tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post2167908782829722586..comments2024-03-22T06:22:08.010+00:00Comments on Stephen Law: The Plank and Double EffectStephen Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-7896017905629293382010-12-30T20:55:43.047+00:002010-12-30T20:55:43.047+00:00A rather prescient blog post in view of the furore...A rather prescient blog post in view of the furore over a real life situation in which only one of two lives could be saved. You probably spotted it on Ophelia Benson's site but just in case.<br /><br />(http://www.butterfliesandwheels.org/2010/there-was-an-arrogance-an-independent-and-defiant-air/<br /><br />and for one religous take on it.<br /><br />http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=39672)wombatnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-46151782641992373212010-12-11T08:46:47.276+00:002010-12-11T08:46:47.276+00:00@Stephen law. (Private)
By the way, Stephen you h...@Stephen law. (Private)<br /><br />By the way, Stephen you have failed to step-up and defend your society against My Forbidden Truths.<br /><br />http://www.Truthmedia.8k.com still stands<br /><br />Travis.Seer Travis Trumanhttp://www.Truthmedia.8k.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-70923147342533232882010-12-11T08:30:55.168+00:002010-12-11T08:30:55.168+00:00Stephen, your whole example is horribly wrong.
Fi...Stephen, your whole example is horribly wrong.<br /><br />Firstly, all acts of war are unjustifiable acts of wanton mass-murder. You cannot justify dropping any of the bombs. There is no such thing as military and civilian targets. These are lie-based and illegitimate societal constructs. They are simply BOTH human targets of a murder act.<br /><br />Ending a war is ridiculous, because the act of bombing IS war. Society engaged in that war.<br /><br />I have a suggestion, Stephen:<br />What about making a case of abortion clinic killer Peter Knight of australia vs society's stance on child-murder via abortion? Now there is a great example of the concepts!Seer Travis Trumanhttp://www.Truthmedia.8k.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-75747274427989579302010-12-08T16:48:55.306+00:002010-12-08T16:48:55.306+00:00Ron - you are right - in fact I had intended to ch...Ron - you are right - in fact I had intended to change the wording of case 1, and have now done so. Thanks... StephenStephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-80763742568546525912010-12-08T15:07:46.745+00:002010-12-08T15:07:46.745+00:00Hi Stephen,
I think case 1 is mistaken in the way...Hi Stephen,<br /><br />I think case 1 is mistaken in the way you express it. <br /><br />"But at the price of killing the other." <br /><br />How are you 'killing the other' and what way is it the 'price'? He was going to die anyway, so you're not killing him, and nor is it an 'additional price'.<br /><br />If your thought experiment allows some chance possibility of them both being saved moments after you grab your man, then maybe you are 'killing' the second man. But without this possibility you have only added good, by saving one man. The loss of the second is no different.<br /><br />And the only significance in case 2 is that you are being more active in the event - and then only because you have changed the conditions of the thought experiment, by introducing the ledge and the weight of the first man.<br /><br />So, given how difficult it is to make these decisions objective (e.g. to the extent of being numerically measurable) then the changes you have introduced outweigh any significance in moral difference.<br /><br />Therefore I'd say they are both of equal moral value, in as much as we can measure moral value, because in both you have saved a life that otherwise would have been lost.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11039815765507965606noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-79926139063757579162010-12-07T11:41:58.706+00:002010-12-07T11:41:58.706+00:00When you grab Man 1 you are saving the life of the...When you grab Man 1 you are saving the life of the individual you are acting on. When you push Man 2 you are ending the life of the individual you are acting on.Rob Anoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-82517001244179573202010-12-06T18:45:00.982+00:002010-12-06T18:45:00.982+00:00In Case 1, you have saved a life.
In Case 2, you ...In Case 1, you have saved a life.<br /><br />In Case 2, you have actively murdered in order to save a life.<br /><br />What it boils down to is this:<br /><br />Saving a life - moral<br />Death occurring - unfortunate<br />Murdering - immoral<br /><br />In case 1, a moral action is taken with an unfortunate consequence.<br /><br />In case 2, the action taken is immoral with a moral consequence.<br /><br />I guess what the Double Effect principle is saying, then, is:<br /><br />Moral + Unfortunate > Immoral + Moral<br /><br />No wickedness/evil/badness/immorality occurs in Case 1, whereas some does in Case 2. I guess the Doctrine of Double Effect strives for absolutely no immorality to occur.<br /><br />So, to answer your question directly: There is a moral difference, in that one act is partially immoral (case 2) whereas the other isn't at all, so it's morally better (case 1).<br /><br />Oh, I think I'm forgetting something. The Double Effect would have you, in the case of Case 2, let both die.<br /><br />So what the Double Effect is also saying is: <br /><br />Unfortunate + Unfortunate > Immoral + Moral<br /><br />In the case of letting them both die (let's call this Case 3), there is still a lack of wickedness/immorality. Case 2 is partially evil; Case 3 is wholly unfortunate. <br /><br />So, yeah, there is still a moral difference. Case 1 is the most moral - doing a moral action with an unfortunate consequence. Case 3 is the middle ground - allowing two unfortunate events to occur in order to avoid acting immorally. Case 2 is morally the worst - having murdered, acted immorally, in order to bring about a moral consequence.<br /><br />That conclusion may seem cold, but... is it colder to murder an innocent or to (knowingly) allow an innocent to die? Is it worse to commit a man to death undeservedly or for a man to die of causes unprovoked?Odihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17663003753318133201noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-39681370874343313822010-12-06T15:28:27.806+00:002010-12-06T15:28:27.806+00:00Slightly different question: I've always had a...Slightly different question: I've always had a vague feeling that the doctrine of double effect was a method for deontological moral systems to mimic the effects of utilitarianism. Does that match your impression?Patricknoreply@blogger.com