/ Register

  • Square Elite
  1. Hi Guest, you may have noticed that we aren't khplanet.com anymore. For more information on why these changes are happening, check out our thread, Site Re-Brand Updates
  2. If you are having trouble logging in, check the box, "stay logged in" to fix the issue. Thanks! —KHP Staff
  3. Hi Guest, you may have noticed that we aren't khplanet.com anymore. For more information on why these changes are happening, check out our thread, Site Re-Brand Updates
  4. If you are having trouble logging in, check the box, "stay logged in" to fix the issue. Thanks! —KHP Staff
Logging In Site Re-Brand Updates

Is Morality based on Consequences?

Discussion in 'Mature Discussion' started by Epic Kirby, Dec 14, 2010.

  1. Dec 14, 2010 #1
    Epic Kirby

    Epic Kirby New Member

    To set off the dabate I'll tell this philisophical example, its a bit famous so you might know it.

    Jim has found himself lost in the jungle after being seperated from his expedition party. He stumbles upon renegade soldiers who have rounded up ten men from a tribe who live in the jungle. The men look frightened and scared and the soldiers are carrying guns. The soldiers then spot Jim and give him an ultimatum. He must either shoot and kill one of the tribe men or they will kill all ten

    There are two main moral positions on this, Utilitarianism, which says that what is good is what brings about the happiest consequences would proably suggest killing one man because he would be saving nine other lives. Deontology however believes that morality is not based on the consequences of an act but by the act itself. Deontologists would say do not kill the man because killing is wrong whatever the consequence.

    Myself? Very difficult to decide whose side I would be on.

    What about you guys and gals? Do you find yourself more of a utilitarian or deontologist?
     
  2. Dec 14, 2010 #2
    Desert Warrior

    Desert Warrior Well-Known Member

    First off, that hypothetical situation is a WTF moment. Personally, I believe I'm more of a third standpoint thing. I believe morality is based on society itself, and that society determines what is good and bad. If we had a society where killing wasn't bad, then people wouldn't have the same viewpoint on killing.
     
  3. Dec 16, 2010 #3
    Epic Kirby

    Epic Kirby New Member

    Yeah, I know, lol, such situations often arise in philosophy and they often would never happen in the real world. I have worse ones than that, lol.

    But what do you make of this?

    If everyone just followed whatever society told them is right then slavery would never have been abolished in America, children would still be stuffed up chimneys in England and so on. It is because people deviated from society (either deontologically) by saying that slavery is just wrong, no argument, no matter what society thinks or by utilitarianism by deciding that slavery makes people unhappy so it should be abolished.
     
  4. Dec 16, 2010 #4
    Desert Warrior

    Desert Warrior Well-Known Member

    That's because there were enough people to change society, and as a result change what is deemed right and wrong.
     
  5. Dec 16, 2010 #5
    Become

    Become The Pink Opaque Staff Member Moderator Content Writer

    Who's to hold back the man from taking a third path, and turning the gun on those making the threat? He's been given two choices in statement, but has that third option open to him, if he agrees to kill one person of the tribesmen.
     
  6. Dec 20, 2010 #6
    Kitty

    Kitty I Survived The BG Massacre Staff Member Administrator

    Well, honestly, I think more along the lines of DW in that morality is based on society. However, if you want me to just give my opinion on the two positions you gave, with this situation, I'd say that I'm probably more Utilitarian. I wouldn't exactly be pleased if I'd killed someone, but it seems like the lesser of two evils to me. But I think my view would change depending on the situation at hand. I think that there are some things that, no matter how "happy" the outcome, are just downright terrible things to do and shouldn't be excused. So I suppose I'm just one big contradiction. XD

    Perhaps, you could say that choosing that third path would be a utilitarian way of going about it, since turning the gun on the people doing the threatening would (if successful) bring about the happiest consequences for those being threatened.
     
  7. Dec 24, 2010 #7
    Mythril Roxas

    Mythril Roxas New Member

    Pessemistic side of me says Utilitarianism. Its more realistic in this situation. My optimistic side says Deontology. Because it leaves hope for all of those who are victims to come out on top and those in the driver seat forcing sick descisions to get what they deserve. The thing you have to weigh up in this situation, if it were real, is that COULD the person making the descision be able to turn the tables around. If so, then as others have stated, a third path is a blatant option. If not then of course the majority of us would all become utilitarian for this specific instant Kirby. Thats pretty much obvious (this is asuming the person choosing does not know any of the men). A harder philisophical question would be if one of your friends was the one person compaired to the 9 men you do not know. Because most of us would choose our friend. But how the hell are you gonna live that down...knowing you were responsible for 9 men's deaths. The whole situation is a very large puzzle in which the system you've given us is lacking a dynamic component. DOES the person who is choosing have the ability to create a third option. Whatever that third option may be. Possibly killing HIMSELF instead of all ten men? these things must be taken into account.



    lmao

    Morality is both innate and behavioristic. We are not born with a blank slate as behaviorists want us to think. And we are not all instinct either as evolutionists and functionalists want us to believe. We are born with a sens eof morality that is as blatant as our genes and DNA, but unlike our genes it is much more easily molded by our society. So even though we are born with a specific set of morals (as i believe we all are), they are changed by the way society works. But a man raised in no society can still have morals. They may seem childish, but they are there.


    ^^agree


    lmao



    ^^agree
     

Share This Page