Theists and Atheists: How far will you take your rationalization?

[Taverner]

I do not mean this as a call out

But simply a question. How many actions that may be deemed unethical or immoral, or at least unproductive for the whole, would you permit yourself to get away with by rationalizing you did it for "the greater good"?

Now I'm sure all of you will say "Me - never! I always follow to my ethical and moral framework!"

But I call bullshit on that - for everyone.

Let's step back and say we know for certain that if we kill innocent person x, we save the lives of a thousand people. But if we don't kill x, those thousand will die. Many of us will rationalize that it's OK, because we saved a thousand. But that is a rationalization - you still defended killing an innocent person.

Then let's look at the little things. We could cite anything from a Christian supporting missionaries, even though they know there are a few con men in their ranks - to supporting organizations that vandalize other places for their cause (Think: PETA.)

With this in mind, how far would you really go to rationalize behavior that in itself is wrong?

[Angry Dragon]

1. Satan did it ................ works for me all the time

[Taverner]

2. LOL

The Devil made me do it!

[Thats my opinion]

3. It just may be unethical and immoral

to hold rigidly to some "law" if it violates a higher principle. Rules exist to be in service of ethical presupposition. If ethical presuppositions are in service of rules, then you have a legalism that is destructive of values. The utilitarian "greatest good for the greatest number" may be a way to think about the issue.

[Taverner]

4. But if we take the utilitarian argument, we still end up killing the innocent person

Some can live with that - I could not

[dmallind]

6. And that would be the right moral choice - how could you live with killing thousands?

Because by refusing to kill the innocent one, that's what you have done.

[Taverner]

8. To me, at least, "Do no harm" overrides the communitarian argument

[dmallind]

12. You ARE doing harm - to the thousand.

[Bluenorthwest]

16. How is killing thousands 'doing no harm'?

The choice you gave is one dies or thousands die, there is no 'no harm' choice given.

[Taverner]

21. No you aren't. After all, wasn't this the kind of thinking that led to torture?

[dmallind]

24. Non sequitur.

There is indeed no "non-harm" option in your case. You set up the scenario where you know deaths will result. It's a clear scenario and not connected at all to any possibility or actuality of torture.

We have no clue what moral system lead to torture in any case. Even the most ardent deontologist will face cases, especially in wars and when faced with terrorism, where they must break either one rule or another.

[Taverner]

27. I think it applies

We are talking the Jack Bauer Justification

And it fails because you can never know what will happen

[dmallind]

11. Whether we admit it or not we all act as utilitarians

It's evil to torture a child isn't it?

But is it evil to take them to a dentist? The pain of many dental procedures can rise to levels of torture, but we not only make a ten year old get root canals, we pay for the privilege. Why? To save them from even greater pain and damage later. Utilitarianism in a nutshell. Anybody who inflicted the level of pain on a child that a full bony impaction extract and a root canal causes without need would rightly be called a torturer, but we do it every day.

[Taverner]

28. This is why we invented anesthetics....

Viva Cocaina!

[Jim__]

26. There are serious problems with "the greatest good for the greatest number."

One problem, as Garrett Hardin noted in The Tragedy of the Commons, it is not possible to maximize for 2 variables simultaneously:

... It is not mathematically possible to maximize for two (or more) variables at the same time. This was clearly stated by von Neumann and Morgenstern, <3> but the principle is implicit in the theory of partial differential equations, dating back at least to D'Alembert (1717-1783).

Another problem is that while under some circumstances we may accept a utilitarian solution (for instance the trolley problem), in other cases we probably wouldn't. As a simple example for demonstration purposes, suppose it was empirically demonstrated that we can reduce the number of innocent people murdered by, say, 50 per year, if we execute 10 people. This year, we have only executed 9 killers. Should we seek the utilitarian solution and execute an innocent person to to save the 50? I think most people would say no.

[dmallind]

5. You're begging the question. You assume a deontological base

Utilitarians and other followers of teleological systems base their ethical/moral system ON (usually) the greater good. It's not a "rationalization" of killing an innocent person, it's that in the case you describe, killing the innocent person is the only sound decision and good choice for a moral agent to make.

