Moral dilemma

[marrickvilleboy]

Ok so I thought I might post a philosophical question out to you guys. Its for my philosophy class.

So bearing that we make decisions day to day, a philosopher, Bernard Williams, proposes that there are two distinct kinds of normative considerations that may enter into our moral deliberation. On the one hand, there are those considerations stemming from an agent's 'conventional' moral views (such as utilitarian's belief that an action ought to maximize aggregate utility), while on the other hand, there are those which derive from one's personal projects or commitments. Do you think that Williams is right to distinguish between these two sorts of considerations?

We can look at an example: You have a friend who is a drug dealer, the police confront you stating that they dont have enough evidence but if you name him, they could put him to jail. So now you have a moral dilemma, social responsibility says that you should turn your friend in (we are considering that drugs is illegal and is harming society), but on the other hand, you dont want to turn him in because his your friend.

What do you guys think? is Williams right to distinguish between these two considerations? (to an extend where we can even assert that they are fundamentally different)

any thoughts or advice would be much appreciated!

[phaedo]

Thinking about this over and over, I come to the conclusion I am glad I didn't get any further with my philosophy courses than I did!

[jdfaker]

The "guilt" felt about turning in a friend is not the same as the greatest good argument. Reluctance to turn in a friend only stems from the threat of personal loss.

People are worried about alienating friends/losing loved ones. This isnt a moral character consideration, its one of selfish bases.

[fendushi]

I will NEVER, EVER... dob on a mate. It's just the way I've been brought up... it's an old Aussie saying.

I agree with jdfaker... the guilt is just too great. The dobbed can be jailed for life... or in some Asian countries, be given the death penalty.

Sacrifice one for the sake of hundreds... seems logical. But not when it's someone you know and love.

[marrickvilleboy]

The "guilt" felt about turning in a friend is not the same as the greatest good argument. Reluctance to turn in a friend only stems from the threat of personal loss.

People are worried about alienating friends/losing loved ones. This isnt a moral character consideration, its one of selfish bases.

Great point! but your "greatest good argument" appears to pertain strictly to utilitarian ideals. I feel that benefiting society and benefiting family/friends/lover are both moral views in its own right. Lets look at it this way:

In hypothetical terms with regards to the drug dealer scenario, you can turn you friend in and society will not criticize you. Similarly, you can protect your friend, and society will also not critcize you. So essentially, you can walk out of both situation feeling you have done the right thing. This "right" thing is what society itself has taught us to do - so kind of two fold in this case.

But I do think that you have raised a very valid point, the interest of a friend is one personal basis and nothing else. I guess there is no real answer to this question but I'm having some trouble siding which way and how to construct a plausible argument. It seems that I need to introduce contingencies which I feel will only weaken my argument.

Thanks for comment.

[jdfaker]

Whoops, this comment is aimed at fendushi... anyway...

Well actually I was making the argument that the dilemma is of a different type.

The greatest good argument is based on moral character and good of one's fellow man.

The one about turning in a friend/loved one is based on selfish reasons.

See example: If your wife killed someone, would you turn her in? Probably not... Why? Because it would mean you wouldnt be able to see your wife... there would be dire consequences for you.

See example 2: If your wife was cheating on you, would you want her to get caught? Probably... Why? Because her getting caught in this situation would result in a better outcome for you personally, namely, she'd probably stop cheating and you two could try and work it out.

Edited March 9, 2008 by jdfaker

[marrickvilleboy]

I will NEVER, EVER... dob on a mate. It's just the way I've been brought up... it's an old Aussie saying.

I agree with jdfaker... the guilt is just too great. The dobbed can be jailed for life... or in some Asian countries, be given the death penalty.

Sacrifice one for the sake of hundreds... seems logical. But not when it's someone you know and love.

Good point also but this idea of "never ever ratting on a friend" is a conventional moral view isn't it? If we all adhere to this ideal, its conventional right?

So now we have a problem, it seems personal projects and commitment can fall under conventional moral views.....see why this question is eating me up? its like it eats itseft up despite the fact that nothing can eat itself up :S

Edited March 9, 2008 by Marrickvilleboy

[Victoria]

Ok so I thought I might post a philosophical question out to you guys. Its for my philosophy class.

I once took a philosophy class with a professor who believed that reality didn't exist. That we were all figments of our collective imagination.

I asked, "Do you have a mortgage? Stop paying, and you'll see if you exist."

He wasn't best pleased with me.

Living as I do, a very cerebral life within myself, I have come to the conclusion that overthinking is just as bad as living life (in the phrase of Aristotle) unaware. To quote Aristotle again, happiness consists of virtuous activity.

