Moral dilemma

[marrickvilleboy]

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

The problem is that we often don't see that side of a friend. Hence the reason why we befriend them in the first place right?

now the question at hand is that ONCE you see that a friend has raped someone, what do you do? tell on him? or turn a blindeye.

In this very example, I think some of us will end the friendship and cease to contact him whilst some would turn and testify against him. It really falls down to how severe his crime/unconventional act is on my scale. The issue with the drug dealer is that his crime is NOT consider as high as say rape or killing, hence why we would have this dilemma. If my father went about intentionally killing someone, I will report him. If he accidentally killed someone out of self defense or another justifible reason, I may not.

See how these contingencies can change the result of our thoughts? I can't answer my original question by adding these conditional factors, it'll be too easy for my professor to find weaknesses.

[marrickvilleboy]

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.

Unfortunately, nor does it help to answer the original question at hand but I guess I should take what has been said into account. They are afterall intrinsic value.

[Pugwash]

What do you guys think? is Williams right to distinguish between these two considerations?

To go back to the original question, yes. We all weigh up consequences and make value judgements with every large decision we make. If we didn't, society would be different. Every time someone thinks "I hope she won't tell my wife", a balance of risk/reward is made and that's what value judgements are. Your friendship has a value and you have to work out how much that value is.

"A friend helps you move house. A true friend helps you move a body."

[ryyannon]

See how these contingencies can change the result of our thoughts? I can't answer my original question by adding these conditional factors, it'll be too easy for my professor to find weaknesses.

What makes you believe that your Professor has any valid answers? He's just doing his job, which at best, should be preparing you for the life-long task of examining it (ie, developing your consciousness), and at worst, throwing you curve-balls which neither you nor he can ever really connect with in the real world - meaning outside the walls of academia.

[Victoria]

What makes you believe that your Professor has any answers? He's just doing his job, which at best, should be preparing you for the life-long task of examining it (ie, developing your consciousness), and at worst, throwing you curve-balls which neither you nor he can ever really connect with.

Right. It's just an exercise to help you develop argumentation. There is no right or wrong answer.

Williams sounds Nietzschiean to me. There is no odour of categorial imperative in his "no conditional factors" argument.

E.g.:

Sometimes human beings act contrary to what is good for themselves, and their survival. Mothers do so for their children, almost as a given, but perfect strangers with no relation to another person, can give their lives for that person too. Why?

It's not conditional. It's almost irrational, in fact. It's contrary to utilitarianism, which undermines that particular philosophy.

EDIT: This last point reminds me of an anecdote about Jeremy Bentham, the godfather of Utilitarianism, of course.

One day, he sat down to write a woman who he wanted to marry, all the reasons why it would make perfect sense for them to be wed.

He wrote them in tidy, 1-2-3 bullet point fashion. Every argument was sound, completely true, and logical to the nth degree. In short, marrying Jeremy Bentham made perfect sense, and maximised Utility to its fullest degree.

There was only one problem.

The woman didn't fancy him.

[marrickvilleboy]

To go back to the original question, yes. We all weigh up consequences and make value judgements with every large decision we make. If we didn't, society would be different. Every time someone thinks "I hope she won't tell my wife", a balance of risk/reward is made and that's what value judgements are. Your friendship has a value and you have to work out how much that value is.

"A friend helps you move house. A true friend helps you move a body."

I like that line. I guess i really shouldn't let this question bother me, i've spent the last 3 days thinkiing about when i have 4 other midterms to take this week.

What makes you believe that your Professor has any valid answers? He's just doing his job, which at best, should be preparing you for the life-long task of examining it (ie, developing your consciousness), and at worst, throwing you curve-balls which neither you nor he can ever really connect with in the real world - meaning outside the walls of academia.

Yes your right. I ought to stick with one argument and just try to justify it the best i can. Thanks for putting me back on track.

[ryyannon]

Sometimes human beings act contrary to what is good for themselves, and their survival. Mothers do so for their children, almost as a given, but perfect strangers with no relation to another person, can give their lives for that person too. Why?

