The Moral Choice

[Static Universe]

Originally posted by 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.

The "Austin Powers" solution.

[Ramo]

Knowing nothing else from your premise *assuming the Architect isn't lying, etc.), restarting Zion is the ony moral choice.

I would say that a situation where everyone dies is defintely worse than a situation where everyone but 23 people die. Since morality is a system of judging social actions, restarting Zion is clearly the more moral social interaction.

[Rogan Josh]

I thought it was interesting that the Architect was not surprised or perturbed by Neo's choice, and didn't seem to do much to try and change his mind. If the Matrix is really hundreds of years old, I would have thought there would be a better protection mechanism at the point where Neo makes his choice.

After all, there have already been 5 'Neos' before who obviously made the other choice - if they had all made a random choice, the chance of the Matrix surviving this long would be 1 in 32. Clearly the choice is not 50-50 but still. Even if the choice was 90-10 in favour of the 'destroy Zion, save humanity' door, the probability of getting this far would only be about 60% (0.9^5).

In fact, to have a 90% chance of surviving 5 itterations, 'Neo' would have to choose the 'destroy Zion' door 98% of the time.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Berzerker
But they might be able to prevent their own deaths with legally bought guns.

I assumed for the sake of simplicity that Y is a subset of X, so the people in Y die regardless.

If you assume that Y is not necessarily a subset of X, then by helping to pass a law that banned handguns you would be partially complicit in the deaths of those members of Y that are disjoint from X (the bulk of the responsibility still rests on the criminal, of course -- your action or inaction merely enables the criminal to some greater or lesser extent, while the criminal is the one who is actually committing murder), whereas if you were capable of passing said law and did not (out of laziness or moral fetishism or whatever) then you would be complicit in the deaths of those members of X that are disjoint from Y.

Similarly, if the law were already in place and you had the power to lift the gun restriction, then you would be complicit in the same deaths (members of Y disjoint from X) if you chose to maintain the status quo, and likewise you would be complicit in the same deaths (members of X disjoint from Y) were you to rescind the ban on guns. The ordering in this case doesn't matter (i.e. it doesn't matter if the status quo is total legality of guns or total illegality of guns, or if your power is the ability to outlaw handguns or to rescind the ban on handguns) -- all that matters is that you're assumed to be omniscient, that you are given only two choices (total commitment or total inaction), that there are no side-effects to action or inaction in addition to those listed in the hypothetical (the lifes or deaths of members of X or Y), and that you have the full power to enact your decisions.

[DAVOUT]

The reasonning based on the numbers is not a reasonning on moral but on effectiveness of the choice.

I compare this situation, where both choices are bad and you are forced to choose anyway, to the situation of the prisonner tortured to denounce other people; he knows that he cannot resist indefinitely. It seems that the moral solution is to commit suicide, and some did.

[Berzerker]

Loinburger -

I assumed for the sake of simplicity that Y is a subset of X, so the people in Y die regardless.

Y is not a subset of X, just a smaller number. X are the people who die because of legalised gun ownership and Y are the people who die because guns are outlawed. Some in Y would be alive if guns were legal and some in X would be alive if guns were illegal.

If you assume that Y is not necessarily a subset of X, then by helping to pass a law that banned handguns you would be partially complicit in the deaths of those members of Y that are disjoint from X

I agree, if I want to ban guns and I get my way, I'm morally complicit when a criminal commits a murder that would have been prevented if guns had remained legal.

whereas if you were capable of passing said law and did not (out of laziness or moral fetishism or whatever) then you would be complicit in the deaths of those members of X that are disjoint from Y.

If we accept this as true, and I would if I could prevent a murder with no one being harmed but the murderer, is the moral complicity equal? If I ban guns and you are murdered as a consequence, is my moral complicity greater than if I opposed banning guns and you were murdered as a consequence?

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Berzerker
If I ban guns and you are murdered as a consequence, is my moral complicity greater than if I opposed banning guns and you were murdered as a consequence?

