0 Members and 216 Guests are viewing this topic.
A woman was on her deathbed. There was one drug that the doctors thought might save her. It was a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. The drug was expensive to make, but the druggist was charging ten times what the drug cost him to produce. He paid $200 for the radium and charged $2,000 for a small dose of the drug. The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could only get together about $1,000 which is half of what it cost. He told the druggist that his wife was dying and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the druggist said: “No, I discovered the drug and I'm going to make money from it.” So Heinz got desperate and broke into the man's laboratory to steal the drug for his wife. Should Heinz have broken into the laboratory to steal the drug for his wife? Why or why not?
From a theoretical point of view, it is not important what the participant thinks that Heinz should do. Kohlberg's theory holds that the justification the participant offers is what is significant, the form of their response. Below are some of many examples of possible arguments that belong to the six stages:
Moral rules are not limited to be the lubricant of society. They also cover individual affairs, such as keeping oneself sober and healthy, and avoid suicidal behaviors.
I can't think of better words to represent what you mean because I have no idea what you mean!
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 05/05/2020 05:26:12Moral rules are not limited to be the lubricant of society. They also cover individual affairs, such as keeping oneself sober and healthy, and avoid suicidal behaviors. As long as I don't burden others, I can see no wrong in getting drunk, overeating or killing myself by these or other means. Thus no first-order moral implications: the key is whether or not I burden others by my actions, which would indeed break the protective film of lubricant. In a civilised society these actions are not illegal, though they may exclude you from some aspects of a social contract through "contributory negligence".You might compare Jonestown with Masada, where 1000 defenders committed suicide after a 2 year siege rather than be enslaved by the Romans. In the Jonestown case it was pretty clear that the defenders had committed crimes against others so the moral implications are clear, even if their personal judgement was suspended in favour of the ravings of a priest. At Masada the defenders had committed no wrong but made a strategic decision based on the known proclivities of the Romans who had been occupying the country for a couple of hundred years.
There have been already studies similar to the usage of consciousness level to determine morality, such as Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development.
Johan (brother of Heinz) has a painful terminal illness with no hope of recovery. He has spent all his money on failed treatment and is now living on the street.Wilhelm (their cousin) is stinking rich with no debts, and has four adult children with big student loans to repay, and the same genetic condition as Joachim.According to your ethics, W should top himself ASAP but J must stay in the gutter (and avoid being hit by a bus) until the Good Lord calls him to rest. I disagree.
IMO, suicidal behavior can only be acceptable if we know that there are other conscious beings which are not suicidal, and get some benefit from our death.
Nobody else will benefit from J's death, but W's kids will inherit his fortune.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinz_dilemmaThe Heinz dilemma is a frequently used example in many ethics and morality classes. One well-known version of the dilemma, used in Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development, is stated as follows[1]:QuoteA woman was on her deathbed. There was one drug that the doctors thought might save her. It was a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. The drug was expensive to make, but the druggist was charging ten times what the drug cost him to produce. He paid $200 for the radium and charged $2,000 for a small dose of the drug. The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could only get together about $1,000 which is half of what it cost. He told the druggist that his wife was dying and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the druggist said: “No, I discovered the drug and I'm going to make money from it.” So Heinz got desperate and broke into the man's laboratory to steal the drug for his wife. Should Heinz have broken into the laboratory to steal the drug for his wife? Why or why not?QuoteFrom a theoretical point of view, it is not important what the participant thinks that Heinz should do. Kohlberg's theory holds that the justification the participant offers is what is significant, the form of their response. Below are some of many examples of possible arguments that belong to the six stages:
There is no universal goal in the case of suicide. The goal is to end or avert personal suffering by the most certain and final means.Indeed the practical problem with decriminalising assisted suicide is to ensure that nobody is coerced towards death for the benefit of others. So here's a good moral problem: how do you distinguish between a truly voluntary Will (that includes the costs and reasonable profit of whoever assists - I've always wanted to own a comfortable suicide hostel) and excessive pressure from potential beneficiaries? In my scenario J had nothing, contributed nothing, and simply lived off scraps in dustbins, so would not be permitted to kill himself by your code of ethics, whereas W's death would profit several people and could therefore be permitted or even encouraged by society. That's all wrong, surely?
Like any other rules, moral rules are also made to serve some purpose. For example, game rules are set to make the game more interesting for most people, so the game will be kept being played. That's why we get something like hands ball and off side rules in foot ball, or rocade and en passant in chess.Likewise for moral rules. I conclude that their purpose is to preserve the existence of consciousness in objective reality. Due to incomplete information and limited resource to perform actions, we need to deal with probability theory. Something is morally good if it can be demonstrated to increase the probability of preserving consciousness and bad if it can be demonstrated to decrease the probability of preserving consciousness. Without adequate support, we can't decide if something is morally good or bad.
My concern was in relation to thisQuote from: hamdani yusuf on 06/05/2020 13:13:47IMO, suicidal behavior can only be acceptable if we know that there are other conscious beings which are not suicidal, and get some benefit from our death.Nobody apart from J will benefit from his suicide, so you say that is wrong, but W's children might encourage W to commit suicide for their benefit, which you say is right. I beg to differ - and so does the law!
J was living out of waste bins. His suicide will only benefit the population of urban foxes.I think your moral code says that no matter how wretched, awful, unremittingly painful and pointless one's existence, suicide is only permitted if it benefits someone else. In my book, that is a disgusting attitude. Whose life is it?
Anyway, let's run with it. The kamikaze pilot has sworn to die for the greater glory of the Emperor. He has several choices, including defecting to the enemy, deliberately missing his target and crashing into the sea, killing a thousand enemy sailors, or even turning back to his base and wiping out the rest of the squadron. What would you do, and what would be the greater moral good? You may tackle the simpler problem of the suicide bomber if you wish.
In your case, someone elses get benefit from J's death, although it may not be felt significant. There would be more O2 and less CO2. More space. Less disease vector. Less sh1t and urine. If J's existence can't compensate the burden he brings to the others, then letting him go would be a better option, especially when he himself doesn't want to live anymore.