It's not conditional. It's almost irrational, in fact. It's contrary to utilitarianism, which undermines that particular philosophy.

:

The only thought-system that ever answered that one to my satisfaction is Buddhism: it's called compassion.

You get a somewhat similar version of that in Catholicism, with Jesus dying on the cross in order to redeem all of Humanity from the sin of...being human. A noble and sublime idea indeed, except that few people ever really get it - which is understandable, since (especially for the Buddhists) it's a concept that borders on insanity.

[Victoria]

The only thought-system that ever answered that one to my satisfaction is Buddhism: it's called compassion.

That's beautiful.

You get a somewhat similar version of that in Catholicism, with Jesus dying on the cross in order to redeem all of Humanity from the sin of...being human. A noble and sublime idea indeed, except that few people ever really get it., which is understandable, since (especially for the Buddhists) it borders on insanity.

For me, Jesus dying on the Cross illustrates the point I just made above. Selfless giving of one's life for the continuation, indeed REDEMPTION of others.

I also appreciate in Judeo-Christianity that God is unknowable, omniscient, and omnipresent. God doesn't exist in a rock, it explains. It's beyond human comprehension to fathom what God is, and even my own ideas of God may well turn out to be wrong. As an intelligent being, I'm willing to accept that incomprehensibility.

But hey, we just had that religious argument.

Philosophy is much less controversial, because you actually have to know crap to talk about it.

[Pugwash]

I like that line. I guess i really shouldn't let this question bother me, i've spent the last 3 days thinkiing about when i have 4 other midterms to take this week.

I found a really good book on dealing with procrastination, but I've not got round to reading it yet.

[sssurfer]

Sometimes human beings act contrary to what is good for themselves, and their survival. Mothers do so for their children, almost as a given, but perfect strangers with no relation to another person, can give their lives for that person too. Why?

It's not conditional. It's almost irrational, in fact. It's contrary to utilitarianism, which undermines that particular philosophy.

The mothers in example are maximizing their chance of survival and reproduction of their genes and memes.

The strangers in example might be maximizing their chance of survival and reproduction of their memes, if they share some common memes (e.g. religion or other beliefs).

If they are perfect strangers who know absolutely nothing about the other one, sacrifice is not going to happen, unless because of previuos obligations socially taken (e.g. firemen), number considerations (e.g. sacrificing one to the life of many), or because of being driven by a specific meme that is intentionally (either consciusly or inconsciously) spread to take advantage of others' sacrifice.

[ryyannon]

That's beautiful.

Ain't that the truth!

For me, Jesus dying on the Cross illustrates the point I just made above. Selfless giving of one's life for the continuation, indeed REDEMPTION of others.

Yes, ok, but Redemption from what? It almost seems as if it's Redemption from not knowing that we need redeeming, which is a bit silly. On another level, it can be the understanding that we need redemption (ie, consciosness of our prior state of unconsciousness - meaning our separation from the Divine, an idea which I can and do buy into.

I also appreciate in Judeo-Christianity that God is unknowable, omniscient, and omnipresent.

Check (I guess).

God doesn't exist in a rock, it explains.

Umm...why not. I thought 'God' was everywhere - even in the lowest reaches of Hell - if I remember Dante correctly.

It's beyond human comprehension to fathom what God is, and even my own ideas of God may well turn out to be wrong. As an intelligent being, I'm willing to accept that incomprehensibility.

Heck, yeah...we all have our off days...

But hey, we just had that religious argument.

No beef with you, schatzeline...

Philosophy is much less controversial, because you actually have to know crap to talk about it.

I'm not with you on that: pure theology is to philosophy as caviar is to....fish eggs! IMHO

[Victoria]

If they are perfect strangers who know absolutely nothing about the other one, sacrifice is not going to happen, unless because of previuos obligations socially taken (e.g. firemen), number considerations (e.g. sacrificing one to the life of many), or because of being driven by a specific meme that is intentionally (either consciusly or inconsciously) spread to take advantage of others' sacrifice.

