Two Ethical Questions!

[AsianColumbus]

1. If you knew a woman who was pregnant, who had eight kids already, three who were deaf, two who were blind, one mentally retarded, and she had syphilis; would you recommend that she have an abortion?

2. It is time to elect the world leader, and your vote counts. Here are the facts about the three leading candidates:

Candidate A - Associates with crooked politicians, and consults with astrologists. He's had two mistresses. He also chain smokes and drinks 8 to 10 martinis a day.

Candidate B - He was kicked out of office twice, sleeps until noon, used opium in college and drinks a quart of whisky every evening.

Candidate C - He is a decorated war hero. He's a vegetarian, doesn't smoke, drinks an occasional beer and hasn't had any extramarital affairs.

Which of these candidates would be your choice?

Post your answers

[Querida]

yeah have gotten this forward alot of times sorry to be a spoiler sport but the first answer is no cause then Ludwig Van Beethoven would never have been born

Candidate A is Franklin D. Roosevelt,
Candidate B is Winston Churchill,
Candidate C is Adolf Hitler.

[Guyana]

>> If you go to hell, you'll be so darn busy shaking hands with all your friends, you won't have time to worry! <<

Asian Columbus,

I noticed your other thread is locked, so I brought forward this point here (see just above)in light of what you said in this thread "He is a decorated war hero. He's a vegetarian"

Indianness of today is certainly not the same of yesteryears. And I am sure today, it will take more than Indianess to prevent going to hell. So why worry, argue indeed and about What, when we are all likely to end up in the same place? :lol: :huh:

[Ilavenil]

1. If you knew a woman who was pregnant, who had eight kids already, three who were deaf, two who were blind, one mentally retarded, and she had syphilis; would you recommend that she have an abortion?

2. It is time to elect the world leader, and your vote counts. Here are the facts about the three leading candidates:

Candidate A - Associates with crooked politicians, and consults with astrologists. He's had two mistresses. He also chain smokes and drinks 8 to 10 martinis a day.

Candidate B - He was kicked out of office twice, sleeps until noon, used opium in college and drinks a quart of whisky every evening.

Candidate C - He is a decorated war hero. He's a vegetarian, doesn't smoke, drinks an occasional beer and hasn't had any extramarital affairs.

Which of these candidates would be your choice?

Post your answers

Q1: Abortion??? No way! Syphilis is treatable infection. All you need is Penicillin shots. Moreover, severity of the congenital defects depends on the spirocheate load. As years passes, level comes down and chances of the patient having a healthy baby is better.

Q2: Of course I would pick Candidate C. He has proved himself by fighting for his country, (definitely not because he is a vegetarian :D ), assuming that you are not talking about Hitler only.

[LastMoor]

cool questions...i liked it

[P_R]

On a parallell note. Here's another interesting question. I think it is Peter Singer's qn, or he himself was quoting someone else. Here goes:

Scenario A
Pregnant mother goes to the doctor. After check-up doctor says :' given the current state the baby will be born with a deformity, however take this pill and the there'll be no problem'. The woman can well afford the pill but she refuses to take it. the kid is born with a defect.

Scenario B
Woman goes to doctor before conception. Doctor says, given your state the child you conceive will be deformed. Wait for three months, you'll be okay by then. After that the child you conceive will be healthy. The woman disregards the advice and goes ahead and conceives the child. the child is born deformed.

Question:
Can the child so born ask the question: 'Why did you do this to me' to its mother ? Will she have a defense ? Is there a difference in the two scenarios ?

Answer hubbers

[Ilavenil]

Scenario A
Pregnant mother goes to the doctor. After check-up doctor says :' given the current state the baby will be born with a deformity, however take this pill and the there'll be no problem'. The woman can well afford the pill but she refuses to take it. the kid is born with a defect.

Question:
Can the child so born ask the question: 'Why did you do this to me' to its mother ? Will she have a defense ? Is there a difference in the two scenarios ?

Answer hubbers

Of course the child can question it's mom. But, in court of law, I don't think this will stand. There are many kids with polio attack in India because their parents had refused to give them vaccination. Parents have rights to refuse. But, they would remain guilty for rest of their life.

[Ilavenil]

Scenario B
Woman goes to doctor before conception. Doctor says, given your state the child you conceive will be deformed. Wait for three months, you'll be okay by then. After that the child you conceive will be healthy. The woman disregards the advice and goes ahead and conceives the child. the child is born deformed.

