Scripture as an ultimate moral dilemma

Benj96

What makes for an impactful moral dilemma? For me it is the "Ultimatum."

By ultimatum I mean:
1). Everyone is a participant in the dilemma.
2). Ones hand is forced - ie the decision is inescapable, all possible moves or choices are anticipated/factored in regarding the outcome.
3). The stakes are ethically extreme.

Consider the trolley problem as a prime example of a scenario that is "almost" a true ultimatum. In the trolley problem:
1). The ethical stakes are high (the lives of the people on either track).
2). Ones hand is forced - there is a lever and two tracks - a binary decision without loopholes like destroying the track, de-railing the trolley, force majeure (basically all third party variables you could cite as a reason not to participate nor be culpable are ruled out).
3). However - Everyone is not a true participant -because it is merely a hypothetical thought experiment not a real life scenario with real life consequences.

Therefore the trolley problem approaches but does not achieve the "ultimatum" status.

However I've noticed another ultimatum that curiously comes from historical gospel accounts of all places.

Consider someone declares they are God and that this statement is the absolute/fundamental truth or "the word". They then offer you a trinary choice:

1). "Spread the word" that I am the fundamental truth (God). In doing so you a). Educate/teach (as true knowledge is based on the truth) and b) Are ethical - as telling the truth/being honest is as virtue that supports the greater good. In doing so you remove ignorance from those you tell - empowering them with knowledge while acting honestly/truly.

2). Ignore the word - in this case you remain ignorant and at the whim of manipulation/mis-direction/ the agenda of others. Disempowered, confused and vulnerable to being misled.

3). Keep the truth entirely to yourself. In this case you can only speak/communicate untruths/lies promoting delusion, ignorance and misdirection for others. This may present as an attempt to destroy the argument itself - by denying the 3 options rationally exist or by manufacturing a pseudo-fourth option cited as "not yet considered" outside of accept, ignore or reject. This ultimately disempowers others by keeping knowledge away from them. And is unethical (dishonest and disabling) in self service.

Now for the high stakes:
1). Those who choose option one catapult me into fame and recognition/acknowledgement - as the word of my proof spreads from person to person.
2). Those who choose option two are none the wiser, and unsure of what is going on ( "?" )
3). Those who choose option three: are inherently my antagonists - and must silence/eradicate the truth by any means necessary to protect their own agenda/self-interest/narrative. Meaning I will likely be assassinated/martyred based on your collective choices.

Thus the ultimatum plays out as follows:
1). Everyone becomes a participant - due to those whom opt for option 1 - spread the word bringing the topic into the light of current global affairs/mass media coverage.
2). All Hands are forced (due to the inherent nature of the word/dilemma itself.
3) The stakes are high - humiliation, defamation, torture and persection at the hands of those who opt for option 3 and due to the inaction of the remainder.

To me this serves as a true ultimatum unlike the trolley problem if it were to be "witnessed" (play out in reality), because unlike the trolley problem it is designed to operate through human nature and communication alone. It is self proving in the fact that the outcome is cited at the start and then subsequently fulfilled - indicating prescience.

In this way I believe notable historical figures in not just scripture but also politics wielded mass psychology to empower themselves and the knowing cost of their own lives to spread a message they truly believed in. I think "ultimatums" potency relies on this dynamic as outlined above.

Leontiskos

On the other hand, what if something important has happened that should be passed on? Is that a possibility or not? I don't see how a strange argument bogged down in cynicism is going to undermine such a possibility.

Benj96

↪Leontiskos

I think it would apply to all truths - scientific and technological discoveries etc however there would be a frame change here. The stakes/consequences of not sharing these truths/illuminations would be different - for example social inequalities in wealth, healthcare, and eroding autonomy, further "not everyone would be a participant (ie aware of the process p(aying out before them), and there would be know prescience/ premonition of one's own murder involved/ no undertaking of full responsibility for everyone's actions with your own life as the payment for such an endeavour.

Leontiskos

↪Benj96

- Global warming or climate change is on a par with your OP. It is often presented as an ultimatum. Nevertheless, a cynical reading is not the only option, nor does it invalidate the claim. Trying to make it invalidate the claim or the approach is more psychologizing than philosophy.

Benj96

Nevertheless, a cynical reading is not the only option — Leontiskos

However the OP outlined a non-cynical option: option 1. In this case (with no opposition and malice) the frame is quite optimistic.

It is based on choice alone. Therefore it is neither cynical nor optimistic until those faced with the dilemma make their individual choices.

If everyone chose option 1 then there would be mutual global pride/esteem and no reason to make a martyr of the originator. That is the ideal.
The anti-ideal is that everyone opts for option 3.
And the realistic pov is that likely all three choices will be made by a population. And that people would re-elect new choices as things transpire.

Therefore it isn't inherently cynical nor optimistic, it indulges free will to pursue either case.

Trying to make it invalidate the claim or the approach is more psychologizing than philosophy. — Leontiskos

Psychology and philosophy are intersectional disciplines. I doubt one can truly separate them entirely.

Leontiskos

However the OP outlined a non-cynical option: option 1. In this case (with no opposition and malice) the frame is quite optimistic. — Benj96

Er, but only as a preliminary. You go on to say:

Now for the high stakes:
1). Those who choose option one catapult me into fame and recognition/acknowledgement - as the word of my proof spreads from person to person.
2). Those who choose option two are none the wiser, and unsure of what is going on ( "?" )
3). Those who choose option three: are inherently my antagonists - and must silence/eradicate the truth by any means necessary to protect their own agenda/self-interest/narrative. Meaning I will likely be assassinated/martyred based on your collective choices.

