Moral Dilemma

[pirana 0]

Quote

Quote

The dilemma falls down right here; it presupposes that you know too much of the future. Ho would I know those consequences for sure?

My contrived scenario is admittedly limited. Whatever its flaws, the underlying question remains. I threw in the probabilities so the risk of an attack could be perceived the same for everyone reading.

The flaw is that the very generally stated question is purely hypothetical; a thought experiment and no more.

When you give it real life details, and allow real life creativity in pursuing possible real life solutions; there is not much chance it will still be a moral dilemma.

You've constructed what might appear to be a real life situation, then put unreal limitations in, thereby forcing a choice between 2 evils in a way that ignores the complexity of the real world and the creativity of people that might actually find themselves having to solve such a dilemma.

All this so that no matter what answer is given (to the final question) you can say to the responder . . . "Aha! So you are evil after all!"

Whenever somebody starts in with one of those I stop them and ask that they ask a real question about a real situation and save the moral hypotheticals for philosophy class.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[pirana 0]

Quote

Quote

Why not just call the DA into the FBI's office and let him know the whole story, then ask him to quietly drop the case?

Because the whole purpose of the hypothetical scenario is to create a two option choice. While some clever third options have been presented, that really defeats the purpose of the question. The post wasn't intended to be a riddle that could be creatively solved.

Exactly. The purpose is to corner a person into choosing between 2 bad outcomes; maybe as a way of getting some sort of supposed insight into a person's character or principles.

A form of mental masturbation.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

The flaw is that the very generally stated question is purely hypothetical; a thought experiment and no more.

As intended.

Quote

All this so that no matter what answer is given (to the final question) you can say to the responder . . . "Aha! So you are evil after all!"

Hardly. The question was proposed specifically to avoid a right or wrong answer. It is only intended to force a scenario requiring a choice between a nation and the ideals commonly believed to make that nation what it is.

Quote

Whenever somebody starts in with one of those I stop them and ask that they ask a real question about a real situation and save the moral hypotheticals for philosophy class.

In case you didn't realize, it is a political (i.e. philosophical) question (and thread).

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[billvon 3,114]

>You've constructed what might appear to be a real life situation, then put
>unreal limitations in, thereby forcing a choice between 2 evils in a way
>that ignores the complexity of the real world and the creativity of people
>that might actually find themselves having to solve such a dilemma.

Actually, such simplified thought experiments (gedankens) are quite useful in the theoretical world. Some famous examples are Schrodinger's Cat (science) the trolley problem (ethics) the Brownian ratchet (science) and the infinite monkey theory (probability.)

>When you give it real life details, and allow real life creativity in
>pursuing possible real life solutions . . . .

I have this funny image of you talking to someone about Schrodinger's Cat:

"So the question is - is the cat half alive?"
"Of course not! The cat would escape."
"In this thought experiment, the cat cannot escape."
"Well, someone would let it out!"
"No, no one lets it . . ."
"I'd call the ASPCA then! I can't believe you're talking about killing a cat!"
"No one is saying to actually kill the cat."
"Well, then he's alive, duh. What idiot talks about half dead cats? Who came up with this thing anyway?"

[Nightingale 0]

Clear Carl. When we allow our principles of justice to be compromised, we are no better than the terrorists.

[rehmwa 2]

Meh - Bill and the FBI sure could arrange a mock trial if Carl was agreeable.

If not, Carl should have his life back. No matter what. (unless Carl is a white male religious person who makes more that $40K/year, then he should be destroyed for the good of all on any and all trumped up charges)

1 - forced to choose the dilemma, easy. Carl should be cleared.

2 - It's more interesting to read the creative 3rd solutions though. They discuss alternate ways that Carl can be cleared without sacrificing other major concerns

I'm with pirana

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Carl should be cleared.

Okay, that seems to place you in the "allegiance to ideals over nation" group.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Not really much of a dilemma. If I hold my tongue, the innocent man has no chance of avoiding imprisonment and bad people are allowed to continue being bad. If I speak the truth, there is a 19% chance that nothing bad will happen, and a high probability that at least some bad people (Adam and Bill) will be prevented from harming innocent people.

That's an interesting method of analysis, comparing the probabilities of no one being harmed:

19 > 1.

Clearly, submitting the evidence is 19 times more likely to result in no deaths or convictions of an innocent person compared to withholding the evidence.

* * * * *

When I posted this thread, I was leaning towards the "ideals over nation" choice. The more I think about it, the more I believe withholding the evidence is the better choice. I would argue that it is also the rational choice.

If I withhold the evidence, the worst case scenario is three lives ruined, Carl's, Bill's, and my own. Carl goes to prison, while Bill and I could be guilt ridden to the extent of it ruining our lives. That implies the high end of the expected cost is 2.97 lives. If Carl is paroled after 25 years, and Bill and I suffer from no guilt, the low end of the expected cost is 0.33 lives, about 1/3 lives.

On the other hand, if I submit the evidence, the lower limit of the expected cost is 0.54*M, where M is the expected magnitude of a fully successful terrorist attack from the cell. The upper limit of the expected cost is 0.81*M. In other words, if a successful attack would have a magnitude of about 4 lives, then the expected cost of submitting the evidence exceeds the expected cost of withholding the evidence.

I don't see any reason to consider Carl more important than potential victims of an attack. As much as it would suck to have to choose, I would hope I would make the rational choice.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Balu 1]

Quote

I don't see any reason to consider Carl more important than potential victims of an attack.

But it is so simple. Carl is living under the rule of law, as everybody else in a free country does. If you start cutting people's rights, you are violating their constitutional rights. Our society claims the freedom of every individual person, other than for example communist societies do. If you see it from the point of philospohy of law, importance does not matter, as everybody has the same rights.

1300 Sprünge, 100er Wingsuit Formation, viele nette Menschen kennengelernt, keine Unfälle. Schön war's!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

I don't see any reason to consider Carl more important than potential victims of an attack.

But it is so simple. Carl is living under the rule of law, as everybody else in a free country does. If you start cutting people's rights, you are violating their constitutional rights. Our society claims the freedom of every individual person, other than for example communist societies do. If you see it from the point of philospohy of law, importance does not matter, as everybody has the same rights.

Unfortunately, it isn't so simple. Does Carl's right to life and liberty trump those same rights for multiple other people? Which is the more fundamental right? The right to liberty or the right to life? Are Carl's rights even violated if the evidence is not presented?

Regardless of which choice is made, Carl receives due process of law. That he faces probable conviction if the evidence (which neither the prosecution nor defense knows about) isn't presented is a flaw of the system, highlighting how dangerous it can be when persuasive rhetoric takes the place of logic when arguing a case before a jury. Since he is receiving due process of the law even if the evidence is withheld, Carl's Constitutionally guaranteed rights are not violated.

The US does not hold the rights of the individual above the safety of the group in all cases. For example, the First Amendment does not offer protection to someone who yells, "Fire!" in a crowded theatre or "Bomb!" at a large commercial airport.

As you say, everyone has the same rights. The philosophy of law does not imply for us that Carl has greater rights than everyone else, thus, the law doesn't indicate that we should make a decision based on Carl's well being, without respect to the well being of others.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!