(October 11, 2012 at 12:22 pm)Doubting_Thomas Wrote: Sorry, gotcha. I hadn't realized that you were using the Clinton definition of relations ;-)
I can't say I agree even now, it's submitting morals to tribalism, which may be natural but has been something of a problem for humankind.
It's much more personal than tribalism. It's plain selfishness. If you have a personal relationship with the person, his life is of value to you. Hence, trying to preserve it is a moral thing to do.
(October 11, 2012 at 12:22 pm)Doubting_Thomas Wrote: If we reverse the situation; you are one of the other prisoners. You watch the sadistic guard threaten the a father with cooperating in his sons murder, else the guard will kill one of the rest of you. If the father asked you what the moral thing to do was, would you feel he has no obligation to spare one of the rest of you (knowing it could be you that dies)?
I would feel that he has no obligation to save others, but the answer
i would give him would be a lie - that is, I would tell him to save others.
The moral principle is the same. Due to external influences you are being constrained into making one of the two wrong choices. Then you make the choice which would be easier for you to live with. Since in my case, the choice is clearly between life and death, it's pretty straightforward.
