Moral dilemmas

[Angrboda]

What is frequently missing from discussions of casuistry is that the question of absolutes and objective morality really needs to be squared away in some sense for general principles to be even considered to apply. The other critical thing is, that unless you disbelieve in evolution, the brains which yield these moral judgements are constrained by the evolution of brains, which is in some sense critically dependent on those selfish genes for its expression and its meaning. In particular, there will likely be moral effects which express themselves in terms of the chaotic attractors of genetic systems, and which are even occasionally mere side effects of the logistics of reproduction (e.g., potential evolutionary psychological explanations for rape and monogamy). In many cases, these evolutionary effects will swamp any signal to be derived from rationally analyzing the situation and the principles involved.

The concentration camp scenario is likely one case in point. While the prima facie consequences are the difference between an extra person being killed or not, there may be deeper consequences as well. How productive as a species would it be for individuals to give in to bullies, assist murderers, and evaluate the result in terms of number of lives rather than quality and dignity. In particular, the human animal has evolved social behaviors that abdicating to the principles of expediency and an "all lives same" approach would throw into chaos (there are social systems which seem geared primarily for weeding out bad apples, regardless of the cost; what happens to such a system when people reduce their moral calculus to the level of a human abacus?). And the systems of reproduction depend upon the existence of values such as human dignity (a side of the coin of altruism) and fidelity. If humans start abandoning their love and commitment to sons, the consequences for reproduction are devastating. Genk and I tend to go round at times, as he engages in similar efforts to reason things out from first principles, and though he has an excellent analytical mind, he sometimes overlooks these broader effects, and how things interact at multiple levels. But then, i suppose we all do.

The problem is engaging in casuistry in the hope that you can reason from a bunch of specific cases to fewer general analytical principles. Ignoring the Kantian point that no size of heap of specific cases will ever equal a single generality, it misses the essential question of just what morality is at the bottom and what its purpose or purposes are. Without knowing those, your attention to detail and analysis will simply leave you looking at trees and never seeing the forest.

[IATIA]

Basically, one cannot really know what one would do under those circumstances, as the plethora of emotions/chemicals, that establish the state of mind at the time, are indeterminable.

[Brian37]

Basically, one cannot really know what one would do under those circumstances, as the plethora of emotions/chemicals, that establish the state of mind at the time, are indeterminable.

Bingo. Most humans falsey think they would do certain things in given situations, but when one is talking about times of trauma or extreme stress, what we want to do or what we think we should do, doesn't always translate to reality.


D-DAY on those beaches, there were pleanty of soilders who while brave enough to even get to the beach, which I could not have emotionally handled, once there hid behind rocks and ere paralized emotionally. That didn't make them cowards, it made them human.

It is always lip service to say what you would do when in danger. Until you are actually in that moment, you simply don't know. Even some normally considered physical wimps can do things they normally wouldn't do. I have myself, being a wimp, broken up fights, mainly because I didn't have time to think about it. If I had time to think about it I would have been less likely to step in.

You simply cannot write a script to life.

[The Grand Nudger]

I bet you could have. Having rounds thrown your way has a strange and unique deadening effect. Not to say that people don't freeze up, but regardless of this soldiers still advance on positions. I imagine it's a mixture of adrenaline, aggression, herd mentality, expectations, shame, glory seeking, fear, stupidity, drill...and confusion.

There is a surprising calm and clarity about everything around you after the fact by the way. The feeling is indescribable, I would give everything I have for five minutes of that feeling.
(people often don't give themselves a fair shake when they imagine scenarios like these, assuming the worst imho)

[Brian37]

I bet you could have. Having rounds thrown your way has a strange and unique deadening effect. Not to say that people don't freeze up, but regardless of this soldiers still advance on positions. I imagine it's a mixture of adrenaline, aggression, herd mentality, expectations, shame, glory seeking, fear, stupidity, drill...and confusion.

There is a surprising calm and clarity about everything around you after the fact by the way. The feeling is indescribable, I would give everything I have for five minutes of that feeling.

Without having been in battle, I can only speculate and I would freeze up most likely knowing myself. But no, I've had "shit your pants" near death moments. My mom once ran a stop light and we came inches away from being t boned by a speeding semi. I didn't have any sudden calm or clarity. I simply thought "SON OF A BITCH".

I never want to ever come that close to death again, although I know it will get me. I just would rather not see it comming so I don't have time to think about it.

Getting shot at does not sound appealing to me at all.

[The Grand Nudger]

LOL, It isn't appealing, it's fucking terrifying. I'd chalk the feeling I cant describe down to prolonged exposure to massive amounts of adrenaline. I can't imagine it being any more complicated than that, despite my investing it with so many attributes based on my experience of it...and...it probably -is- different for everyone. I still think you could advance. I'd like a guy who doesn't want to die to be in the foxhole (or charging the pillbox) with me, personally.

[genkaus]

What has blood relation got to do with the morality of the situation? We are most of us more motivated to protect our relatives than strangers, but that's instinct not morality (?).

Nothing. If you notice, I said relation, not blood relation. It could have been that of friendship, love or a business one.

[IATIA]

Not to say that people don't freeze up, but regardless of this soldiers still advance on positions. I imagine it's a mixture of adrenaline, aggression, herd mentality, expectations, shame, glory seeking, fear, stupidity, drill...and confusion.

Training and brainwashing. Sometimes soldiers do freeze up anyway.

[Doubting_Thomas]

Nothing. If you notice, I said relation, not blood relation. It could have been that of friendship, love or a business one.

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.

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)?

[genkaus]

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.

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.