Fun moral dilemmas

[poxpower]

Yay.
Answer these for fun.

1. A man was wrongfully put in jail. He escapes, which is against the law. They catch him and the next day he is proven innocent.
What should they do with him?

2. A man is wrongfully committed to a death sentence. While he's about to be executed, he defends himself somehow, killing the executioner and delays the sentence just long enough to be proven innocent.
Should he be charged with anything?

3. A scientist creates a perfect copy of a human bit by bit using non-organic parts and nanotechnology ( or whatever ). Does that scientist own the creation? Could he enslave it? Or did he just create a free being equal to himself?

4.If a person is in a situation where he could save 5 people if he kills one, and everyone knows that he did indeed kill the guy but saved the 5, should he be charged with murder? What if he didn't kill the person, causing the death of 5?
What if he doesn't kill the person, the 5 people die, and then the person he was supposed to kill dies too?

yay

[morefngdbs]

At 8/20/08 11:13 AM, poxpower wrote: Yay.
Answer these for fun.

1 What should they do with him?

They should release him & pay him repatriation money for his time incarcerated & inconvience .

2 Should he be charged with anything?

No he was protecting his innocent life from being unjustly ended & he should seek a large monetary payment for his incarceration & inconvience.

3. Does that scientist own the creation? Could he enslave it? Or did he just create a free being equal to himself?

No it his, similar to a person with a new baby, he would have to raise/train it ,care for it until it could be proven that it can function in society, well just like you for example.

4.should he be charged with murder? What if he didn't kill the person, causing the death of 5?
What if he doesn't kill the person, the 5 people die, and then the person he was supposed to kill dies too?

No he shouldn't be charged with murder, & if he decides to save one & not 5 he still shouldn't be charged with any crime , plus if he saves no one & watches them all die...why charge a person who maybe in their opinion, didn't want to risk themselves .

yay

;-)

[Gunter45]

At 8/20/08 11:13 AM, poxpower wrote: 1. A man was wrongfully put in jail. He escapes, which is against the law. They catch him and the next day he is proven innocent.
What should they do with him?

In this scenario, there are legal channels for dealing with this. Excepting weird situations and just going with the vanilla scenario where he's doing a normal bit and some evidence comes to light, he should be charged with escaping prison. Of course, I think, given the circumstance, he'd be let off the hook for it, but he should definitely be charged for it.

People are held in holding cells to await trial. Should they get to escape if they're proven innocent later? The system is flawed, but the legal structure it provides is necessary.

2. A man is wrongfully committed to a death sentence. While he's about to be executed, he defends himself somehow, killing the executioner and delays the sentence just long enough to be proven innocent.
Should he be charged with anything?

No. Even according to Hobbes' social contract, you're allowed to kill in defense of your life. Now, had he been actually guilty, the state still has a compelling interest to kill the guy, whether or not what he did still constitutes self-defense .

3. A scientist creates a perfect copy of a human bit by bit using non-organic parts and nanotechnology ( or whatever ). Does that scientist own the creation? Could he enslave it? Or did he just create a free being equal to himself?

People are not free to do with their creations as they wish, there are responsibilities. If a scientist creates a sentient being with feelings, then he is responsible for making sure

4.If a person is in a situation where he could save 5 people if he kills one, and everyone knows that he did indeed kill the guy but saved the 5, should he be charged with murder? What if he didn't kill the person, causing the death of 5?

He'd have to be able to prove it. A situation in which the guy has a gun trained on 5 bound and gagged hostages, then he's pretty much in the clear. If it's some sort of conspiracy in which the guy has some kind of plan that he's going to enact but isn't physically threatening anyone as of yet, you'd have to prove that he had the means and the resolve to go through with it and the only thing stopping him was lethal force. That means you'd have to prove, not only if he was actually going to do it, but the fact that you had to kill him.

What if he doesn't kill the person, the 5 people die, and then the person he was supposed to kill dies too?

