The Moral Choice

[David Floyd]

OK, here it is. This thread contains Reloaded SPOILERS, so read at your own risk.


The Architect gives Neo a choice. He can try to save Trinity, but witness the destruction of the human race, or he can take the other option, not save Trinity, and reload Zion with 23 people (saving, if you will, 23 people).

What is the moral choice here?

[David Floyd]

I voted that the choice is amoral. No matter which option Neo picks, he won't be responsible for the death of anyone. The only thing he can potentially be responsible for is saving Trinity, but this is no guarantee, and, according to the Architect, not even possible.

But no matter what Neo does, he is not killing anyone. Therefore, the decision can simply be based on personal preferences and values, not an overriding moral value. If all the humans are going to die, that's the fault of the person who kills them, not Neo. If Trinity dies, that's also not the fault of Neo, as he didn't shoot her.

So, the choice is amoral, but I would go after Trinity.

[Al B. Sure!]

David:

I saw the original Matrix and didnt Keanu reeve's character have the exact same problem? Lawrence Fishburn was captured by the computer people and they said that it was only a matter of time before the computer people got the codes or whatever to get into the Zion computer... Keanu Reeve's could've killed Fishburn in his seat, saving Zion but killing Fishburn or he could've tried to save him and probably fail but have both Fishburn and the population of Zion die.

dont tell me Matrix 2 repeated the same problem but with a different person.

[Al B. Sure!]

anyway... what ever choice has the fewest number of casaulties is the most moral...

but if he did try to save trinity, and succeeded, everyone would die except for him and trinity?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by David Floyd
according to the Architect, not even possible.

Why would we believe anything the Architect says?

[St Leo]

The Architect could talk all four legs off the Arcturan Megadonkey, but only Deep Thought could get it to go for a walk afterwards.

[David Floyd]

anyway... what ever choice has the fewest number of casaulties is the most moral...

In my opinion, this is wrong. The most moral personal choice is the one that involves 0 immoral actions.

[Al B. Sure!]

David Floyd:

What the hell? then what determines immoral actions? an action is more moral and than another if fewer people suffer because of it.

[loinburger]

I'm operating on the assumption that the Architect is lying out his ass. As such, I'd try to save Trinity, if for no other reason than because the Architect obviously doesn't want me to.

As for the most moral choice being the one that involves zero immoral actions, well, no ****. The problem is that this is not always possible. If by choosing to do nothing others are going to suffer, then said choice is not (necessarily) the most moral.

[David Floyd]

What the hell? then what determines immoral actions? an action is more moral and than another if fewer people suffer because of it.

No, wrong. An action is immoral if you commit any immoral acts. For example, murdering one person on the premise that you'd be saving five is totally immoral.

Loinburger,

If by choosing to do nothing others are going to suffer, then said choice is not (necessarily) the most moral.

What happens to others is never your own fault, unless you are the one directly harming them.

[loinburger]

Bullocks. Unless you're operating on the assumption that taking no action is equivalent to taking positive action (e.g. that not-giving to charity is morally equivalent to giving to charity) then I fail to see how you can claim that the decision between helping or not-helping is amoral.

If you are operating on that assumption, then that's not a black-and-white moral system, it's a black-and-grey moral system.

[David Floyd]

then I fail to see how you can claim that the decision between helping or not-helping is amoral.

I have nothing against helping or saving lives. My problem comes in when my action to save one life also directly takes another life. I won't kill 1 to save 5.

[loinburger]

Your original contention in the thread was that Neo's choice was amoral. Killing one person to save five doesn't come into play -- the question was about allowing one group of people to die in order to save another (or about letting everybody die and taking a nap), and unless you're operating on the assumption that taking no action is morally equivalent to attempting to save somebody's life then I don't see how you're justifying the amorality claim.

[Imran Siddiqui]

What about the option:
They are equally moral?

[David Floyd]

the question was about allowing one group of people to die in order to save another (or about letting everybody die and taking a nap),

You're missing the point. You're not the one allowing anybody to die, because you aren't the one killing them. The responsible rests squarely on the shoulders of the murderer, not on you.