Moral Dillemas

[Nyx]

In World War II, the Nazi's did more than just killing Jews. They tried to make them feel so guilty that they would get mentally destroyed. To do this, they had a few 'Moral Dillemas'. There is one dillema that I would like to discuss with you guys.

They had a system, I believe it is called '2 work permits'. The Nazi's would come to your house, pick someone (most of the time the father, but it could be the mother or a child too) and you would have to pick ONE other family member to live with you. The others would get killed. If you don't choose, they murder the whole family. What would you do?

 

[Yoghurt]

It may just be that I've woken up but do they come and choose one member
to survive then you pick another? Or do you only choose one to survive?

 

[Nyx]

It may just be that I've woken up but do they come and choose one member
to survive then you pick another? Or do you only choose one to survive?

First one. It's a two work permit.

 

[Spraynwipe]

That's horrible, I wouldn't know what to do.. Probably just sit there and offer myself to die instead of my siblings or parents.

 

[Nyx]

That's horrible, I wouldn't know what to do.. Probably just sit there and offer myself to die instead of my siblings or parents.

They would kill you all if you don't make your decision immediately.

 

[Yoghurt]

Would depend on many factors , but basing it on my family I would definatly pick one of my brothers but again what one is a question I could never answer. Reason being it would be what my parents would have wanted and it would tear them appart inside If I chose them.

 

Flee, obviously (as many did.)

 

[Travis]

naturally you would go for the youngest child, it may of been a hard choice but there is very little in way of options you could of done.

 

[Nyx]

Flee, obviously (as many did.)

It's not like they send you a letter and kindly request you to respond ASAP, they just break down your door, hold a gun to your tempora and give you 5 seconds to decide.

naturally you would go for the youngest child, it may of been a hard choice but there is very little in way of options you could of done.

Agreed with the bolded part.

 

[Gonzo Joe]

My sister, considering right now she's pregnant. Of course though it would be a soul crushing decision to make, but my family would all back the choice.

What sort of disgusting person could do that?

 

It's not like they send you a letter and kindly request you to respond ASAP, they just break down your door, hold a gun to your tempora and give you 5 seconds to decide.

Well then strictly speaking, it isn't a moral dilemma. For it to be a moral choice (i.e. a choice to which morality is applicable) it must first be a free choice.

Not to put to fine a point on it, but a moral code will only instruct you where it is applicable. Where it is not applicable it cannot help you.

Agreed with the bolded part.

Why does the youngest automatically get to live?

 

[Gonzo Joe]

Why does the youngest automatically get to live?

They've had the shortest life, they're also most likely to be the most innocent and scared in that situation. I know any adult or any older sibling will know they'd die for a younger family member, well at least I like to think that.

I know I would.

 

They've had the shortest life, they're also most likely to be the most innocent and scared in that situation. I know any adult or any older sibling will know they'd die for a younger family member, well at least I like to think that.

I know I would.

Let's say that there are 4 children. Are you saying that the arbitrary order of their birth should dictate which children live? And, incidentally, why not any other arbitrary factor -- for example: why not the tallest, or the smartest, or the most charismatic?

 

[Lured Yah]

They've had the shortest life, they're also most likely to be the most innocent and scared in that situation. I know any adult or any older sibling will know they'd die for a younger family member, well at least I like to think that.

I know I would.

however on the other hand the youngest person might be traumatised for the rest of his/her life and not be able to live a normal life again.


the choice would be easy for me. I'd pick my mother, as I'm an only child without a father(he died before I was born)

 

[Gonzo Joe]

Let's say that there are 4 children. Are you saying that the arbitrary order of their birth should dictate which children live? And, incidentally, why not any other arbitrary factor -- for example: why not the tallest, or the smartest, or the most charismatic?

I was referring to my own family situation, but I still think the family member with the least life experience should live. In a situation with a lot of children then I'd pick the one I was closest too, I know you're not supposed to have favourites but I think in that situation then there's no choice.

 

[Travis]

It's human nature to protect our young, because we know the younger they are the more fear they will have and as an older brother/sister/parent when the time arises you would do anything to protect your youngest. Lets look at Jordan Rice.

13 year old, who was unable to swim, yet had the instinct to get the rescuers to save his brother's life first which tragically ended his own.

 

[Nyx]

Why does the youngest automatically get to live?

I can't prove that with a theory or with a statement, it is what I would do in a similar situation. They are the most innocent and vulnerable.

 

I was referring to my own family situation, but I still think the family member with the least life experience should live. In a situation with a lot of children then I'd pick the one I was closest too, I know you're not supposed to have favourites but I think in that situation then there's no choice.

Right but you admit this is a personal preference and not a universal rule.

It's human nature to protect our young, because we know the younger they are the more fear they will have and as an older brother/sister/parent when the time arises you would do anything to protect your youngest.

That's a better although still weak argument. If we look at it from maximizing genetic survival, the oldest (children) should live because they are the least likely to perish when they have to fend for themselves.

I can't prove that with a theory or with a statement, it is what I would do in a similar situation. They are the most innocent and vulnerable.

In the proposed scenario everyone is equally innocent and vulnerable. (Unless one of them is an SS snoop or something.)

 

[Gonzo Joe]

Right but you admit this is a personal preference and not a universal rule.

Morals are personal.

 

Morals are personal.

Choosing whether to follow (objective) morality is personal, just as choosing whether to follow medical advise is a personal choice. But ethics, like medicine, is not subjective.

http://www.freedomainradio.com/FreeBooks/UniversallyPreferableBehaviourEthics.aspx