


I would like to share an interesting bit of intell I just discovered recently. I was doing research for an essay, and I came across a key event in the history of early Christianity which puts a question posed to me about Quarantine in clearer perspective, or rather it sort of justifies the counter-intuitive answer to the query I gave.

The question was: in the event of an outbreak of a virus, would you quarantine the population of a city, so that it may save a larger amount of people? Of course this means that the population of the city itself would be, well... basically screwed. Since this action would go against the "principle" and my view was based on a priority of principles, I had no choice but to bite the bullet and say that I would not quarantine the city, even if that results in a greater number of casualties.

Sounds pretty nasty rite? Yea well, check this out: in Rome before the Christians were in the majority (pre 300 CE) there were two major plagues that ravaged the population. We do not know what the actual plague was, historians suspect that it was small pox or measels. What happened during this period was that the Christian minority, instead of shunning the sick, felt an obligation to nurse them back to health. This of course resulted in very high casualties among the Christians. However, what is astonishing (and totally counter intuitive) is that these two plagues actually served to shift the demographic balance in favor of the early Christians!

What happened was that most pagans in true individualistic fashion shunned the sick, and and/or tried to flee the cities (basically, quarantining themselves). But the Christians on the other hand did not flee, nor did they turn away their sick friends and familly members (while the pagans would literally throw them out in the street). But nature had its way of making sure everyone got infected in equal proportions, the result was that the Christian population benifitted immensely from the care provided by the Christians to each other and even other pagans who were cast away.

As even basic care decreases mortality rates among the infected, what ended up happening was that even though there were very high casualties at first among those who were nursing, in the end the Christian community fared much better then the pagans of Rome. As the infected Christian population had a better chance of surviving, while the pagans who got infected were almost guarenteed a sure death. The pagans also noticed the great courage of the Christians and converted to Christianity in large numbers.

So Point being: The idea that we have to follow quarantine protocols and this will neccessarily result in rewards greater or lesser in absolute terms really does not mean anything. Individualistic behavior is ultimately self-destructive. And the act of condemning people to death (as that would be the direct result of quarantining an infected town) would A) not guarantee that the infection will not spread anyway and B) might very well contribute to a higher number of casualties in the long run anyway.

So in the end, ironically, the non-utilitarian answer might end up having greater utility after all.

 

[path_of_one]

Sorry to throw a wrench in that, but that is not how quarantines work today. The sick are not shunned and left without medical care. Thank God we have better technology now to allow doctors and nurses to minister to the sick without significant risk, so long as barrier protection is adequate.

Quarantines aren't about leaving some people to die, but rather containing spread of illness.

I don't think people who believe in fate are psychos, but in my worldview, our choices have consequences. Choosing inaction still yields consequences. The fundamental difference between my worldview and one who believes things should be left to fate is that I see inaction without regard for consequence to be an abdication of responsibility, whereas the person who believes in fate believes that inaction carries no responsibility.

Except when it is expedient to think otherwise. Most believers in fate, I have noticed, seem to think differently about modern medicine, for example. If we left medical issues to fate, people would be left to die when struck by illness. Fate would also condemn to death those who face famine, since inaction would not bring any food to them. It seems that few people live in a worldview that accepts inaction/fate all of the time; rather, they accept it when they are uncomfortable making a tough decision. I've seen this a lot in my life as I watch people make decisions.

I'm not saying that's how you are, C0de, but it is my observation of how this works in real life.

 

[c0de]

It seems that few people live in a worldview that accepts inaction/fate all of the time; rather, they accept it when they are uncomfortable making a tough decision. I've seen this a lot in my life as I watch people make decisions.

I think that is an unfair statement. The "tougher" decision in the cases we have discussed is NOT the ones people picked on the basis of utility. Killing the girl is not the "tougher" choice, it is the easy way out. If I allowed the train to go off the cliff, I would be the one who would be blamed by 200 families as a murderer. While if I killed the girl, most likely even the parents of the child would understand, and I might even be hailed as a hero.

What is also being ignored is the fact that the person who allowed the train to go off the cliff will be ridden with guilt for the rest of his life. Even if he believed it was the right decision, at the end of the day, he won't exactly be "happy". It is not the choice anyone would want to choose.