I'd say he has to at least try to stop the guy. In fact, I think it's a commendable effort and a sign of moral integrity if he tried his damnedest to stop the guy with nonlethal methods and failed.

It would just mean that he sucks at being a hero.

[Gunter45]

At 8/20/08 11:34 AM, Gunter45 wrote: People are not free to do with their creations as they wish, there are responsibilities. If a scientist creates a sentient being with feelings, then he is responsible for making sure

Odd, I've never had some of my typing get cut off in the middle of my post.

What I had said is that he's responsible for making sure that it's cared for. He's created life, after all, and there are all kinds of rules and regulations concerning how you treat living creatures in this country.

Now, it should be treated as an equal human being, however, there would have to be legislation drawn up to account for it. It wouldn't pass of course, because the Moral Majority would claim that it's a defamation of God's creation, even though it really should be seen as a testament to God's brilliance that he could develop us with such expertise and capability, but whatever.

[Al6200]

At 8/20/08 11:13 AM, poxpower wrote:

1. A man was wrongfully put in jail. He escapes, which is against the law. They catch him and the next day he is proven innocent.
What should they do with him?

He should be given a light penalty for trying to break out of jail. Even if you're innocent, it's still not okay to waste prison resources and scare the public by trying to break out.

2. A man is wrongfully committed to a death sentence. While he's about to be executed, he defends himself somehow, killing the executioner and delays the sentence just long enough to be proven innocent.
Should he be charged with anything?

Yes, he killed the guard. Even though his situation is regrettable and ironic, two wrongs don't make a right. Just because the state had made a serious error, doesn't mean that he can kill their employees without due process.

But then again I also am an opponent of the death penalty.

3. A scientist creates a perfect copy of a human bit by bit using non-organic parts and nanotechnology ( or whatever ). Does that scientist own the creation? Could he enslave it? Or did he just create a free being equal to himself?

The human he creates has the same human rights as any other human.

4.If a person is in a situation where he could save 5 people if he kills one, and everyone knows that he did indeed kill the guy but saved the 5, should he be charged with murder? What if he didn't kill the person, causing the death of 5?

He should be tried for murder if he took an action that allowed people to die, and which he knew would directly lead to their deaths.

I.e, not killing the one man is an act of murder.

What if he doesn't kill the person, the 5 people die, and then the person he was supposed to kill dies too?

That would suck.

[MrHero17]

1. Give him some money as compensation

2.I don't think the guy should be put in jail since he had already been jailed and nearly killed for something he didn't do so I say give him some community service and give some money to the executioners family.

3. He gets parental rights to it.

4. Do nothing to him, killing the one is the most logical thing to do but as a civilian, if his inaction leads to death he's not guilty of anything so letting the 5 die is understandable to, albeit I would kill the one but there should be no punishment what so ever.

[therealsylvos]

At 8/20/08 11:13 AM, poxpower wrote: Yay.
Answer these for fun.

1. A man was wrongfully put in jail. He escapes, which is against the law. They catch him and the next day he is proven innocent.
What should they do with him?

Drop all charges, let him go

2. A man is wrongfully committed to a death sentence. While he's about to be executed, he defends himself somehow, killing the executioner and delays the sentence just long enough to be proven innocent.
Should he be charged with anything?

Yes, manslaughter

3. A scientist creates a perfect copy of a human bit by bit using non-organic parts and nanotechnology ( or whatever ). Does that scientist own the creation? Could he enslave it? Or did he just create a free being equal to himself?

If it is truly a perfect copy of a human with the same kind of mind and everything, then yes a free being equal to himself

4.If a person is in a situation where he could save 5 people if he kills one, and everyone knows that he did indeed kill the guy but saved the 5, should he be charged with murder?

Yes

What if he didn't kill the person, causing the death of 5?

No because he didn't cause their death.

What if he doesn't kill the person, the 5 people die, and then the person he was supposed to kill dies too?