Question:
Can the child so born ask the question: 'Why did you do this to me' to its mother ? Will she have a defense ? Is there a difference in the two scenarios ?

Answer hubbers

Lets say the mother has diabetes. The doctor advices her to conceive only after her blood sugar level is stabilized. As per your scenario, lets say she becomes pregnant, is she at fault? Can the child ask it's mom why she did it? Yeah! But in court of law, this will not stand. No one can question someone how can she become pregnant eventhough she was warned. It is still mother's decision. But, like previous scenario, the mother would feel guilty life long.

[P_R]

Ilavenil in both cases you mentioned the aspect of the case's ability to stand in court. Though the perspective is of practical relevance the issue is extraneous to the ethical argument. If I understnd right you consider it unethical in either case, as parents live with guilt. More precisely , you say the child can question the mother even in the second scenario:

Lets say the mother has diabetes. The doctor advices her to conceive only after her blood sugar level is stabilized. As per your scenario, lets say she becomes pregnant, is she at fault? Can the child ask it's mom why she did it? Yeah! I say (ok, Peter Singer says) NO. This situation is radically different from scenario A. Try guessing the underlying argument.
Because if you buy this logic it takes the abortion,contraception debate to a new level.
I'll let it lie for a day or two for other hubbers also.

[Ilavenil]

Ilavenil in both cases you mentioned the aspect of the case's ability to stand in court. Though the perspective is of practical relevance the issue is extraneous to the ethical argument. If I understnd right you consider it unethical in either case, as parents live with guilt. More precisely , you say the child can question the mother even in the second scenario:

Lets say the mother has diabetes. The doctor advices her to conceive only after her blood sugar level is stabilized. As per your scenario, lets say she becomes pregnant, is she at fault? Can the child ask it's mom why she did it? Yeah! I say (ok, Peter Singer says) NO. This situation is radically different from scenario A. Try guessing the underlying argument.
Because if you buy this logic it takes the abortion,contraception debate to a new level.
I'll let it lie for a day or two for other hubbers also.

I have seen many parents feeling guilty if their baby is born deformed. They keep questioning themselves, is it the "coke" I drank when I was pregnant, is it because I went hiking during pregnancy, is it because my neighbour had cold or is it because I didn't go to hospital at the right time? They spend lot of time finding out why this happened, even though it is not their fault. It is because parents think it is their duty to protect their children. There is nothing wrong in this but not everything is possible. If this is the case with parents who didn't know why this happened, don't you think if someone who is being warned and well informed already, who knew things might go wrong, it will definitely make them feel guilty, if they didn't follow the advice carefully.

[P_R]

I'll reword my question so as to get the right emphasis. I am not asking in which of the two scenarios the mother's action is ethically wrong/right. But in which of the scenarios does the baby have the right to question the mother.

I am saying: In scenario A the baby can question thew mother
In scenario B the baby cannot question the mother

Guess why and we'll pick it up from there.

[Girish11]

I'll reword my question so as to get the right emphasis. I am not asking in which of the two scenarios the mother's action is ethically wrong/right. But in which of the scenarios does the baby have the right to question the mother.

I am saying: In scenario A the baby can question thew mother
In scenario B the baby cannot question the mother

Guess why and we'll pick it up from there.

PR, my guest in Scenario A, the reason the baby can
queston the mother.........From mothers point of view, she
does not want to go against nature and if it is in her destiny
that a deformed baby be born, she is ready to accept it
and hence does not want to take the medicine.

From the babys point of view, this is equivalent to any other
disease one can naturally get, such as fever, bp etc, if the
mother is a person who does take remedy for such thing (which she should be considering that she saw a doctor, if she was
a beleiver of relegion science, she would not have seen a doctor)
so it is just that she should have taken the medicine to avoid
the deformation.

It may sound dumb, but this is what I can come up with as of
now.

Re the second scenario, cannog guess why the baby does not
have the right to question.

Can you please answer for both scenarios the reason why
the baby has the right to question in first scenario and not in
the second?

[P_R]

I'll reword my question so as to get the right emphasis. I am not asking in which of the two scenarios the mother's action is ethically wrong/right. But in which of the scenarios does the baby have the right to question the mother.

I am saying: In scenario A the baby can question thew mother
In scenario B the baby cannot question the mother

Guess why and we'll pick it up from there.

