RE: Moral dilemmas
October 8, 2012 at 2:41 pm
(This post was last modified: October 8, 2012 at 2:51 pm by genkaus.)
(October 6, 2012 at 6:14 am)Doubting_Thomas Wrote: Post dilemmas and your view on the most moral action. When replying, please make it clear which dilemma your comment relates to. I hope this thread can help people explore relative vs absolute and secular vs religious morals.
You know, there is a common recurring themes in all these so called moral dilemmas - the actual right choice is never an option. The situations presented are not ones that a common man would find himself in. And yet, we'd consider whatever the "less" wrong choice would be in that case as a basis for our day to day morality.
(October 6, 2012 at 6:14 am)Doubting_Thomas Wrote: Dilemma 1. A Father's Agonizing Choice
You are an inmate in a concentration camp. A sadistic guard is about to hang your son who tried to escape and wants you to pull the chair from underneath him. He says that if you don't he will not only kill your son but some other innocent inmate as well. You don't have any doubt that he means what he says. What should you do?
Re concentration camp. Pull the chair out. :-(
Let's consider the the facts here:
- the son is going to die, whether or not the father pulls out the chair or not.
- the father, not having any relation with the other inmate is under no obligation to save his life.
The right option here would have been to find a way to save the son - but that's not on the table. Failing that, the best the father could do is make the choice he'd find easier to live with which would then depend on his own mentality and beliefs and thus cannot be dictated by another person.
If he can come to terms with the fact that his son's death is not going to be his fault and neither is the bystander's and yet he believes that preserving that innocent life could be of value, then he should pull the chair.
If he cannot live with the idea of cooperating with his son's murderers and being an participant in the murder himself, then he should refuse. Even so, the blame for the bystander's death does not lie with him. Personally, this would be my choice.
(October 7, 2012 at 2:51 am)Doubting_Thomas Wrote: 2. Writing the history. This interests me because I'm not sure what I would do, even though I can rationalize the choices. I thought this up after noticing the inconsistencies in certain "official history" compared to what anyone can now read up on the Internet.
You are from a small country with its own language. There are no notable history books written about this country. You have been commissioned to write the official history book which you know will be used in all schools, and will be translated into major languages for sale globally. Whatever anyone else writes, you are confident that your version of history will be the dominant one. However,... There is an episode in your national history that is hardly talked about and no one in your country is proud of. Genocide, abuse, something considered immoral and embarrassing. Do you a) include it fully b) gloss over it c) exclude it?
Include it fully, ofcourse. Pursuant to the obligation you have undertaken - that of recording the history - your primary moral obligation as a historian is to record it truthfully and meticulously to the best of your ability. If there is a conflict of interest due to your sense of some nationalistic morality, then you should not have undertaken the job in the first place.
(October 7, 2012 at 2:51 am)Doubting_Thomas Wrote: Also, to what extent is your own personal opinion of the morality of the episode factor in vs the collective /prevailing national sense of morality?
Actually, neither should be a factor here. When you undertake a job, there are some moral obligations that come with it. If the job requires you to be conflicted with your personal morality (or collective morality which you have also chosen to uphold), then either you must find a way to factor them out or bow out.