The tougher path is always the one based on principle (that's the point). Its just the way life works. I made it clear that anyone who had to choose such a decision would not be very willing to discuss his actions exactly for this reason. Principle or not, the person at the helm would be the one who will be held responsible for the consequences.

Sorry to throw a wrench in that, but that is not how quarantines work today. The sick are not shunned and left without medical care. Thank God we have better technology now to allow doctors and nurses to minister to the sick without significant risk, so long as barrier protection is adequate.

Quarantines aren't about leaving some people to die, but rather containing spread of illness.

When you quarantine an area do you not ensure that the loss of life will be higher inside the blocked off zone? At the end of the day, is it not the same as killing the girl?

I don't think people who believe in fate are psychos, but in my worldview, our choices have consequences. Choosing inaction still yields consequences. The fundamental difference between my worldview and one who believes things should be left to fate is that I see inaction without regard for consequence to be an abdication of responsibility, whereas the person who believes in fate believes that inaction carries no responsibility.

There is a flip side to that coin. A person who believes in fate would be much more likely to risk his life to save another as well.

Except when it is expedient to think otherwise. Most believers in fate, I have noticed, seem to think differently about modern medicine, for example. If we left medical issues to fate, people would be left to die when struck by illness. Fate would also condemn to death those who face famine, since inaction would not bring any food to them.

I'm not saying that's how you are, C0de, but it is my observation of how this works in real life.

It seems you have confused fate with inaction. Why would a person who believes in fate let people starve? That is not how a belief in fate works... I think this is the second time you brought up the famine example, but it was already shown how it is not a fitting scenario.

 

[path_of_one]

I think that is an unfair statement. The "tougher" decision in the cases we have discussed is NOT the ones people picked on the basis of utility. Killing the girl is not the "tougher" choice, it is the easy way out. If I allowed the train to go off the cliff, I would be the one who would be blamed by 200 families as a murderer. While if I killed the girl, most likely even the parents of the child would understand, and I might even be hailed as a hero.

This thread has proven that wrong already, as at least half the people here seem incapable of understanding Alex or I's action to kill the girl rather than to kill the 200. If that is the case in a hypothetical situation, how much more so in a real situation with a real little girl's photo to plaster all over the news?

To me, either way is a tough choice, and that is my point. If the parameters are that my choice inevitably kills someone, that's going to cause me emotional pain no matter which way you slice the cake.

No one seems to want to choose killing the girl or the 200 people. "Happiness" of the person making the choice is a bit irrelevant for determining which choice is the right one. First, because people can be happy whether or not they make right choices and second, because this thread has itself proven that no one would likely be happy with either choice. So our happiness or guilty feelings about this matter are not useful for assessing the situation.

The tougher path is always the one based on principle (that's the point).

My choice was based on principle. It just isn't the same principle as yours.

When you quarantine an area do you not ensure that the loss of life will be higher inside the blocked off zone? At the end of the day, is it not the same as killing the girl?

You don't ensure the loss of life will be higher inside, but it probably will be. It is not the same as killing the girl because it is a real life situation and you can't know the outcome. You are guessing based on probabilities. In your scenario, you knew the outcome of your choices. Normally, we don't get that fore-knowledge.

My point is, if you don't quarantine, then you have chosen to let more people die. Probably. We always deal with probability in real life.

So, if your principle is to "do no harm," and you choose to let a disease run rampant globally despite having the capacity to contain it and prevent further death, that's doing harm, don't you think?

On top of that, to complicate things, it is harder to treat and prevent disease if you do not quarantine. That is, without containment of a disease, it is also less likely those in the epicenter will receive assistance in time. It is also more likely that you'll run out of resources overall, and not have the capacity to treat as high a percentage of the patients.

There is a flip side to that coin. A person who believes in fate would be much more likely to risk his life to save another as well.

Do you have any statistical support for that statement? Because without any evidence, it's just your opinion and completely ungrounded in actual human behavior.

It seems you have confused fate with inaction. Why would a person who believes in fate let people starve? That is not how a belief in fate works... I think this is the second time you brought up the famine example, but it was already shown how it is not a fitting scenario.