PR, my guest in Scenario A, the reason the baby can
queston the mother.........From mothers point of view, she
does not want to go against nature and if it is in her destiny
that a deformed baby be born, she is ready to accept it
and hence does not want to take the medicine.

From the babys point of view, this is equivalent to any other
disease one can naturally get, such as fever, bp etc, if the
mother is a person who does take remedy for such thing (which she should be considering that she saw a doctor, if she was
a beleiver of relegion science, she would not have seen a doctor)
so it is just that she should have taken the medicine to avoid
the deformation.

It may sound dumb, but this is what I can come up with as of
now.

Re the second scenario, cannog guess why the baby does not
have the right to question.

Can you please answer for both scenarios the reason why
the baby has the right to question in first scenario and not in
the second?

Case A: The baby can ask. You guess right. When the mother can afford the medication and wilfully does not have it then it is a conscious act of hurting the child. So the child can sayb 'why did u do this'

Case B: Here the baby can't ask. Here's why:
Baby: Why did you do this to me ? Why didn't you wait for three months ?
Mommy: Sure I could have waited honey and the baby that I would have had would have come from a different sperm and egg and would not have been you. i.e you would not even exist. Isn't somehting better than nothing ?

Seems like a silly answer. Yeah, but look at its implications for the definition of life. Or mopre precisely the origin of life.We expect any rational mother to postpone conception, so can't the same logic be extended to abortion,euthanasia ?

[Girish11]

I'll reword my question so as to get the right emphasis. I am not asking in which of the two scenarios the mother's action is ethically wrong/right. But in which of the scenarios does the baby have the right to question the mother.

I am saying: In scenario A the baby can question thew mother
In scenario B the baby cannot question the mother

Guess why and we'll pick it up from there.

PR, my guest in Scenario A, the reason the baby can
queston the mother.........From mothers point of view, she
does not want to go against nature and if it is in her destiny
that a deformed baby be born, she is ready to accept it
and hence does not want to take the medicine.

From the babys point of view, this is equivalent to any other
disease one can naturally get, such as fever, bp etc, if the
mother is a person who does take remedy for such thing (which she should be considering that she saw a doctor, if she was
a beleiver of relegion science, she would not have seen a doctor)
so it is just that she should have taken the medicine to avoid
the deformation.

It may sound dumb, but this is what I can come up with as of
now.

Re the second scenario, cannog guess why the baby does not
have the right to question.

Can you please answer for both scenarios the reason why
the baby has the right to question in first scenario and not in
the second?

Case A: The baby can ask. You guess right. When the mother can afford the medication and wilfully does not have it then it is a conscious act of hurting the child. So the child can sayb 'why did u do this'

Case B: Here the baby can't ask. Here's why:
Baby: Why did you do this to me ? Why didn't you wait for three months ?
Mommy: Sure I could have waited honey and the baby that I would have had would have come from a different sperm and egg and would not have been you. i.e you would not even exist. Isn't somehting better than nothing ?

Seems like a silly answer. Yeah, but look at its implications for the definition of life. Or mopre precisely the origin of life.We expect any rational mother to postpone conception, so can't the same logic be extended to abortion,euthanasia ?

PR,

Thanks for the reply.

My English is not very good, I would appreciate if you can please
elaborate more on the scenario B and try to put it in more
simpler English with more explanations, sorry for the trouble.

ALso, I was wondering, it is not the babies that ask to be given
existense, it is the parents who want to give birth to babies
and bring them to this world, in this case, I feel, still the baby has
the right to ask as to why, knowing that he/she was going to
be deformed if conceived, was conceived. Also I fail to understand
the relationship between this scenario and abortion. Please
explain more. Thanks.

[jeera]

Scenario A
Pregnant mother goes to the doctor. After check-up doctor says :' given the current state the baby will be born with a deformity, however take this pill and the there'll be no problem'. The woman can well afford the pill but she refuses to take it. the kid is born with a defect.

Answer: The woman has already conceived. While conceiving or not is not in her hands, she certainly acted negligently inspite of doctor's warning. She is guilty (probably not in the eyes of the law considering how liberal the law is now).

[P_R]

elaborate more on the scenario B Woman plans to have a baby. Before getting herself impregnated she goes to the doctor for a check-up. Doctor says your physical condition is such that, if you have sex now the baby conceived out of the union will be borne with a deformity. OTOH if you wait for three months, your ophysical condition will improve and if you get yourself impregnated then the baby formed then will be born healthy.