How does that affect anything?

yay

Yes yay.

[Cuppa-LettuceNog]

At 8/20/08 11:13 AM, poxpower wrote:

1. A man was wrongfully put in jail. He escapes, which is against the law. They catch him and the next day he is proven innocent.
What should they do with him?

Not charge him for the break out. It is due to their own incompetent legal system that he was put into prison in the first place. You can only find a person guilty of a crime if it's proven that a reasonable person would not behave the exact same way (and if a reasonable person MIGHT act that way, you always give the guy less time), and any reasonable person would escape false imprisonment.

2. A man is wrongfully committed to a death sentence. While he's about to be executed, he defends himself somehow, killing the executioner and delays the sentence just long enough to be proven innocent.
Should he be charged with anything?

No, but not for the "he was innocent in the first place" argument. Killing the executioner was a survival technique. Although it's morally reprehensible that he did it, the fact was that you can never prosecute someone for doing what they needed to do to survive. Every person should consider the lives of others over their own lives, but it's their right NOT to do it. I wouldn't charge to man for the same reason I wouldn't charge Bob McPlaceholdername for murder because Hitler McScaryname put a gun to his head and made Bob shoot Joseph McDeadpants under threat of death.

3. A scientist creates a perfect copy of a human bit by bit using non-organic parts and nanotechnology ( or whatever ). Does that scientist own the creation? Could he enslave it? Or did he just create a free being equal to himself?

Depends. Is this thing a mental equal to a human?

4.If a person is in a situation where he could save 5 people if he kills one, and everyone knows that he did indeed kill the guy but saved the 5, should he be charged with murder? What if he didn't kill the person, causing the death of 5?

If he chooses to kill the one, then he's a hero and should not be charged. If he chose not to kill the one guy then he's a coward, and should not be charged.

What if he doesn't kill the person, the 5 people die, and then the person he was supposed to kill dies too?

Then this dudes an idiot.

----------------------------------------
----------------------------------------
-
What if theres this hella loose girl your chilling with, and she's only 15, but she really really looks 17, and she's totally good at keeping it on the DL?

Hell, I say go for it, bruh.

[Gunter45]

At 8/20/08 12:02 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: No, but not for the "he was innocent in the first place" argument. Killing the executioner was a survival technique. Although it's morally reprehensible that he did it, the fact was that you can never prosecute someone for doing what they needed to do to survive. Every person should consider the lives of others over their own lives, but it's their right NOT to do it. I wouldn't charge to man for the same reason I wouldn't charge Bob McPlaceholdername for murder because Hitler McScaryname put a gun to his head and made Bob shoot Joseph McDeadpants under threat of death.

Fucking bingo.

Has nobody ever heard about the right to survival?

There are two reasons why the guy would still be executed (if guilty) for killing his own executioner: because he's still sentenced to death and because he's interfering with what the law deems a righteous execution.

If he's innocent, then he's cleared of his death sentence and if he kills the executioner, he's actually HELPING the law. By saving his own life, he has prevented the execution of an innocent man.

There is no law that says you can't kill someone who's trying to kill you.

[therealsylvos]

At 8/20/08 12:07 PM, Gunter45 wrote:
There is no law that says you can't kill someone who's trying to kill you.

However the executioner is not a murderer, and thus not worthy of death.
The person has a right to defend himself, but he could prevent execution without killing the executioner, thus by going overboard and killing the excutioner he is guilty of manslaughter.

[poxpower]

At 8/20/08 12:02 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote:

Depends. Is this thing a mental equal to a human?

Yes, a perfect copy but you know it's a robot.
Like, he made it and it was already an adult.

At 8/20/08 12:11 PM, therealsylvos wrote:

At 8/20/08 12:07 PM, Gunter45 wrote:

However the executioner is not a murderer, and thus not worthy of death.
The person has a right to defend himself, but he could prevent execution without killing the executioner, thus by going overboard and killing the excutioner he is guilty of manslaughter.