I knew someone would counter with that.

An anecdote as rebuttal:

One time, my mother and I were in a dark carpark near Coconut Grove. It was late, and we were walking to our car, when suddenly my mother saw a stranger with a balaclava covering his face, approach us. SHE SCREAMED! I was stock silent.

From the corner of my eye, I saw a man jump the wall separating his side of the carpark from ours, and rush headlong towards us, running after the would-be thief. This hero had no gun, and no knife we later saw, and he was actually rather skinny, and runty.

He came back, huffing and puffing, asking us if we were okay. It happened in a matter of SECONDS. Pah. It was over. We each of us went on our way.

To this day, I have no idea who this Good Samaritan was, and why he would risk his life for two unknown women who he probably will never meet ever again.

All kinds of cynical explanations ("maybe he thought you were hot" ) don't explain his actions.

There are no memes to explain this selfless behaviour of trying to save a life which has absolutely no connection to yours. IMHO.

[Pugwash]

There are no memes to explain this selfless behaviour of trying to save a life which has absolutely no connection to yours. IMHO.

Risk assessment. He made a snap decision based on the risk to himself (with possibly not enough information to make a fully informed decision) versus the benefits of having "less crime". His value judgement was also based on some pretty primordial instinctive reactions to protecting those who can procreate the species. Would he have done it if it were two men instead of two women? Simple answer, no he wouldn't.

So, yes, it does come down to thinking with his genitals, just on a level he probably didn't realise.

Oh, and one more thing in the risk/reward. How good do you think he felt, walking away with the adrenaline rushing through his veins and feeling of chivalrous heroism in his heart. Subconsciously, we men live for moments like this in our imagination, but don't often get the chance to see them through.

[ryyannon]

Maybe the guy in the balaclava just wanted to know who has the best sub?

Ashamed to ask, an' all that....

@Pug:

There are guys who would have intervened had it been two men being stalked by a third.

I once even saw a dog break up a fight between two or three other dogs - and he didn't even have a dog in the fight, as it were.

[Victoria]

Oh, and one more thing in the risk/reward. How good do you think he felt, walking away with the adrenaline rushing through his veins and feeling of chivalrous heroism in his heart. Subconsciously, we men live for moments like this in our imagination, but don't often get the chance to see them through.

Dude, one time I lunged myself at a little girl who was crossing traffic. She and I were almost run over, but she most certainly would've been.

I am not an heroine, and obviously, I lack a huge pendulous pair. *checks* Yep, still missing.

I was a fool, because I could've died, leaving my parents bereft and childless. In retrospect, I don't know if I would repeat my action. I sometimes have awful nightmares about this.

Speaking of which, my Chinese collector condenscended to answer my email, I have paid for my watches, and can sleep the sleep of the Just. Or at least, the rep watchful.

May you gentlemen have interesting conversations in the meantime. Oodletoo.

[Pugwash]

@Pug:

There are guys who would have intervened.

Sure there are, but they are in the minority. Almost every bloke would want to[1] unquestioningly defend women against an unknown assailant as it's hardwired into our brains. It takes a bloke with a strong sense of justice to defend men against unknown assailants, unless of course it's his job.

Oh, and firemen don't sacrifice their lives to save others per se. They are trained to judge the safety of a situation and assess the danger before taking calculated risks. When a fireman dies saving someone else, he's doing his job badly. I'm sure they try to seek out the over-heroic or suicidal trainees and fail them because the last thing you want is a member of your team to knowingly endanger your lives by willingly getting themselves killed.

[1] I say "want to" as these instincts can be over-ridden by further risk assessment.

[rodwc]

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

Does anyone" know " their friends inside out ?

I think not.

Do you" honestly" think for one mili-second, that Anyone would tell you (friend or not )

that he/ she was a rapist?