You seem to be insisting that some moral rules are absolute - a deontological view - and that killing and vandalism can only be evil occasionally rationalized. Instead we should view them as guidelines which are handy for most circumstances but not only can breaking them be "rationalized" but also a good act in certain circumstances.

[Taverner]

9. Not necesarrily - I take an attitude of "do no harm"

And part of why I am against the Death Penalty in almost all cases, actually no, make that all cases

[dmallind]

13. And the harm to the convict you spared's next victim?

If you knew he would kill again? You get to absolve yourself of that because it wasn't your hands that killed them, even though you could have prevented it? Do/would you take your kid to the dentist?

[Warren Stupidity]

14. so how exactly do you 'do no harm' in your hypothetical?

You have presented a case where you must choose to either kill one innocent or, by not killing that one, kill one thousand innocents. Is your out here that your passivity (choosing not to actively kill the one) that kills one thousand innocents is an inaction rather than an action? Seriously?

[Peregrine]

7. I have no moral issue

I'm an atheist and a sociopath.

[procon]

10. These are YOUR issues... yeah?

Your whole assumption is flawed from the onset because you wrongly assume that everyone shares your personal belief set. When you try to pigeonhole everyone to fit within such a narrow, stereotyped hypothesis just to force a predetermined -- and thinly veiled --response, that's not a 'question' it's 'baiting'.

[TeamPooka]

15. Kobyashi Maru

The scenario you offer, as many have done in the past, to justify the deeds at Gitmo, Abu Gharib etc is that you "know" thousands will be killed.

but those scenarios are never true or accurate in real life.

If you kill one man who can prove another will not take his place and carry out your "doomsday scenario"?

Morals and ethics reside within a human and cannot be projected to control others actions.

"To thine own self, be true."

[RC]

17. If the man is innocent, how do we know a thousand will die if he is not killed?

Not enough information to even form a coherent opinion.

[Jim__]

18. Rationalization is an assumption on your part.

Rationalization implies a form of hypocrisy - people are fooling themselves about the morality of their action. You need to show that.

Supporting Christian missionaries or supporting PETA are not necessarily hypocrisy. People can believe that they are, in net, doing good.

I don't accept that there is any absolute standard of morality. Each person has to decide the morality of his own acts. Can people rationalize? Sure. But they'll have to uncover their own rationalizations.

[struggle4progress]

19. I'm not really sure what you are asking:

all decisions in such matters are to made in light of the best understanding of the actual circumstances that one can obtain at the time

in some cases, one has good and ample opportunity to learn the facts before deciding how to act, and in other cases an immediate decision about whether/how to act might be required without much opportunity for careful assessment

moreover, in practice one often does not have a full range of choices: the options are typically non-optimal

after considering along such lines, i conclude that usually one must choose between paths, none of which would seem adequately "moral" -- if judged later by some abstract standard by someone with a full grasp of the facts and a willingness to criticize the actor for inadequate creativity and energy and foresight and intuition and quick-wittedness

so i say we almost always make bad choices, perhaps because we have been ill-prepared to make good choices, being unable at critical moments to see any fuller range of options

[rrneck]

20. It's the trolly problem.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

Killing people is always wrong. Every time. But sometime it's necessary. The term "rationalization" is just another way of saying "live with it".

Welcome to the human condition.

[Silent3]

23. That's exactly what came to mind for me

I have a big problem myself with the idea of flipping the switch and killing one person to save five other people. Most people do.

But is it a sign of moral strength that most people wouldn't want to flip the switch? Or is it merely a matter of wanting to keep one's own hands clean, trying to put inaction in a separate category from action, conveniently calling it "fate" or the "will of God" if you don't interfere?

[rrneck]

25. If we decide in advance

what we think is the right thing to do, isn't that an even bigger rationalization? It seems to me that depending on theology or law prepares us for a convenient absolution later.

Maybe moral courage is doing what you have to do then spending the rest of your life trying to make amends for it.

To paraphrase Doc in the movie Cannery Row, "Maybe it wasn't my fault, but it will always be my responsibility. "

[Deep13]

22. I hope not very far at all.

But without specific examples it is hard to know exactly what you mean.

[Iggo]

29. Does sending a soldier to certain death count as killing an innocent person?

Because...then...well...maybe.