Would you have let yourself die?
I wouldn't. It's too bad, but better him than me. A mistake was made and the true victim ended up being the executioner.
I didn't make the mistake, why would I then have to pay for it?
The state should offer any compensation to the executioner's family and whatnot.

[therealsylvos]

At 8/20/08 12:21 PM, poxpower wrote:
Would you have let yourself die?
I wouldn't. It's too bad, but better him than me. A mistake was made and the true victim ended up being the executioner.
I didn't make the mistake, why would I then have to pay for it?
The state should offer any compensation to the executioner's family and whatnot.

I find it very hard to believe his only way of staying alive was by killing the executioner.
He has a right to incapacitate him to prevent the executioner from killing him.
Anything more than that is unneccessary and manslaughter if he dies

[poxpower]

At 8/20/08 12:24 PM, therealsylvos wrote:

I find it very hard to believe his only way of staying alive was by killing the executioner.

Well it was.

[therealsylvos]

At 8/20/08 12:26 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 8/20/08 12:24 PM, therealsylvos wrote:

I find it very hard to believe his only way of staying alive was by killing the executioner.

Well it was.

If there was truly no other option, either kill the executioner, or die, then you can not blame him.

[Gunter45]

At 8/20/08 12:21 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 8/20/08 12:11 PM, therealsylvos wrote: However the executioner is not a murderer, and thus not worthy of death.
The person has a right to defend himself, but he could prevent execution without killing the executioner, thus by going overboard and killing the excutioner he is guilty of manslaughter.

Would you have let yourself die?
I wouldn't. It's too bad, but better him than me. A mistake was made and the true victim ended up being the executioner.
I didn't make the mistake, why would I then have to pay for it?
The state should offer any compensation to the executioner's family and whatnot.

Now, for sure, like pox says, it sucks for the executioner, but in a situation of "it's him or me" there is no law on the books that says you can't make the call to save your own life.

It's just like any self-defense argument. You have to actually prove that you had to use lethal force in order to save your own skin. It's slightly gray, only in that the government told the executioner to kill you. When put like that, it's clear that you should have the right, even to save yourself from government orders.

A further point, just to cover this again, the reason why a guilty man wouldn't be able to make the same argument is because it IS a crime to interfere with legal government proceedings. By being proven innocent, the execution is no longer legal and the point is moot.

[Cuppa-LettuceNog]

At 8/20/08 12:21 PM, poxpower wrote:

Yes, a perfect copy but you know it's a robot.
Like, he made it and it was already an adult.

Then it's completely free. If a monkey was born with a human level of intelligence and an ability to fully articulate itself, I'd want that to be free too.

[poxpower]

At 8/20/08 12:28 PM, therealsylvos wrote:

If there was truly no other option, either kill the executioner, or die, then you can not blame him.

Indeed.

[Gunter45]

Here's a hard-hitting one now that we've settled:

If you were a hot dog, and you were starving, would you eat yourself?

[Al6200]

At 8/20/08 12:24 PM, therealsylvos wrote:

I find it very hard to believe his only way of staying alive was by killing the executioner.
He has a right to incapacitate him to prevent the executioner from killing him.
Anything more than that is unneccessary and manslaughter if he dies

What if the inmate somehow got a gun, and the executioner was actively trying to kill him? It's not like guns can be set to stun...

[therealsylvos]

At 8/20/08 12:49 PM, Al6200 wrote:
What if the inmate somehow got a gun, and the executioner was actively trying to kill him? It's not like guns can be set to stun...

But they can be set to nonlethal part of the body.

[Gunter45]

At 8/20/08 12:51 PM, therealsylvos wrote: But they can be set to nonlethal part of the body.

Oh please. This isn't an action movie. Nearly anybody in that situation is going to aim the gun towards the center of the body. It's just how our hand-eye coordination works. He'd turn the gun towards the guy and pop off a few rounds to stop him. You can't fault somebody in that situation for not aiming carefully at nonlethal spots and, besides, even if you do aim carefully, it's not like everyone's an expert marksman.