And I could never be happy ratting out a friend.

Hope this brief reply helped, Marrickville.

@Ryyannon: Something similar also happened to me, too. This is unrelated, but I always tell my friends, if you think I will ever tell you if I see your bf/husband cheating on you, about it, think again. I'll NEVER do that.

[ryyannon]

Hmm...

This reminds me of a real-life problem I personally had not long ago. As it turned out, there was no 'right' answer: I was damned if I did, and damned if I didn't. In the end, and to varying degress, practically everyone involved lost in one way or another.

Since Vicky mentioned Aristotle, I seem to remember that either he or someone of his ilk defined tragedy in those terms.

I've thought a lot about it since, and your hypothetical problem has brought the memory back to the forefront.

And I still don't have the 'right' answer...

Could it be that sometimes there is no right answer?

By the way, I'm in no way preaching inaction, rationalization or moral equivalency here: there are times when one is obliged to take moral action whatever the consequences.

[jdfaker]

The right answer is the one that is the least bad when all of one's multiple options are unattractive.

[rodwc]

IF , Aristotle had been a drug dealer, I would have personally kicked his ass.

I`m glad that none of my friends are drug dealers also, cos I would kick their asse`s too,

Don`t any druggie come to me for help, they are simply ferrals.

[ryyannon]

@Ryyannon: Something similar also happened to me, too. This is unrelated, but I always tell my friends, if you think I will ever tell you if I see your bf/husband cheating on you, about it, think again. I'll NEVER do that.

And if the husband in question was cheating on his wife with you.

Never say never, Vicky: the flesh is weak, love itself is not always exclusive, marriages tend to get boring for one or both partners, and this is not an uncommon occurance. Under certain circumstances, an affair can even permit the marriage from totally breaking up. In places like France, it's practically an institution. At certain levels of society all over Europe, it's expected.

Were it to happen to you (admitting the idea that in real-life anything can happen) would you remain 'friends' with your friend - meaning continue your friendship as if nothing had happened? Breaking off your friendship would only be the admission that something was wrong, and would be particularly painful if there were genuine bonds of friendship between you. On the other hand, continuing as if nothing had changed would - for most people - be the worst type of betrayal.

This type of situation is so close to what psychologists call a 'double-bind' that I'm tempted to suggest that if such a situation did arise, it would indicate all sorts of underlying factors and hidden (and possibly morally valid) agendas which would preclude a black-and-white moral judgement - even though conventional morality would literally be screaming for one.

[marrickvilleboy]

.........guys I think it would be wise to close this topic....don't you think?

I really dont want to drive you guys up the wall too (moral view)

but I like to get feedback and suggestions (personal project)

:S

[ryyannon]

Hmm...

And just when the subject was getting real....

[Victoria]

And if the husband in question was cheating on his wife with you.

It's difficult to say this without sounding sanctimonious, but that's just not my style. Once, when the husband of a friend started giving me rides to-and-fro, I stopped it suddenly.

It's not because I'm a saint, but I firmly believe that you don't put temptation in your way.

Actually, this might go a little way to explaining why I suddenly clam up with certain people. I'm a very flirtatious girl, and I fear hurting guys because I'm very loving. But do you know, when I have broken up with guys, almost all (with one exception) remained my friend? One serious ex-boyfriend even named his daughter "Victoria", I recently found out. Anyway...

At certain levels of society all over Europe, it's expected.

In my mother's family, it was and is a given. Didn't help that they had "marriages de convenience". But fortunately I come from a bourgeois, boring British family on the other side. Having one's mistress attend the funeral alongside the widow,

[marrickvilleboy]

It's difficult to say this without sounding sanctimonious, but that's just not my style. Once, when the husband of a friend started giving me rides to-and-fro, I stopped it suddenly.

It's not because I'm a saint, but I firmly believe that you don't put temptation in your way.

Actually, this might go a little way to explaining why I suddenly clam up with certain people. I'm a very flirtatious girl, and I fear hurting guys because I'm very loving. But do you know, when I have broken up with guys, almost all (with one exception) remained my friend? One serious ex-boyfriend even named his daughter "Victoria", I recently found out. Anyway...

In my mother's family, it was and is a given. Didn't help that they had "marriages de convenience". But fortunately I come from a bourgeois, boring British family on the other side. Having one's mistress attend the funeral alongside the widow,

[ryyannon]

One thing is clear, Vicky:

Your avatars just get funnier and funnier

[Pugwash]

I will NEVER, EVER... dob on a mate. It's just the way I've been brought up... it's an old Aussie saying.