The woman ignores the advice and gets impregnated immediately. The baby has a birth defect. The qn. was : 'can the baby accuse the mother as in Scenario A ?

The answer is No. Because this baby is born out of a combination of sperm and egg of a particular date. Had the mother used contraceptives/abstinence :roll: as adviced by the doctor (for three months) this baby would never have been born at all. It would not exist. So the baby cannot ask the question if we accept the argument that some existence is better than non-existence.
ALso, I was wondering, it is not the babies that ask to be given existense, it is the parents who want to give birth to babies and bring them to this world, in this case, I feel, still the baby has
the right to ask as to why, knowing that he/she was going to
be deformed if conceived, was conceived. I suppose this stands answered by the previous paragraph. Doesn't it ?

Also I fail to understand the relationship between this scenario and abortion. Please explain more In scenario B we will universally agree that the woman should postpone conception by 3 months, right ? Basically we are denying birth to a potential baby. So we justify parent's right to choose so far as contraception. So far so good. A 'poetential' life was denied because the we think the quality of life of the child would be undesirable. So if the foetus is sure to have a horrible quality of life then is it rational for the mother to abort ? (just as it was rational for the mother in scenario B to postpone conception.

[Girish11]

elaborate more on the scenario B Woman plans to have a baby. Before getting herself impregnated she goes to the doctor for a check-up. Doctor says your physical condition is such that, if you have sex now the baby conceived out of the union will be borne with a deformity. OTOH if you wait for three months, your ophysical condition will improve and if you get yourself impregnated then the baby formed then will be born healthy.

The woman ignores the advice and gets impregnated immediately. The baby has a birth defect. The qn. was : 'can the baby accuse the mother as in Scenario A ?

The answer is No. Because this baby is born out of a combination of sperm and egg of a particular date. Had the mother used contraceptives/abstinence :roll: as adviced by the doctor (for three months) this baby would never have been born at all. It would not exist. So the baby cannot ask the question if we accept the argument that some existence is better than non-existence.
ALso, I was wondering, it is not the babies that ask to be given existense, it is the parents who want to give birth to babies and bring them to this world, in this case, I feel, still the baby has
the right to ask as to why, knowing that he/she was going to
be deformed if conceived, was conceived. I suppose this stands answered by the previous paragraph. Doesn't it ?

Also I fail to understand the relationship between this scenario and abortion. Please explain more In scenario B we will universally agree that the woman should postpone conception by 3 months, right ? Basically we are denying birth to a potential baby. So we justify parent's right to choose so far as contraception. So far so good. A 'poetential' life was denied because the we think the quality of life of the child would be undesirable. So if the foetus is sure to have a horrible quality of life then is it rational for the mother to abort ? (just as it was rational for the mother in scenario B to postpone conception.

Thanks for the clarification PR, it is clear now.

As for, "A 'poetential' life was denied because the we think the quality of life of the child would be undesirable. So if the foetus is sure to have a horrible quality of life then is it rational for the mother to abort ?" I think it is 2 different scenarios and cannot
be compared, because when the baby is not conceived
there is no life, re denial of a potential life, this applies to
every time a couple uses a contraceptive while having sex,
i.e everytime a contraceptive is used, it means a potential life
is being denied, but, is that wrong?

In case of an abortion, the life is already formed, in this case
the abortion will mean killing which IMO is wrong.

Rgds

[P_R]

Yeaj I understand. I want to make it clear that I was just tabling an opinion not (necessarily) my opinion.
So, you consider life to have a 'originated' if the foetus has been conceived, so it is murder no matter what . Can I take it that way.

Let's take your definition to answer the following question:
A pregnant woman is told that she is too weak to have a baby.The pregnancy is at a stage where abortion is still an option. A definite life-saving option for the woman. OTOH if she goes ahead with the pregnancy there is a 50% chance that she would die during pregnancy.

In this case what would be the rational action for the mother? ( I am not pulling this out of my hat, recently there was a HC case filed by the husband to prevent his wife from aborting their foetus. She was planning to as she ran a high risk of death during delivery ). Should we prevent her from averting risk to her life because it means resorting to 'murder' ? Can we call it 'murder for self-defence' ? But the probability is not 100 % only 590 %. So is there a threshold probability that determines whether it is justifiable or not ?