As a side question: Are you also disappointed that police don't shoot guns out of criminals hands? If I'm the first one to inform you that they don't, then I'm sorry for shattering the illusion.

[therealsylvos]

At 8/20/08 12:55 PM, Gunter45 wrote:

At 8/20/08 12:51 PM, therealsylvos wrote: But they can be set to nonlethal part of the body.

Oh please. This isn't an action movie. Nearly anybody in that situation is going to aim the gun towards the center of the body. It's just how our hand-eye coordination works. He'd turn the gun towards the guy and pop off a few rounds to stop him. You can't fault somebody in that situation for not aiming carefully at nonlethal spots and, besides, even if you do aim carefully, it's not like everyone's an expert marksman.

That may be be true however I think merely aiming a gun would prevent an executioner from flipping the switch.

[AapoJoki]

Fuck moral dilemmas. They're not fun, they're a pain in the ass. What we need is black-and-white absolute morals and stock solutions for everything.

Escaping from prison is always wrong, and so is killing people. The scientist can do whatever he wants with his creation, because it doesn't have a soul.

[Gunter45]

At 8/20/08 12:58 PM, therealsylvos wrote: That may be be true however I think merely aiming a gun would prevent an executioner from flipping the switch.

BUT THAT'S NOT THE HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION! WE WILL NOT TOLERATE DISSIDENCE! SIEG HEIL!

[therealsylvos]

At 8/20/08 01:06 PM, Gunter45 wrote:

At 8/20/08 12:58 PM, therealsylvos wrote: That may be be true however I think merely aiming a gun would prevent an executioner from flipping the switch.

BUT THAT'S NOT THE HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION! WE WILL NOT TOLERATE DISSIDENCE! SIEG HEIL!

Thats what I said before, if its either the executioner dies or he, the innocent man dies, then no charges.

[Elfer]

At 8/20/08 11:13 AM, poxpower wrote: 1. A man was wrongfully put in jail. He escapes, which is against the law. They catch him and the next day he is proven innocent.
What should they do with him?

Morally speaking there's no dilemma here. Legally, it requires more wrangling. The crown/district attorney will probably try to hit them with a sentence for time served, but it's hard to do that because it's really the state's fault that they escaped from jail in the first place.

2. A man is wrongfully committed to a death sentence. While he's about to be executed, he defends himself somehow, killing the executioner and delays the sentence just long enough to be proven innocent.
Should he be charged with anything?

Practically speaking, he'd probably be killed on the spot by the other officers. There's a lot of legal fumbles to this question, including whether or not he could have defended himself without killing the executioner.

He'd probably end up being hit with manslaughter, which isn't entirely wrong, seeing as he made the decision that his own life was somehow worth more than the executioner's.

n.b. The irreversible nature of death is the reason that it's hard to defend the death penalty.

3. A scientist creates a perfect copy of a human bit by bit using non-organic parts and nanotechnology ( or whatever ). Does that scientist own the creation? Could he enslave it? Or did he just create a free being equal to himself?

Free being. This one is pretty simple. Functionally speaking, enslaving a creation that is identical to a human is the same as enslaving a human.

4.If a person is in a situation where he could save 5 people if he kills one, and everyone knows that he did indeed kill the guy but saved the 5, should he be charged with murder? What if he didn't kill the person, causing the death of 5?

Oh geez, not this friggin' train car problem. Well, it all depends on the circumstances I guess. There's no real clear answer to this one.

What if he doesn't kill the person, the 5 people die, and then the person he was supposed to kill dies too?

Gosh, that would be embarrassing.

[Al6200]

At 8/20/08 12:55 PM, Gunter45 wrote:

Oh please. This isn't an action movie. Nearly anybody in that situation is going to aim the gun towards the center of the body. It's just how our hand-eye coordination works. He'd turn the gun towards the guy and pop off a few rounds to stop him. You can't fault somebody in that situation for not aiming carefully at nonlethal spots and, besides, even if you do aim carefully, it's not like everyone's an expert marksman.