[TeeJay]

I think the question itself is somewhat flawed, as it doesn't take into account the nature of crime and shades of grey. It looks at it from the black and white view that crime is crime, crime is wrong.

So this hypothetical friend is a drug dealer:

Do they sell drugs to school children?

Do they make crack whores grant sexual favors for the drugs?

Do they sell drugs only to well-informed adults who know what they're doing, and responsibility over their own actions?

Do they have a family to support?

Is this the only way they can make money to support themselves/and family?

Drug dealing is a very 'grey area' in the moral compass. Yes, it's a crime, but, there are worse crimes. The friend who might not inform on a drug-dealing friend, would likely not hesitate in reporting a friend who committed rape.

Here's an actual real-world variation that I'm actually struggling with myself.

I know of someone who is a habitual shoplifter. They've been in trouble with the police on several occasions for violent behaviour (but never actually caught shoplifting) This person thinks that because they've never been caught, this justifies their behaviour. This person is living in a hostel for the needy, flouts the rules on alcohol (it is a 'dry' house) yet still expects the hostel staff to protect them, and keep bailifs out, when they arrive to reposess their stuff.

As the hostel is in a different town, this person is not known to the shops as a shoplifter.

Should I report them to the police, so they can get caught/kicked out of the hostel, or, should I just ignore their behaviour, and let them (possibly) get caught at some point in the future (chances are they wouldn't)

Do I take a course of action which could definitely make worse, the life of someone who hasn't done anything to me, but, which, ultimately, might teach them some common decency and make them grow up, or, do I take the view that it's nothing to do with me, and do nothing?

I should add that I don't consider this person 'a friend', as they're not someone I would choose to associate with, however, they are someone who is generally inoffensive, and always passes the time of day, so at the least, they are 'friendly'...

[Edit to add]

Although this person tends to steal things which are 'beneficial' for themselves, deoderants, razors etc, they do not steal things which are absolutely essential to their survival, and, often steal goods for others (as gifts) or to sell on.

Edited March 9, 2008 by TeeJay

[ryyannon]

Ok you guys, The Moment of Truth has arrived:

http://www.4degreez.com/misc/dante-inferno-test.mv

[marrickvilleboy]

@ teejay

The example that I provided is the example that my professor provided in class, believe it or not, he was actually the guy who was being asked by the police. However, the actual question does not pertain specifically to that example, I thought i'll throw that in for those who may want to visual what the question can relate to, but its not verbatim in that we don't need to answer the question in reference to it.

That being said, it does appear that the question is very very vague in some sense, I was originally thinking, is it asking if its fundamentally different? as in the two considerations, but what is fundamental? and where we do draw the line?

Just so everyone knows, this will be my first and last philosophical class, its too complex for me and I've spent way too much time thinking about it.

[TeeJay]

@ teejay

The example that I provided is the example that my professor provided in class, believe it or not, he was actually the guy who was being asked by the police. However, the actual question does not pertain specifically to that example, I thought i'll throw that in for those who may want to visual what the question can relate to, but its not verbatim in that we don't need to answer the question in reference to it.

That being said, it does appear that the question is very very vague in some sense, I was originally thinking, is it asking if its fundamentally different? as in the two considerations, but what is fundamental? and where we do draw the line?

Just so everyone knows, this will be my first and last philosophical class, its too complex for me and I've spent way too much time thinking about it.

I wasn't suggesting that the question wasn't genuine, just that drug-dealing, really falls into the grey area of crime, so isn't really the best example which could have been used. Do drug dealers sell stuff which can kill people? Yes. Do drug dealers force their clients to take the drugs? No. Do the clients have a choice to buy the drugs? Yes. (Even addicts have the choice to get help, rather than stay addicted) By the fact the clients still have a measure of control/responsibility over the situation, I'd say that puts drug-dealing squarely in a grey area, where it ultimately comes down to one's loyalty to one's friend, rather than acting 'for the good of society', (who can choose not to take the drugs) If someone is a rapist or serial killer, that is when they pose an active threat to society, which society cannot choose to avoid, so of course, such people should be reported, be they friend, sibling, parent or spouse.