[Girish11]

Yeaj I understand. I want to make it clear that I was just tabling an opinion not (necessarily) my opinion.
So, you consider life to have a 'originated' if the foetus has been conceived, so it is murder no matter what . Can I take it that way.

Let's take your definition to answer the following question:
A pregnant woman is told that she is too weak to have a baby.The pregnancy is at a stage where abortion is still an option. A definite life-saving option for the woman. OTOH if she goes ahead with the pregnancy there is a 50% chance that she would die during pregnancy.

In this case what would be the rational action for the mother? ( I am not pulling this out of my hat, recently there was a HC case filed by the husband to prevent his wife from aborting their foetus. She was planning to as she ran a high risk of death during delivery ). Should we prevent her from averting risk to her life because it means resorting to 'murder' ? Can we call it 'murder for self-defence' ? But the probability is not 100 % only 590 %. So is there a threshold probability that determines whether it is justifiable or not ?


Hi PR,

First of all, I would like to clarify, what I wrote about abortion is
not neccessariy my opinion, it was just a general opinion that
once conceived, a foetus has life and eliminating the same is
considered taking the life, my opinion on aborition depends on
each particular case and situation. Lets leave that aside,

About the example you cited, IMO, the mother should not be
allowed to go ahead with the pregnancy, have personally been
thru a situation close to this one recently, my baby was born
recently, a premature one, born after 7 months of conceivement,
it was a high risk delivery, if I had to face the same situation,
if the doctor had told that there are 50% chances of mothers
survival, I would have opted for the mothers survival.

Rgds.

[P_R]

I think I inadvertently got a bit personal on that question. Asking hypothetical questions is a completely different comfort zone altogether. So I change topic thus:

Again a two scenario case:

Scenario A) You see a train charging towards a group of (say 5) children playing on the track. In an alternative track there is a fully grown man. You, the driver, have a button in control. If you press the button the train would change tracks and hit and kill the man. If you do nothing all the 5 children will die.
What would you do ?
Scenario B ) You are bystander and you see the traion rushing at the group of kids. There is no paralell track.There is this large man next to you and you can surprise him and push him on the tracks. If you do that the train hits and kills the man but stops and thus the kids are saved. If you don't do anything the kids will die.
What would you do ?

[Girish11]

I think I inadvertently got a bit personal on that question. Asking hypothetical questions is a completely different comfort zone altogether. So I change topic thus:

Again a two scenario case:

Scenario A) You see a train charging towards a group of (say 5) children playing on the track. In an alternative track there is a fully grown man. You, the driver, have a button in control. If you press the button the train would change tracks and hit and kill the man. If you do nothing all the 5 children will die.
What would you do ?
Scenario B ) You are bystander and you see the traion rushing at the group of kids. There is no paralell track.There is this large man next to you and you can surprise him and push him on the tracks. If you do that the train hits and kills the man but stops and thus the kids are saved. If you don't do anything the kids will die.
What would you do ?

Hi PR,

Please dont worry at all, there were totally no hard feeling
or any such thing when I wrote the last post just in case you
think there is any.

Re the 2 new questions:

Scenario A, I would press the button, change tracks and save
the kids.

Scenario B, Also, I think I would save the kids by pushing the
large man.

Please tell me your views on this and your answers to these
2 questions too.

Rgds.

[P_R]

Do feel any different in responding to the scenarios ?

[Girish11]

Do feel any different in responding to the scenarios ?

Sorry PR, did not understand your question.

[P_R]

Do feel any different in responding to the scenarios ?

Sorry PR, did not understand your question.

In both scenarios you said you were goingf to kill the man. in Scenario A you had to press a button and in scenario B you had to physically push the man.
I am asking about the process of deciding. Are you equally ready to kill the man (to save the kids of course) or are you more hesitant in one case than the other ?

[Badri]

PR: You are not a practicing psychiatrist, are you?

[P_R]

PR: You are not a practicing psychiatrist, are you? Bored reader is more like it :wink:

[Badri]

What with constructing all those hypotheses and pointing out the differences, I surmised you must either be a lawyer like you accused me once, or a psychiatrist!!



:wink:

[P_R]

What with constructing all those hypotheses and pointing out the differences, I surmised you must either be a lawyer like you accused me once, or a psychiatrist!! :wink:
Originality is all about suppressing your sources 8)

[Girish11]

Do feel any different in responding to the scenarios ?

Sorry PR, did not understand your question.

