The Moral Choice

[David Floyd]

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.

This choice-consequence argument is ridiculous. Saving Trinity does not cause the death of humanity - machines cause the death of humanity, as the final outcome of a war of extermination.

At that juncture, Neo did have the ability to save either humanity or trinity. Thats why there were two doors.

You are taking a simplistic view. The "Trinity Door" represented the only thing Neo could do and have any amount of control or freedom - his actions would allow him to save Trinity. Taking the other door would mean that he hoped someone else would decide not to murder billions of people, but the murder of these people was never up to Neo anyway - if he really had a choice, obviously he would have chosen life over death. But he never had a choice in this manner - only the machines did.

Loinburger,

Yes, you're right. I realized I was wrong - it would be immoral not to go after Trinity when you had a moral means of doing so.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

This choice-consequence argument is ridiculous. Saving Trinity does not cause the death of humanity - machines cause the death of humanity, as the final outcome of a war of extermination.

Saving Trinity will cause the death of humanity because he chose not to save them.

You are taking a simplistic view. The "Trinity Door" represented the only thing Neo could do and have any amount of control or freedom - his actions would allow him to save Trinity. Taking the other door would mean that he hoped someone else would decide not to murder billions of people, but the murder of these people was never up to Neo anyway - if he really had a choice, obviously he would have chosen life over death. But he never had a choice in this manner - only the machines did.

If Neo had chosen the other door, he would have prevented Zion from being destroyed. It was up to him to stop the machines from doing it, and he chose trinity.

[David Floyd]

Saving Trinity will cause the death of humanity because he chose not to save them.

Neo never had that choice. The machines did.

It was up to him to stop the machines from doing it, and he chose trinity.

Walking through a door stopped/caused nothing. The decision made by the machines is what would cause life/death of humanity.

[Ben Kenobi]

LoA:

Look at it this way;

If it is immoral to have the ability to save someone, and yet allow them to die, there is no moral solution to the dilemma.

Both choices are immoral.

So we come back to the premise, is it immoral to not save someone's life when presented with the choice between two lives?

The only moral decision can be to refuse to make the choice, regardless of the consequences.

[loinburger]

The only moral decision can be to refuse to make the choice, regardless of the consequences.

So, given the choice between saving one person (or one group of people) and saving nobody, it's better to save nobody? E.g., if you have access to one vial of medicine that will cure a terminal illness, but there are two people with this illness, then it's better for you to just keep the vial for yourself than to save only one of the people?

I just can't see how this makes any sense whatsoever. If you save one person, then you're partially complicit in the death of the person that you did not save. If you don't save anybody, then you're partially complicit in both deaths.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by loinburger

So, given the choice between saving one person (or one group of people) and saving nobody, it's better to save nobody? E.g., if you have access to one vial of medicine that will cure a terminal illness, but there are two people with this illness, then it's better for you to just keep the vial for yourself than to save only one of the people?

This example is not appropriate; this problem was solved long ago by medecine dealing with urgence or scarcity : they took the efficiency way, that is trying to cure the one who has the longest life expectancy. No moral choice at all.

When a demoniac mind corner you in a position where there are only bad solutions, as in the prisonner exemple I gave above, the moral decision is in not giving satisfaction to the demoniac mind, whatever are the consequences, as said by Obiwan, even suicide.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by DAVOUT
No moral choice at all.

So you see absolutely nothing wrong (or even questionable) about refusing treatment to one person in lieu of another?

When a demoniac mind corner you in a position where there are only bad solutions, as in the prisonner exemple I gave above, the moral decision is in not giving satisfaction to the demoniac mind, whatever are the consequences, as said by Obiwan, even suicide.

The point is that the Neo example is not one in which there are only bad solutions, or rather, it is not one in which all bad solutions are equal. In the prisoner example you cause less harm (or prevent more harm) by refusing to make a choice (i.e. by committing suicide) since you are not forced to denounce anybody that way, but in the Neo example you cause more harm (prevent less harm) by refusing to make a choice -- rather than saving somebody, you save nobody.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by loinburger

The point is that the Neo example is not one in which there are only bad solutions, or rather, it is not one in which all bad solutions are equal. In the prisoner example you cause less harm (or prevent more harm) by refusing to make a choice (i.e. by committing suicide) since you are not forced to denounce anybody that way, but in the Neo example you cause more harm (prevent less harm) by refusing to make a choice -- rather than saving somebody, you save nobody.

That is precisely what I call the efficiency solution: minimizing the QUANTITY of harm. But even a smaller number of death is immoral and therefore cannot be a choice more moral than the other, just more efficient.

[loinburger]

Then the only choice is to live your life as a moral fetishist. There's always an opportunity cost to any action -- if you try to cure AIDS then you're not devoting those resources to trying to cure cancer, if you try to outlaw firearms then you're not giving people the chance to defend themselves from attack whereas if you try to prevent the outlawing of firearms then you're enabling criminals, and if you try to save one person from an untimely death then you're failing to save another person. However, if you live as a moral fetishist, you can always just say "It's not my fault -- I didn't even try to do any good in the world."

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by loinburger
Then the only choice is to live your life as a moral fetishist. There's always an opportunity cost to any action -- if you try to cure AIDS then you're not devoting those resources to trying to cure cancer, if you try to outlaw firearms then you're not giving people the chance to defend themselves from attack whereas if you try to prevent the outlawing of firearms then you're enabling criminals, and if you try to save one person from an untimely death then you're failing to save another person. However, if you live as a moral fetishist, you can always just say "It's not my fault -- I didn't even try to do any good in the world."

This is why, when we are totally satisfied by an efficiency solution (doctors) it is useless to refer to the moral. We should keep it for the cases for which the efficiency solution let us in doubt regarding its moral meaning.

May I say also that the fire arms problem is not a moral dilemna as long as american people will tolerate an absurd rate of kills, as well as an incredibly high number of people in jail (proportionally five times more than in Europe), but you certainly know that.

[David Floyd]

DAVOUT, you're missing the point. In my example, Neo does NOT have ANY control over the life or death of humanity. Therefore, the only moral question is whether or not he should go after Trinity.

[Az]

Btw, Where's the "Kick Architect's Ass" Option?

[Lawrence of Arabia]

DAVOUT, you're missing the point. In my example, Neo does NOT have ANY control over the life or death of humanity. Therefore, the only moral question is whether or not he should go after Trinity.

IF that is true, then why was he gien a choice?

[Berzerker]

If you save one person, then you're partially complicit in the death of the person that you did not save.

How can you be morally complicit when nothing you do will save both?

[loinburger]

Your complicity would be greater if you did have the ability to save both. However, the fact that you're only capable of saving one doesn't change the fact that you're choosing to allow the other to die -- it can't be an amoral decision to judge that one person's life is more important than somebody else's. The main question in determining complicity in the "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation is one of intent -- why save one person in lieu of the other?