I'd say that your complicity is the same in either case (assuming all other things being equal).

[Berzerker]

Hmm...so then if I outlaw a medicine you need to live, my moral complicity is equal to not outlawing the medicine you need, but not providing the medicine if you lack the means to buy it yourself?

[loinburger]

It's somewhat dependent on the economic specifics. If I'm not able to buy the medicine myself due to my own stupidity ("I was on my way to buy the medicine, but I got side-tracked and wound up spending the money on expensive prostitutes") or laziness ("I was going to get a job so that I could afford medicine, but I'm a lazy bastard") or whatever, then your complicity in the latter case is reduced if not eliminated -- you can't be expected to save me from me. It also depends on whether or not you'd be put to any economic disadvantage in the latter case -- if you can acquire a limitless supply of medicine for free, then your complicity is greater than it would be were you to be put under any kind of economic strain (the greater the strain, the less the complicity) as a result of buying the medicine for me.

It also depends on whether or not you're working on a closed-world assumption. If I'm the only person in the world who needs this medicine, and if you're the only person in the world who is capable of buying the medicine for me, then (assuming that it's not my fault that I can't afford the medicine, and assuming that you are put under no economic strain by giving me the medicine) your complicity is equal in the former and latter cases.

[David Floyd]

I'm not backing away from my original position that going after Trinity is the most moral action, but let me rephrase the scenario a bit:

IF you choose to go after Trinity, are you responsible for the death of all humanity?

[Lawrence of Arabia]

I thought it was interesting that the Architect was not surprised or perturbed by Neo's choice, and didn't seem to do much to try and change his mind. If the Matrix is really hundreds of years old, I would have thought there would be a better protection mechanism at the point where Neo makes his choice.

After all, there have already been 5 'Neos' before who obviously made the other choice - if they had all made a random choice, the chance of the Matrix surviving this long would be 1 in 32. Clearly the choice is not 50-50 but still. Even if the choice was 90-10 in favour of the 'destroy Zion, save humanity' door, the probability of getting this far would only be about 60% (0.9^5).

In fact, to have a 90% chance of surviving 5 itterations, 'Neo' would have to choose the 'destroy Zion' door 98% of the time.

Except, you dont have a choice. The choice has already been made for you.

IF you choose to go after Trinity, are you responsible for the death of all humanity?

Yes, to a certain extent. You are not the one pulling the trigger so to speak, but you where given an oppertunity to save them and you didnt.

[David Floyd]

Yes, to a certain extent. You are not the one pulling the trigger so to speak, but you where given an oppertunity to save them and you didnt.

Whoa, sorry, wrong. You never had the ability to save anyone - only the person controlling their collective fates did. That is, the AI machines. They are the ones ultimately responsible for the life or death of all of humanity, regardless of what you/Neo does.

All you can (potentially) control is the life or death of Trinity. Once you recognize that, then the choice, to me, becomes clear - you take responsibility for what YOU can do, and if someone ELSE behaves immorally, that isn't your responsibility.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Take responsibilty for your actions. If you choose Trinity over humanity, thats your choice. The consequence of this action is the death of humanity. If you choose humanity over Trinity, the consequence of this action is the death of trinity.

At that juncture, Neo did have the ability to save either humanity or trinity. Thats why there were two doors. If he chooses one over the other, then he is responsible for the death of the other, because he had the choice to. Either way, to some extent, he is responsible.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Actually there is no opportunity, and instead of being a slave he chose freedom by saving Trinity - and actually he was the first "one" to do so after 6 of them - well that was the right choice, at least in the film, but in the real world too.

He actually did not have a choice of saving th race - he would just continue the cycle - he had a choice of freedom and fight + saving the women he loved vs submission and acceptance of his fate as the machines prescribed.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by David Floyd
I'm not backing away from my original position that going after Trinity is the most moral action

I thought that your original position was that the choice was amoral.