I agree with jdfaker... the guilt is just too great. The dobbed can be jailed for life... or in some Asian countries, be given the death penalty.

Sacrifice one for the sake of hundreds... seems logical. But not when it's someone you know and love.

Let's say the friend is a rapist. You catch him in the act. The girl wants you to be a witness at the trial.

Never dob in a mate?

[Victoria]

One thing is clear, Vicky:

Your avatars just get funnier and funnier

:cc_chinese:

BTW, the other day when I clicked on my own ID, I found out I could:

View My Profile

Find My Topics

Find My Posts

But also add myself as a friend. That's nice.

I'm reminded of Plato who said that people choose friends who resemble their own soul. And then he ruined that galactic bit of wisdom by mentioning something about white horses and black horses.

Philosophers. *smirk*

@Ryyannon: "why would you consciously or unconsciously choose a rapist to be your friend?" Precisely. Plato was right. You choose friends who resemble your own soul -- he just didn't add the unconsciously bit.

[ryyannon]

Let's say the friend is a rapist. You catch him in the act. The girl wants you to be a witness at the trial.

Never dob in a mate?

Which quite naturally leads to another and very important question, namely, why would you consciously or unconsciously choose a rapist to be your friend?

[Pugwash]

Which quite naturally leads to a subsidiary question, namely, why would you consciously or unconsciously choose a rapist to be your friend?

How would you know? Are you saying some people are pre-destined to be rapists or that we should abandon our friends when they travel a dark path?

[Victoria]

our friends when they travel a dark path?

Rape, and things of this nature, are usually preceeded by other behavioural sign posts. Recklessness, irresponsibility, malice.

One of the hardest decisions one has to make, as an adult, is judging when your friends are bad for you. First, you should try to help them, but if that fails, you have to walk away for your own good.

Obviously, this cuts both ways. One could be that person.

[ryyannon]

How would you know? Are you saying some people are pre-destined to be rapists or that we should abandon our friends when they travel a dark path?

Depends on the path the friend is following: occasional shoplifter, ok. Violent mugger, not ok. Serial rapist, not ok. Non-violent bank robber, ok. White-collar 'non-violent' Enron execs who swindeled shareholders and emptied the pension-plans of their employees, definitely not ok.

Like the L.A. Police, I believe that we're on this planet To Protect and Serve. Protect those who are weaker and in need our force; serve humanity and a higher ideal of who and what we are. Not always easy to live up to, but one can only try.

As for the question of pre-destination - wow, really too complex to be able to answer. But that doesn't enter into the equation, as far as I'm concerned - the question for me being, when do we give a pass for the moral trespasses of others and when do we hammer them?

In school and just after, I lived in a communal apartment in Chicago with a brilliant chemist from MIT. He used the University labs at night to cook up batches of LSD, which he sold to support his heroin habit. The guy was as sharp as a razor, funny and would never hurt a fly - other than himself through his addiction to heroin, which incidentally, somehow allowed him to function as a 'normal' member of society At the same time, he was shooting up and wholesaling tons of acid - some of which was undoubtedly burning out its users' minds - to be able to indulge in his little hobby.

We were great friends. There's no way I would have ever sold him down the river.

As for the 'how would (one) know' that a close friend was involved in some sort of disgusting and/or really morally reprehensible activity, I've always known that sort of thing without having to be told: call it instinct or a sixth sense if you like. Which leads me to believe that we all know these sorts of things without having to be told: whether they are conscious or not depends on our own degree of consciousness. Remaining unconscious of such givens (as in the infinitely-repeated example of the wives who 'never suspected' that their husbands were sexually abusing their daughters) is just a moral cop-out to me, meaning simply that they never wanted to know - and therefore were participating in the evil as much as the perpetrator himself.

Do you follow me here?

[Victoria]

Depends on the path the friend is following: kleptomaniac, ok. Serial rapist, not ok. Non-violent bank robber, ok. Violent mugger, not ok.

I know what you're saying, but man was that funny. :ltongue:

Basically, victimless crimes are less inhuman than those which physically hurt people. This is why we're not outraged at rep watches, but are outraged at rep eggs.

As for sixth senses, we all have that (and this business of women having more is nonsense. We're just better at recognising patterns). It's 3,000,000 years of genetic encoding which allowed us to survive.

I'm with Jung in this. Sixth sense (the collective unconscious, if you will) is simply the reservoir of human experiences bursting through every corpuscle in our bodies.

[Pugwash]

Do you follow me here?

Sure, but in theory, you have to be psychic to know all of a person's failings before you know the person.

ps. None of this answers the question as to whether or not this would force people to reconsider their 'never dob in a mate' stance.