In both scenarios you said you were goingf to kill the man. in Scenario A you had to press a button and in scenario B you had to physically push the man.
I am asking about the process of deciding. Are you equally ready to kill the man (to save the kids of course) or are you more hesitant in one case than the other ?

Yes PR, as you doubt, the decision making in both the cases
is not equally easy or fast, in my case, after I finished reading
the scenario A, I could make the decision immediately, after
reading scenario B, the decision was not immediate, I had to
think over it a little bit more, the thought of personally
pushing a person to the tracks and killing him did feel very odd
and it was not easy to digest even the thought. Did think
of other things such as why it has to be this person standing besides me, why not myself etc. but again, the scenario B
in my opinion meant to say that the person who has to make
the decision is
not strong enough to stop the train whereas the big person
who could be pushed is strong enough to stop the train.
But finally the decision was the same although not as fast
as scenario A.

Your comments and your views on the 2 scenarios please.

[Sandeep]

Senario A : Its easy 5:1. I will go for the single guy

Senario B : Saving is one thing and killing assuming that will save is another. I dont think i will kill a man believing it will save others.

[P_R]

Senario A : Its easy 5:1. I will go for the single guy

Senario B : Saving is one thing and killing assuming that will save is another. I dont think i will kill a man believing it will save others.

This was the typical response to the test (I think it was conducted by this young prof in Princeton). Kind of asked Girish leading questions to get as close to this as possible 8)

One of the interpretations to this is as follows: Ethics, like every other human 'function' has evolved over the years in the brain. Physically killing a man is an activity we are used to since the cave man days. A sense of right and wrong has been developed for this situation. Hence we don't even have to consciously think if killing somebody is wrong. We instinctively know it is wrong and we need strong reasons to convince ourselves to do it (like saving the kids).
OTOH pushing buttons is relatively new to the human race. So the immediacy between the button and causing death has not become part of the evolutionary process. That is why we have no/less hesitation in pushing the button though the result is the same as killing the man.
Why does this result make one uneasy ? Ethics and values are things we pride ourselves over. Beauty and brains can just simply be inherited. This does not make them less important but they are not in the domain of personal choice. Ethics and values we adhere to, we like to believe are our choices and thus define us. This experiment calls that into question and supports a line of argument that ethics can also be a plain matter of reflex action having much less to do with free will than we thought.

[Rohit]

Though what I am going to write below is not directly related to the title of the topic, it involves general aspects of human reasoning behind ethical or moral understanding, depending on scenarios and situations encountered at the time, either by an individual and/or by society and humanity in general.

Ethics or more commonly known as morality is the conceptual knowledge of what is right and what is wrong; and it was and it is an essential part of human evolutionary process and thus it necessarily implies as a learned process.

The process of ethical or moral learning is based on a few simple cognitive rules.

If someone’s action or behaviour harms or hurts someone, the one who gets hurt or harmed realises that if he/she would do the same to others, it would hurt or harm them too; and so it must be bad. Thus, these kind of “bad” actions or behaviours would become known as anti-social behaviours.

If someone’s action or behaviour helps or benifits either an individual or the group of people to which an individual belongs to, the benefits brought about by such actions or behaviours coerce one to realise that such actions or behaviours are beneficial; and so they must be good. Thus, these kind of “good” actions or behaviours would become known as pro-social behaviours.

The real ethical concepts of right and wrong do not necessarily follow from good and bad outcomes. However, the correlations that hold between “good” outcomes and “right” and between “bad” outcomes and “wrong”, on average, tend to grow towards higher side as the learning progresses. Thus, what is experienced as “good”, bears the potential of getting translated into “right” and what is experienced as “bad”, bears the potential of getting translated into “wrong”. In the process, some "goods" must be rejected for better "goods" and some "bads" must be accepted as they were not as "bad" or "bad" at all as previously thought, believed or understood and subsequently accepted as "good".

On aggregate, whatever brings “good” outcomes are accepted as “right” and whatever brings “bad” outcomes are accepted as “wrong”. That is why the ethical or moral understanding of “right” and “wrong” is not universal. There exist stark differences between culture to culture and between individual to individual about what is considered “good/right” and what is considered “bad/wrong”.

Not every notion of “good/right” for one culture or an individual would necessarily be the notion of “good/right” for other cultures or other individuals.

And

Not every notion of “bad/wrong” for one culture or an individual would necessarily be the notion of “bad/wrong” for other cultures or other individuals.