If things happen because of fate, and we should not choose a course of action that alters the course of events (i.e., we should let the train run off the cliff), then why choose other courses of action that alter the course of events (i.e., preventing famine)?

After all, we never really know the long-term effects of our decisions and could really mess up with our choices of who to help and when. So why bother?

Or is it only that we should let fate operate when our actions could determine the number and location of deaths? Any time our choice could mean that some die and some live based on our decision? So, in those circumstances, we do not choose any course of action? Diseases are left to run amok until they have swept the planet? If a leader is committing genocide, we just let it run its course since removing him from power would likely kill him or his staff? Do we entirely ignore how many people suffer as a result of this inaction, blaming fate? And how is that more justifiable than letting "fate" run its course when it comes to natural disaster or famine?

Sorry, but from my frame of mind, the easy way out is to do nothing. Doing nothing seems to make most people feel that it is not their responsibility that the train runs off the track and kills the 200, as this thread's comments attest to.

 

[Postmaster]

Or is it only that we should let fate operate when our actions could determine the number and location of deaths? Any time our choice could mean that some die and some live based on our decision? So, in those circumstances, we do not choose any course of action? Diseases are left to run amok until they have swept the planet? If a leader is committing genocide, we just let it run its course since removing him from power would likely kill him or his staff? Do we entirely ignore how many people suffer as a result of this inaction, blaming fate? And how is that more justifiable than letting "fate" run its course when it comes to natural disaster or famine?

Sorry, but from my frame of mind, the easy way out is to do nothing. Doing nothing seems to make most people feel that it is not their responsibility that the train runs off the track and kills the 200, as this thread's comments attest to.

I'm still not convinced, I feel really strongly about taking no action, if there was no girl there I would without a doubt and without a split second thought pull. But who am I to be playing God with the girl’s life? Who's to say the girl won't grow up to find a cure of cancer?

 

[c0de]

This thread has proven that wrong already, as at least half the people here seem incapable of understanding Alex or I's action to kill the girl rather than to kill the 200. If that is the case in a hypothetical situation, how much more so in a real situation with a real little girl's photo to plaster all over the news?

Actually, many of the people who would support your views did not vote. Nick A was one of them, that I remember. Also, everyone who I have asked this question to personally would support your decision. You are very much in the majority. If you dont believe me, go ahead and ask this question to your own friends, and see what results you get.

My point is, if you don't quarantine, then you have chosen to let more people die. Probably. We always deal with probability in real life.

I understand your point and I never said it was irrational. It is totally rational. Rationality is the principle in your case.

You don't ensure the loss of life will be higher inside, but it probably will be. It is not the same as killing the girl because it is a real life situation and you can't know the outcome. You are guessing based on probabilities. In your scenario, you knew the outcome of your choices. Normally, we don't get that fore-knowledge.

True. But you dont really know the outcome of that scenario in any absolute sense either. The train could run out of steam and come to a stop before running off the cliff. The point is in the principles that one bases their choice on, at the time of making the choice. No one knows the outcome in any case.

On top of that, to complicate things, it is harder to treat and prevent disease if you do not quarantine. That is, without containment of a disease, it is also less likely those in the epicenter will receive assistance in time. It is also more likely that you'll run out of resources overall, and not have the capacity to treat as high a percentage of the patients.

It is also likely (and more probable, in fact) that no amount of quarantine protocols will contain a disease like H5N1. So no matter what you do, containment is a practical uncertainty (almost an impossibility, actually).

So, if your principle is to "do no harm," and you choose to let a disease run rampant globally despite having the capacity to contain it and prevent further death, that's doing harm, don't you think?

That is the obvious criticism. But the principle is not "do no harm"... It is to obey a higher order of ethics which is not based in rationality. No matter what.

Do you have any statistical support for that statement? Because without any evidence, it's just your opinion and completely ungrounded in actual human behavior.

I actually provided evidence for this in my last post, of the early Christians who died in high numbers because their principles refused to allow them to abandon the sick in the time of the plague in Rome. It is also a view that makes sense if you think about it. A person who may not believe in an afterlife might be less likely to offer up his life for a cause. And most people who believe in fate, believe in an after life.