My personal issue, is that while the person I know is not actually hurting anyone with their actions, they have no justification for breaking the rules which everyone else has to follow, and, especially with regards their hostel, don't deserve the protection of such a place, when they flaunt it's other rules, which is why I feel they deserve to be brought to task over their behaviour, but, don't really see that it's my place to bring about that event, hence my dilemma.

[sssurfer]

Vicky, with all due respect, unfortunately your anedocts are no rebut. Pug already explained the first one, and sacrificing oneself to a child's life is a well known both genethically- and memethically-driven behaviour.

Imagine I (like the "Saw" felloon) abduct you and put you into an empty room. There is just one button there. I tell you that in another room there is another one that I am going to kill in a while unless you press the button before I act. If you press it, I'll instead kill you and leave the other one free. You know absolutely nothing about him/her. He/she may be anyone from a child to an 80-years-old serial killer with a cancer that will kill him/her in a week in any case. What do you do?

Too simple?

Now you have two buttons, one green and one red. The red button will kill you and save the other one, the green button the opposite. He/she has two identical buttons in his/her room. If noone of you will press a button in a while, I am going to kill you both.

And I might go on...

Better not.

[sssurfer]

but what is fundamental? and where we do draw the line?

What about no fundamental and no objective line?

EDIT: please disregard it. Too simple, and it adds nothing to the discussion.

[cornerstone]

How good do you think he felt, walking away with the adrenaline rushing through his veins and feeling of chivalrous heroism in his heart. Subconsciously, we men live for moments like this in our imagination, but don't often get the chance to see them through.

I think this story from today's papers (and there's a half-decent chance Offshore knew the guy who died) proves your point:

Lauryn Eagle leapt out of a white Mercedes and raced towards the jetty, choking back tears and screaming.

The shattered remains of the speedboat in which her father, Peter, had been driving was moored in the water at the NSW Police Marine Area Command in Balmain.

"Is he alive or is he dead? Just tell me? Is he alive or is he dead?" she cried.

Grieving family members....confirmed her father was dead.

Later, pouring out their grief over the shell of the badly damaged boat, members of the Eagle family watched as a parade of powerboats moved slowly past on a lap of honour for the family patriarch.

Eagle, a 10-time Australian water-skiing champion from Oatley in southern Sydney, died when his seven-metre Bernico boat flipped on Sydney Harbour yesterday morning. It was another tragedy for the family.

The crew of the HarbourCat ferry Pam Burridge discovered the capsized vessel near Balls Head Point, on the north-west side of the Harbour Bridge, about 9.15am.

Rescuers found Eagle's body beneath the upturned hull.

His racing partner, former world disabled water-skiing champion Geoff Burgess, was pulled unconscious from the water and put on a NSW Maritime vessel.

A Maritime officer performed CPR on Burgess, who had no pulse, for nearly eight minutes. He was taken to Royal Prince Alfred Hospital with serious head and leg injuries.

His condition was downgraded from serious to stable last night.

Ferry master Mark Verrills said the rescuer "just didn't let up" on Burgess.

"He wasn't going to let him die. If that guy lives he will owe that Maritime bloke a beer every day for the rest of his life," he said.

@Marrickvilleboy - there's a gap between caring about the question and putting in a paper to get you through the class without doing your head in. Away from the (very interesting) ethical implications - it's fundamentally a philosophy class style question, getting into the mechanics of it. Unitarianism, Consequentialism, find out what everyone else thought of Bernard Williams' arguments and then use that as the basis of the thrust of your argument (after all, they put more time into worrying about it), reference other modern philosophers / ethicists, spin it together in a coherent way. College is about learning how to think so that you can apply it later in life: specifically "how can I get this paper out of the way so I can go to a bar" can later be useful for "how can I get out of this meeting so that I can go to a bar".

[Raijor]

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.

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."

Brilliant