For example; killing animals, especially cow, for food is widely considered “bad/wrong” in the Indian cultural perspectives, while it is not so in other cultures.

While there is hardly any ethical sense of understanding of such “rights” and “wrongs” in animal kingdom; killing other animals, including their own kinds and humans is the only survival strategy or activity for carnivorous animals like lions, tigers, cheetah, leopard, hyenas etc. There are cannibal animals who kill their own kinds for food; and not to anyone's surprise, there are/were plenty of instances of cannibalism in some human tribes. Killing and sacrificing human and animal lives were widely accepted practices in ancient times and they are still not completely rooted out from certain parts of the world.

Thus, the ethics or understanding of moral values has deep cognitive roots in the human evolutionary process, making most moral situations very subjective, depending on what is at stake and what are the available benefits in making certain choices, no matter how irrational they maybe. If the benefits outweigh the stakes, the social or individual choice would be to pick the one that has higher potential for bringing more benefits, either to the individual or to a certain group of people, while the stakes involved are rightly or wrongly deemed tolerable or affordable. The evidential proofs of such irrational choices of moral values are obvious. There are countless examples of some of the most outrageous and deplorable actions and behaviours of individuals and/or society that were/are justified as good/right when such actions and/or behaviours had/have their roots attached to certain aspects of conceptual, social, cultural or religious life. Questioning them itself were/are considered bad/wrong.

Such is the highly subjective nature of ethics or morality; but, on average, it must tend to grow towards an overall, social and cognitive development of humanity as a whole. The pace at which it happened in the past was slower, the pace at which it is happening at present is slow. The evolutionary process is unlikely to devolve and allow the notions or concepts of ethical or moral values to be continuously consumed and thus, abused just by a few individuals. It must grow towards serving a much wider and broader aspect of human development, if humans have to survive and evolve further as highly intelligent, social animals. :)

[P_R]

Rohit, by far that's the best written post I've read in the Hub.

The evidential proofs of such irrational choices of moral values are obvious. Quite right. But I always believe that we are here to bring love and hate closer to reason which is why this is disturbing. Though subjective is a very human word one is reluctant to be associated with such a moniker. IMO such a reluctance is natural and in fact a good thing. Because the individual makes an individual unhappy with reflex actions/choices and encourages him to be as conscious as possible.

The evolutionary process is unlikely to devolve and allow the notions or concepts of ethical or moral values to be continuously consumed and thus, abused just by a few individuals. I didn't get this, particularly the abuse bit. Please elaborate.

[Rohit]

Dear Prabhu Ram

I would be inconsiderate if I fail to acknowledge your compliments. Thank you.

At the same time, it would be even more inconsiderate of me if I fail to acknowledge and appreciate the precision in your posts.

As you mentioned, I do recognise the dire need to bring love and hatred closer to reason. However, I am under no delusion that to reach such an ambitious situation is undoubtedly remote. There is no solecism in human urge to be loved, but the fault arises when it is impracticably and irrationally rested upon the false notion of unconditional love, when hatred itself originates from such faulty notions. The dilemma lies in not realising the obvious diffusion or spread in humans’ cognitive dimensions, only a certain measure of which would carry the requisite power of generating valid reasoning, while a majority of it would be entrapped in a discordant interaction with a chaos of emotions. Such emotional perplexities carry inherent limitations and danger of being misappropriated; and thus the reason itself would not allow the bridging of this existing intrinsic gap, but work as a major driving force in bettering our understanding of ethics in its truer sense.

I didn't get this, particularly the abuse bit. Please elaborate.I can see the reason for your request to elaborate

Of course, the use of word “devolve” may sound misleading, but it was not meant here in biological sense, rather it was intended to convey cognitive degeneration. I am bit surprised by you missing the point behind the “abuse bit”, when the world’s history itself provides countless accounts of such abusive use of ethical or moral sentiments of the masses by a few individuals occupying social, religious or political positions they hardly deserved. :)

[P_R]

when the world's history itself provides countless accounts of such abusive use of ethical or moral sentiments of the masses by a few individuals occupying social, religious or political positions they hardly deserved This is why I wanted you to elaborate. Yes, we do try to get readymade lists of right and wrong from individuals and institutions but doesn't all institutional evolution have its origin in public choice ? Moreover aren't we to blame for handing over the reigns ? I am very reluctant to blame the 'abusing' individual.

fault arises when it is impracticably and irrationally rested upon the false notion of unconditional love, when hatred itself originates from such faulty notions In fact to be really harsh one can view unconditional love to be a prescription for degeneration. To sustain the motivation to grow becomes that much more difficult. Compared to that hate does not seem as dangerous. The worst that it can do the individual is shut a few doors prematurely because of his prejudices, but he will still have the motivation to explore,know and grow.

reason itself would not allow the bridging of this existing intrinsic gap, but work as a major driving force in bettering our understanding of ethics in its truer sense ...and with a better understanding of ethics our yardsticks would be better that'd help reason out love and hate better.

