This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


Morality vs Pragmatism


34 members have voted

  1. 1. Scenario 1

    • Save the person you love most and let 1,000 people die.
    • Save the 1,000 strangers, and let the person you love most die.
  2. 2. Scenario 2

    • Save the 19,000 in Rogers Arena and let the nuke in Tokyo detonate.
    • Save Tokyo by destroying RA and killing the 19,000 inside.

Recommended Posts

I chose the options that killed the most people since there are too many on the planet already. I will sleep sound tonight with this decision. In fact I could probably go to sleep right now.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would argue the ends cannot justify the means, because in the long term the ends are as of yet undetermined (we have no idea what the long term consequences of any action might be). Thus we cannot link 'this action' to 'this outcome' except in the short term.

How would the destruction of Tokyo affect the world? No one can say. Tokyo has been obliterated before, resulting in one of the largest industrial revitalizations I have ever heard of, I certainly wouldn't have predicted WW2 helping turn Japan to into a world leader in quality manufacturing. Does this (or other reasons) justify the action of fire-bombing Tokyo into dust? I can't really say as I don't have a chance to evaluate the consequences of not having done so, any speculation as to what might have happened is just that, speculation.

If we can't determine if Tokyo's destruction would result in something good or bad, then any decision we make today about whether it should be destroyed is irrelevant. It equates to saying, I choose to kill everyone in Tokyo over RA because... I don't know why; that can be neither moral or immoral in my view. Suffice to say you had to make a choice, but you do not know the outcome either way, so you can't possibly choose the "right" choice, either choice is free of morality and of pragmatism, and is simply a matter of random choice. You can pretend you have a moral or logical basis to make that choice, but really it is a series of highly random events earlier in your life that have led you to have that point of view, you had no control over these events, and you have no control over how you will react to this sort of scenario.

I would say it does suggest a great ego at work when someone tries to justify why they would or wouldn't pick one scenario over the other, anyone who tries to find the high ground and justify their answer is in effect attempting to say they know which option would be better, and I don't think anyone can make that determination. Are the many greater than the few? No one can say, because no one knows the course the future will take. It says a lot about an individual who thinks they know the answer to that question, even more about those who then impose their view on others.

All I can really say is that people dying seems like a bad thing to me, but in end I have no idea. Thats my answer. :P

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.