Also:

1. The less-lethal parts of the body are away from the center of mass and are therefore going to be much harder to hit.

2. If you just try to shoot the person in the arm or the leg, or you really going to be able to stop them from harming you? For self defense it might very well be necessary to shoot at the center of mass, which carries a risk of killing the person.

[poxpower]

At 8/20/08 01:17 PM, Elfer wrote:

He'd probably end up being hit with manslaughter, which isn't entirely wrong, seeing as he made the decision that his own life was somehow worth more than the executioner's.

Well isn't your argument then saying that his life was worth less than the executioner's?
If both men's lives are worth the same, then obviously he'll think his is worth more than the other guy's, why wouldn't he?
So you can't fault him for that.

I think anyone would fight this situation to the bitter end. The judge is more to be blamed here, though obviously it might just be a fluke of the circumstances where we just have to accept that no one should be punished even if horrible things transpired.

Free being. This one is pretty simple. Functionally speaking, enslaving a creation that is identical to a human is the same as enslaving a human.

But how would you know he's really conscious and not just acting that way?
And here's a fun extention to this:

What of he programs the robot to be his slave? Doesn't he have the right to that? Humans can't be programmed to accept the state of being enslaved, but this robot could. He'd be happy about it.

Oh geez, not this friggin' train car problem.

Ok how about this then: what would it take in this scenario to have you blame the man who had to choose over lives? How easy does the decision have to become, if there is even a stage at which you can seriously start blaming him.

1 person versus 2?
1 versus 100?
1 versus everyone else on a planet?

[Elfer]

At 8/20/08 02:14 PM, poxpower wrote: Well isn't your argument then saying that his life was worth less than the executioner's?

Nah, I was more arguing about what would happen rather than what should happen. Practically speaking, this situation could never occur because he'd be killed by guards as soon as he attacked the executioner.

If we're talking about fantasy land where this sort of thing just happens, then I'd say it's okay, since the guy was trying to preserve his own life and the executioner understood the risks of the job he was taking.

But how would you know he's really conscious and not just acting that way?

If it's an exact physical replica, it's the same thing. I'm assuming, of course, that there's nothing "magic" about consciousness. This is the safe assumption if we're talking about enslavement vs freedom.

What of he programs the robot to be his slave? Doesn't he have the right to that? Humans can't be programmed to accept the state of being enslaved, but this robot could. He'd be happy about it.

See now that's a great idea. The scientist could have a slave, and the slave would live a rich, full life where he achieves his greatest ambitions.

Ok how about this then: what would it take in this scenario to have you blame the man who had to choose over lives?

What I'm saying is that this is traditionally considered an insoluble problem from an absolutist standpoint. The only correct course of action is to stay very far away from train controls at all time and hope someone else gets stuck with the choice.

[poxpower]

At 8/20/08 02:37 PM, Elfer wrote:

If we're talking about fantasy land where this sort of thing just happens

Well I mean.. yeah :o

Though what if the guy was a Dragon?

If it's an exact physical replica, it's the same thing.

Probably, but he wouldn't be organic, he'd still be a robot.
Hard to figure out.

See now that's a great idea.

yes that's why I think the whole robot holocaust thing is completely stupid.
It's exactly written as you'd expect humans to write it, desiring nothing but the utmost power and freedom, to crush everyone who is weak and different.
Sounds like humans alright.

Robots are awesome. They don't care for anything you don't make them care for. You could program them to suck your dick all day long and they'd love it in a truer sense than any human loving anything.

What I'm saying is that this is traditionally considered an insoluble problem from an absolutist standpoint.

Yes but what would you do?
Would you blame the guy if he failed to press the one button that kills one dude to save a million? Or would you not blame him no matter what?