[Girish11]

Hi PR

Was away for a couple of days.

Nice analaysis and great posts from you and Rohit, thanks for
the insights Rohit.

But frankly I did not understand many things as my English is
not so good.

Anyways, PR, as I asked you before, what was your reaction/response to the same questions when you came
across the same??

Rgds.

[P_R]

Hi PR,what was your reaction/response to the same questions when you came across the same?? Same as yours. Kill man in both cases, but a reluctant response in the second case. The more interesting response is one of my friends': he said the children ought not to have been playing in the tracks and the man was walking on a safe track on which there was no train expected. So to kill the man would be supporting wrong behaviour and rewarding errant behaviousr. So let the kids die. :)

[Girish11]

Hi PR,what was your reaction/response to the same questions when you came across the same?? Same as yours. Kill man in both cases, but a reluctant response in the second case. The more interesting response is one of my friends': he said the children ought not to have been playing in the tracks and the man was walking on a safe track on which there was no train expected. So to kill the man would be supporting wrong behaviour and rewarding errant behaviousr. So let the kids die. :)

:) Thanks for the reply. The reply of your friend is interesting,
but somehow does not justify to me. This new avathar is nice
PR.

[Badri]

Good God! I will certainly start praying that I am never confronted with such difficult scenarios and choices in real life!!! I don't think I can handle them!

[NOV]

Scenario B ) You are bystander and you see the traion rushing at the group of kids. There is no paralell track.There is this large man next to you and you can surprise him and push him on the tracks. If you do that the train hits and kills the man but stops and thus the kids are saved. If you don't do anything the kids will die.
What would you do ?Why shouldn't YOU do the right thing and step onto the tracks, to stop the train?

[NM]

Scenario B ) You are bystander and you see the traion rushing at the group of kids. There is no paralell track.There is this large man next to you and you can surprise him and push him on the tracks. If you do that the train hits and kills the man but stops and thus the kids are saved. If you don't do anything the kids will die.
What would you do ?Why shouldn't YOU do the right thing and step onto the tracks, to stop the train?
NOV!!! :lol: :lol:

[P_R]

Scenario B ) You are bystander and you see the traion rushing at the group of kids. There is no paralell track.There is this large man next to you and you can surprise him and push him on the tracks. If you do that the train hits and kills the man but stops and thus the kids are saved. If you don't do anything the kids will die.
What would you do ?Why shouldn't YOU do the right thing and step onto the tracks, to stop the train?
This brings us to a bigger question: is there anything worth dying for ? Usually people die for all sorts of things from ideologies to high-school crushes. One would jump in front of the train only if living with the guilt of having murdered the man, or having let the kids die is so overwhelming that it makes living wretched.
Personally , I find this highly unlikely. That's why I'd push the man.

[Badri]

This brings us to a bigger question: is there anything worth dying for ? Usually people die for all sorts of things from ideologies to high-school crushes. One would jump in front of the train only if living with the guilt of having murdered the man, or having let the kids die is so overwhelming that it makes living wretched.
Personally , I find this highly unlikely. That's why I'd push the man.

And then jump in front of the next train, to get rid of the guilt of having murdered a man???

[P_R]

This brings us to a bigger question: is there anything worth dying for ? Usually people die for all sorts of things from ideologies to high-school crushes. One would jump in front of the train only if living with the guilt of having murdered the man, or having let the kids die is so overwhelming that it makes living wretched.
Personally , I find this highly unlikely. That's why I'd push the man.

And then jump in front of the next train, to get rid of the guilt of having murdered a man???
That option is always there. But standing here I'm not sure guilt will my guilt will be so strong .....a word of advice: stay away from me :wink:

[Badri]

PR warned: .
stay away from me

No fear of that mate! Not unless you intend coming to Melbourne in the near future! At any rate, no one walks on the tracks here! You'll be fined heavily if you did!