If things happen because of fate, and we should not choose a course of action that alters the course of events (i.e., we should let the train run off the cliff), then why choose other courses of action that alter the course of events (i.e., preventing famine)?

How is feeding people in a famine going against a principle? Your example is invalid. I already stated this the first time you posed this question. It is also a principle to do good (only when that good is requires one to do evil, is the action nullified, so in this scenario it doesnt apply).

After all, we never really know the long-term effects of our decisions and could really mess up with our choices of who to help and when. So why bother?

Because we are forced to bother. We have no choice in the matter.

Or is it only that we should let fate operate when our actions could determine the number and location of deaths? Any time our choice could mean that some die and some live based on our decision? So, in those circumstances, we do not choose any course of action? Diseases are left to run amok until they have swept the planet? If a leader is committing genocide, we just let it run its course since removing him from power would likely kill him or his staff? Do we entirely ignore how many people suffer as a result of this inaction, blaming fate? And how is that more justifiable than letting "fate" run its course when it comes to natural disaster or famine?

Again, invalid examples. Punishing a criminal who is commiting genocide and stopping the action does not qualify.

 

[Saltmeister]

I haven't read all of the other little posts on this thread, and without knowing what you have all discussed over this kill-1-kill-200 scenario, I'd say that I'd kill the 200 and spare the girl.

It would be better off having the 200 people in the afterlife than the little girl. The little girl can go back to her parents, family and friends if we spare her. If, however, we kill and sacrifice her, she goes to a lonely paradise.

If I sacrifice the 200 people, however, they'd all be in pretty good company. It's as if the train never goes off the cliff. The ghost train keeps going forward to eternity. They could all continue their conversations as if nothing happened. They would never go home, meet their relatives or make that business deal at their destination but they would all be happy because they'd have company.

It may be the greatest tragedy since the beginning of the human race (oh darn, 200 people died!). The newspapers will be flooded with articles telling the horror story of how this train trip went horribly wrong. But if you think about it, it's not so bad after all. The little girl would be relieved that she narrowly missed death, that the train driver was gracious enough to change direction. She could go on to do something great for society.

In the meantime, there could possibly be someone to blame for the accident. Donald Trump is going to bring the staff into the boardroom and someone will be fired!

If we didn't make mistakes we wouldn't know how to make things right. Accidents have to happen. The accident may be a wake-up call for people to fix problems in the infrastructure. Next time they'll do a better job and prevent this accident from ever happening again.

 

[Saltmeister]

SG + Postmaster+ Native

@ SG

That's it, your disqualified !!! (j/k). Seriously though, I didn't create the scenario, I remember they asked us this in philosophy 101 during our introduction to Utilitarianism (which I frekkin hate!).

I don't know if this would be cheating, but I think I have a solution that involve killing both the girl and some of the 200 people, but one that would reduce the number of casualties.

You cut the train in half or disconnect half of the carriages. 100 people go towards the cliff, the other 100 goes toward the girl.

If the girl's lucky, the second half will lose all of its kinetic energy and come to a stop before it hits her. Otherwise . . . you have 101 casualties, but that's better than 200.

 

[path_of_one]

You are very much in the majority. If you dont believe me, go ahead and ask this question to your own friends, and see what results you get.

So far, I've had about equal numbers of the two scenarios. I believe Nick A was being sarcastic, but I could be wrong.

I understand your point and I never said it was irrational. It is totally rational. Rationality is the principle in your case.

I already stated that it was not. Rationality doesn't have to be the only principle that would yield that course of action.

True. But you dont really know the outcome of that scenario in any absolute sense either. The train could run out of steam and come to a stop before running off the cliff. The point is in the principles that one bases their choice on, at the time of making the choice. No one knows the outcome in any case.

That is an entirely different matter and changes the equation. You had set it up as if the train could not run out of steam- that either one girl or 200 people definitely died. In fact, when people attempted to be more creative in their response or their logic about what might occur, it was not allowed by the scenario you presented.

If the scenario is based on probability and unknown, then no, I would not pull the lever as I wouldn't have enough information. If the scenario is based on two definitively known results, either one or 200 people die, I choose to leave 200 people living.

