On morality: Death vs extreme suffering

[lilphil1989]

It is, for example, generally and universally, ok to divert a train from hitting 5 people if there is a person on the other line?

It is not ok to push a fat man off a bridge to stop the train and save the people?

Sorry - just made me think of those

I asked a friend about the train situation, they said they would divert it to kill the one person.

Then I changed the question so that the 5 people were Hitler, Stalin, Himmler etc and then they said they wouldn't divert the train.

So then I changed them for slightly less horrible people (I think my example was Fred Phelps... hey I did say slightly less ) and they said they still wouldn't.

I found it odd that at a certain level of "horridness" or "evilness" that he would go back to diverting the train (we didn't determine what that was), so there has to be a cut-off point.
Or perhaps there would be a grey area, where it would be especially difficult to make a choice...

[Edwardo Piet]

Yeah. It's all very vague. And it depends on the person - and you can of course still be a very good person and give a different answer TO - another very good person.

Why? Well, I think - because these questions are so difficult. I think that's why. I mean even when you are very confident - you still have to accept you could be wrong - because how do you measure this?

And it's not good to be very confident over such decisions I think - because there is a great penalty if you are wrong - and the confidence would make you act out what would then turn out to be the wrong decision. Which wouldn't be good.

It's all very vague and messy. It's tough. Even if it was practically impossible to make such decisions (or unless you were a complete expert on the matter) - I still think it's something to think about. And interesting nonetheless.

Hmm.

EvF

[Giff]

Why? Well, I think - because these questions are so difficult. I think that's why. I mean even when you are very confident - you still have to accept you could be wrong - because how do you measure this?

Exactly, they are difficult. But you have to be confident of what your doing, you can't overthink or analyze to much in such situations you just have to act. Otherwise you might not do anything.

[Edwardo Piet]

Well maybe you SHOULDN'T overthink or analyse TOO MUCH (you shouldn't do anything too much...too much is too much...that's what too much MEANS (as Stephen Fry puts it in ABOFAL haha))...

Maybe you SHOULDN'T but that doesn't mean you CAN'T - because I think I might do that a bit hehe.

Some people do lol so you CAN. But SHOULD you? Lol.

I think it's worth it overall even when it's fucking irritating LOL - worth the price

EvF

[Giff]

EvF I don't know if you deserve to get a price or a punch?

[Edwardo Piet]

Lol.

But the thing is in such cases of moral dilemmas perhaps it's sometimes best NOT the act - because you're not qualified to be making such a difficult decision - in such a dilemma you could easily make it WORSE not better. And that's EXCLUDING the fact you could very easily be panicking and THAT be effecting your decision. You could also think you were calm but be less calm than you thought you were! Like "I'm ok...I'm ok..." - when you're NOT. Denial, etc, or whatever, etc.

I think in such a situation I would consider myself unworthy. I'd WANT to make the right decision but not only could I not live with myself if I got it wrong - but I don't really know anyway to measure it...both outcomes are so bad that WHO AM I to pick?

I'm not sure I would or could. How could I make something better if in both cases I'm not certain enough (and can't be because it isn't objective so it is clouded by my own personal view on morality) - to know I'd be making the right decision?

EvF

[KichigaiNeko]

Sorry to revive an old thread that (by the bulk of it) looks like the question of euthanasia has been discussed thoroughly but at the moment I would like to put my oar in the water.

I am of the opinion that it really is a judgment call for the individuals concerned whether one should or should not end one's life. I am at a loss as to support this perverted preoccupation of "sustaining life" @ any cost.

Where did we get this notion from??

Why is a life of pain and suffering sooooo much better than being dead and (according to some belief systems) better off??

Is there anything in humanitys' belief system past to support this (as I see it) cruelty??

Why is it sooo hard for the "powers that be" to understand that people just want soverignty over their own life, their own risks and judgement calls and their own belief systems??

I have watched over the decades so many of my friends and family struggle with the "rules" to live & end their life with dignity and am frustrated that this is a hurdle that I am yet to confront (both personally and on their behalf) and wonder just where is the Humane in Humanity's current system regarding this issue??

[Edwardo Piet]

I agree overall but I've also come to the conclusion that if you die earlier then you obviously won't live to regret it (because you can't, by definition, your dead (assuming there's no silly afterlife)), but..... if your life is say, saved, you may be very grateful that you didn't die. So you may never know that things might turn for the better. So it really depends on how desperate the case is.

On the whole I think suffering is more of an issue than death.... but I think that there are cases where if a bit more suffering is lived through it may be worth it if the individual has a great life thereafter (or great enough), who knows.

EvF

[Violet]

A bit off topic to save me starting a thread on an extremely similar concept...

If you are killing someone/something: what does it matter that they will feel pain before they die...? Once they are dead, it isn't like they are going to remember that their death hurt.

But perhaps the presence of pain somehow changes the nature of death? (I don't see this as a black and white issue, I'm just curious as to what the rest of you lot think, and why)

[Watson]

I don't have enough time to read through each and every post here, but Ifigured I'd weigh in on the subject anyway.

Personally, I think it depends on what torture we're talking here, and what the ultimate outcome would be. Is the pain such that, when it is through the person will be left alive and capable of recovery? Or will it drive them into complete and utter madness, to a point where they can't function normally in society any longer? In that case, I think they'd be better off dying instantly than living like that.

Or, when the pain is done, will it be something that deteriorates their body to the point of uselessness? That is, will there mind and body be incapable of functioning any longer, and will they be left a vegetable? That's another scenario where I'm sure, if given the option, the person would rather die. Even if, in both of the above situations, they are lucky to be alive, it might be that it is time for them to go.

However, if the torture is something which can be overcome to a point, and where the person can be integrated back into normal life with only minor problems, or evn larger ones, then by all means that would be preferable to death. As it's clearly not their time, and they still have experiences which they are capable of understanding, there's no reason for the person to die just yet.

So, if given the option between the two? It would depend. If I let the people/person get tortured and I wound up with a bunch of schizophrenic, nonfunctioning vegetables or some such, I would certainly let the people/person die. But if the others could recover, then it may be that it's time for those other folks to die, and they can be thankful it will be painless.

EDIT: Basically, I'd rather be left with a few relatively normal people than a bunch of dead people.