Friday, July 15, 2016

Some Questions About Extreme Cases

From guest blogger, Rachel.

I think basic human nature/conscious is peace, and trying to help others; not violence. It is when resources are limited or a conundrum interferes that leads to a disruption in this thinking. For example, there are two people and you have to kill one, which one would you choose? Normally, I would want more information; what about you?. If one were a murderer and the other were a teacher, then to return to the human nature of peace, you would choose the murderer; if you wouldn’t, tell me why not. But what if the murderer killed someone who was a serial killer of children, and ended their reign? And the teacher taught racism and prejudice? Which would be better to kill?... it keeps getting more complicated. Or is it better to not kill either, because it’s not for us to decide?

Overall, I am looking forward to applying what we have learned this past week to the debates we are going to encounter in the future and use the logical tools and theories we have learned to communicate with other people who think differently from us.

1 comment:

Mark said...

I agree that in an extreme case, most people would weigh their decisions heavily. We'd probably find that a majority of them would choose not to kill. Humans are social creatures, and I like to think that they're good by nature.

But that's my opinion. In reality, I find people tend to gravitate more towards things that are dynamic and exciting; and chess would be very dull if the two sides weren't at war. Lower the stakes of your example a bit, and suddenly it becomes FMK.

But maybe that's why finding a universal metric for morality is such a widely debated issue. You get all kinds of people.