So, this is news to me and if you're talking about probability, then no, I wouldn't pull the lever. Congrats- we now have no argument. LOL

It is also likely (and more probable, in fact) that no amount of quarantine protocols will contain a disease like H5N1. So no matter what you do, containment is a practical uncertainty (almost an impossibility, actually).

It is with our current methods of planning. But we could do better. That is partly my point. We can nearly always do better, if we decide to put effort into it.

That is the obvious criticism. But the principle is not "do no harm"... It is to obey a higher order of ethics which is not based in rationality. No matter what.

I thought you were saying your higher order of ethics is to not harm others, to not kill others. That is why I made those points. If it is another set of ethics, then I am confused as to what they are. Perhaps you could elaborate?

A person who may not believe in an afterlife might be less likely to offer up his life for a cause. And most people who believe in fate, believe in an after life.

The example of the early Christians is irrelevant unless there is historical evidence that the reason they stayed was a belief in fate, as opposed to some other ideological reason. They may have stayed because they felt called to heal others, after Christ's example, because Christ's teachings emphasize compassionate, selfless action, etc. None of that has much to do with fate.

People who do not believe in the afterlife might be less likely to offer up their lives for a cause, but without statistical evidence, it remains an assumption and not a fact.

While most people who believe in fate may believe in an afterlife (again, not sure any statistical work has been done there), it is not true that most people who believe in an afterlife necessarily believe in fate.

Therein lies a significant logical problem. If you had said that people who believe in an afterlife or a God are more likely to stay behind and care for people, I'd say I'd like to see evidence, but would agree it is a logical hypothesis. But I fail to see what fate has to do with anything, which is a second order assumption about how God and the universe operates.

Furthermore, I would not say that belief in an afterlife or God makes people behave more ethically than those who do not have these beliefs. There are many ethical atheists willing to die for social causes. Many of my colleagues put their lives at risk to do their research in order to try to assist oppressed people- and nearly all are atheist. In fact, I meet many people who believe in an afterlife and still don't do much to help anyone.

How is feeding people in a famine going against a principle? Your example is invalid. I already stated this the first time you posed this question. It is also a principle to do good (only when that good is requires one to do evil, is the action nullified, so in this scenario it doesnt apply).

I'm trying to understand your principles. I don't think feeding people in a famine goes against a principle of action to alleviate suffering, but it does go against a concept to let fate work without our intervention. I am responding to a worldview that allows for fate to dominate possibility. If your principles are otherwise- that is, you are arguing that any action that is in accord with one's principle to do good but not evil, according to a particular moral code, should be taken and otherwise, it should not- then I agree my example is invalid. If you choose to make the argument that we should not go against fate, then I would say- why is fate any more respected in one scenario than another?

Again, invalid examples. Punishing a criminal who is commiting genocide and stopping the action does not qualify.

So it is left to us to judge another's heart and if we feel the person is criminal, we are free to kill him/her, but if we feel the person is innocent, then we should not?

How should we make this judgment?

 

[path_of_one]

If I sacrifice the 200 people, however, they'd all be in pretty good company. It's as if the train never goes off the cliff. The ghost train keeps going forward to eternity. They could all continue their conversations as if nothing happened. They would never go home, meet their relatives or make that business deal at their destination but they would all be happy because they'd have company.

If we didn't make mistakes we wouldn't know how to make things right. Accidents have to happen. The accident may be a wake-up call for people to fix problems in the infrastructure. Next time they'll do a better job and prevent this accident from ever happening again.

Salty, in my book, you have the award in this thread for the most creative response. That is one interesting line of thought!!!

 

[Nick_A]

Path

So far, I've had about equal numbers of the two scenarios. I believe Nick A was being sarcastic, but I could be wrong.

I was simply including the time element into the scene. Many believe in partial birth abortion and even killing a fetus where the intent had been to abort but it is born alive.

I've also been reading about socialized medicine in England where certain drugs for breast cancer may become denied women too old which is basicially a death sentence. The idea is that the scene suggests that all life is viewed as equally valuable when clearly it isn't the case whether or not we want to admit it.