The Moral Choice

[Imran Siddiqui]

Are you saying you wouldn't feel guilt, David, if you knew that you could have saved someone from dying if only you had acted, but you didn't so that person is dead?

[loinburger]

Originally posted by David Floyd
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.

You're doing nothing do prevent their deaths despite presumably having the power to do so, therefore, regardless of where the responsiblity for their deaths lies, you're allowing them to die. That's what allowing means -- it doesn't mean that you're directly killing them, it means that you're failing to prevent their deaths despite having the ability to do so. If you were directly killing them, then I'd say that you were killing them -- it's pretty unusual to say that a murderer "allowed" the death of his/her victim...

All of which still fails to address the point that you claim that this is an amoral decision, which I can't see how you can justify without assuming that there is no such thing as "good" (merely the "absence of bad").

[Al B. Sure!]

David Floyd applying his odd libertarian viewpoint to a movie...

how about existentialism? It should fit libertarianism what with existentialists saying that you have complete rights and control over yourself... yet existentialists would blame you for not helping when someone died. hell, they'd blame you for trying and failing.


thanks

[RGBVideo]

What's up with these Matrix-threads? Make one thread, then stick with it, I say!

[loinburger]

Well, this isn't really a Matrix thread per se (hell, "matrix" isn't even in the thread title), since there are bajillions of hypotheticals that Floyd could have used in place of the given hypothetical. Plus, the topic would probably threadjack any "serious" and/or "movie-review" Matrix discussion beyond recognition.

[Ben Kenobi]

Why would we believe anything the Architect says?

Your example falls apart, DF.

Besides this point has been argued before, in an older threat. Different hypothetical.

[Sandman]

Grab the Architect, try to copy Agent Smith's copying technique, and one Neo goes through each door, with the real one going to save Trinity.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

It is imoral if you can save someone's life but you dont.

[Berzerker]

You're doing nothing do prevent their deaths despite presumably having the power to do so, therefore, regardless of where the responsiblity for their deaths lies, you're allowing them to die. That's what allowing means -- it doesn't mean that you're directly killing them, it means that you're failing to prevent their deaths despite having the ability to do so.

Yikes, so if I don't try to remove guns from society via government, I'm morally responsible for people who get shot?
Doesn't that mean we're also morally responsible for people who die from alcohol, drugs, over eating, etc, if we don't use government to regulate our entire existence?

[Bereta_Eder]

Go after Trinity. She's hot!

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Yikes, so if I don't try to remove guns from society via government, I'm morally responsible for people who get shot?

Floyd presented a simple dilemma, whereas the issue of regulating handguns is quite a bit more complex. You might wind up causing more harm than good through regulation (e.g. if regulation prevents innocent people from defending themselves from criminals). It's not necessarily a black-and-white "regulate handguns, prevent murders," whereas Floyd's is a black-and-white "use your god-powers, prevent murders."

Doesn't that mean we're also morally responsible for people who die from alcohol, drugs, over eating, etc, if we don't use government to regulate our entire existence?

This isn't analogous to Floyd's dilemma either, since his did not deal in self-inflicted harm.

[Berzerker]

But if we can determine that X number of people will be killed with guns if they're legal and Y number will die if they're illegal and X is larger than Y, would that mean we are responsible for people who die from gunshots? And what if we determine X is larger than Y and we outlaw guns, what is our moral complicity when people are killed by criminals because we legally prevented the victims from owning guns?

[loinburger]

Is Y a subset of X? If so, then assuming that there are no additional benefits or ill effects of outlawing guns, and assuming that we're omniscient, then we would share partial responsibility (the bulk of it still falls on the criminal, of course) for the deaths of those members of X that are disjoint from Y should we fail to illegalize guns. We're not complicit in the deaths of members of Y regardless of our choice of actions, since there is no way for us to prevent their deaths in this hypothetical.

[Berzerker]

We're not complicit in the deaths of members of Y regardless of our choice of actions, since there is no way for us to prevent their deaths in this hypothetical.

But they might be able to prevent their own deaths with legally bought guns. We've made it illegal for them to own guns, so are we morally complicit when they are killed by criminals when they would have successfully defended themselves? For example, guns are outlawed and I break into your home and murder you and your family. Are the people who outlawed guns morally complicit?

But had guns never been outlawed and you owned one and prevented me from murdering you and your family, are you morally complicit if I break into someone else's home instead and murder them with a legally bought gun? Seems to me there is no contest between the moral complicity of action (outlawing guns) and inaction (no law banning guns).

[Frankychan]

Restart Zion (but it should be 'Maintain Current Order').

Even though Trinity is hot, she's nothing compared to the rest of humanity. Even if humanity is enslaved, at least they are still alive and can, hopefully, be liberated another day.