...

In this way I believe notable historical figures in not just scripture but also politics wielded mass psychology to empower themselves... — Benj96

The whole thing is supposed to be "designed," "wielded," etc., to produce some dramatic effect.

My point is that an ultimatum need not be designed to produce some dramatic effect. It might just be true, and in being true may end up producing a dramatic effect. Ultimatums are impactful by their very nature, yes, but you seem to be saying that an ultimatum is necessarily wielded as an instrument towards something other than truth. I would say an ultimatum can be instrumentalized in that sense, but need not be.

I agree that an ultimatum is impactful, but I don't think it needs to be reduced to a sociological tool. Maybe I am misreading you, but much of your OP goes beyond looking at ultimatums, and goes on to look at the motives of those wielding ultimatums.

tim wood

What makes for an impactful moral dilemma? For me it is the "Ultimatum." — Benj96

Just think necessity. Necessity forecloses on (practical) choice, which is the species of choice I think you're referring to. And necessity imposes ultimatums every day for everyone all the time.

Leontiskos

2). Ones hand is forced - ie the decision is inescapable — Benj96

Just think necessity. Necessity forecloses on (practical) choice, which is the species of choice I think you're referring to. And necessity imposes ultimatums every day for everyone all the time. — tim wood

There is a conflation occurring between a necessary act and a necessary choice. "Forcing one's hand" refers to a movement ad unum (towards one thing or one external act). It does not generally refer to something which must be decided. "You need to do this," is very different from, "You need to make a decision about what to do." An ultimatum forces a decision, not an external act. Here there is the very large difference between choice and coercion.

T Clark

Ones hand is forced — Benj96

No, I can choose to do nothing.

They then offer you a ~~trinary~~ quarternary choice — Benj96

4) Deny the word.

Ignore the word — Benj96

Ignoring words is one of the fundamental human mental tasks. We can't pay attention to everything, we have to choose. The trick is knowing which ones to ignore.

Leontiskos

↪T Clark

- Ignoring was option (2). The OP already accounts for it.

Benj96

Ignoring was option (2). The OP already accounts for it. — Leontiskos

Exactly. Each choice is accounted for already. One has free will to choose between the 3 choices but no free will to not choose anything. Ones hand is indeed forced. So

↪T Clark

chooses option two, demonstrating "ignorance" of the dilemma.

Tom Storm

1). "Spread the word" that I am the fundamental truth (God). In doing so you a). Educate/teach (as true knowledge is based on the truth) and b) Are ethical - as telling the truth/being honest is as virtue that supports the greater good. In doing so you remove ignorance from those you tell - empowering them with knowledge while acting honestly/truly.

2). Ignore the word - in this case you remain ignorant and at the whim of manipulation/mis-direction/ the agenda of others. Disempowered, confused and vulnerable to being misled.

3). Keep the truth entirely to yourself. In this case you can only speak/communicate untruths/lies promoting delusion, ignorance and misdirection for others. This disempowers others by keeping knowledge away from them. And is unethical (dishonest and disabling) in self service. — Benj96

Hmmm.

4) Deny the word. — T Clark

Yes, I do think this is a fourth option. One can understand the message and spend time studying the word, but nonetheless work hard to deny its worth To deny from knowledge might be a more useful action than to ignore from ignorance. Just as some Bible scholars are atheists who consider the Bible to be largely an immoral book. Perhaps you have presented a false trichotomy?

Benj96

Yes, I do think this is a fourth option. One can understand the message and spend time studying the word, but nonetheless work hard to deny its worth To deny from knowledge might be a more useful action than to ignore from ignorance. Just as some Bible scholars are atheists who consider the Bible to be largely an immoral book. Perhaps you have presented a false trichotomy? — Tom Storm

As you'll see from the OP there are two options other than accept: Ignore (passive) or deny (actively oppose).

You haven't offered a fourth alternative merely reiterated the preexisting choices using different phrasing which -despite somewhat arbitrary semantic differences -ultimately circles back to the same dilemma: accept, ignore or reject.

I'm such a way, any respondent cannot avoid hut make a choice (as assumption 1 + 2 highlight: that a). Everyone is a participant and b) . Their hand is forced in the matter.

Tom Storm

↪Benj96

There's a big difference between deny through ignorance and deny through knowledge? Tell me how they are the same.

Benj96

↪Tom Storm

According to the OP you'd be offered "the Truth." You know it by reading it, therefore you may accept it (acknowledge), ignore it (ignorance) or object to it (deny it despite knowledge of it). So to answer you, they're aren't the same. One is "I'm not even going to get into it/it has nothing to do with me (ignorance/denial) and the other is I acknowledge it but oppose it with effort/ wish to argue against it.

Tom Storm

or object it (deny it despite knowledge of it) — Benj96

I thought your third one was keep it to yourself?

Benj96

I thought your third one was keep it to yourself? — Tom Storm

It is. And by trying to keep the truth to yourself alone whilst another actively shares it (the originator) then by default you're opposed to them spreading it as through their action it is less and less within your sole posession. Otherwise you're merely ignoring it (neither trying to keep it unveiled nor prevent its dissemination).

"To keep a certain set of knowledge to yourself is to eradicate other potential distributors". To be ignorant/passive to the process is to merely exert non-interference".

In any case you end up choosing one of the three positions/choices set out in the OP.

Tom Storm

Ignore the word - in this case you remain ignorant and at the whim of manipulation/mis-direction/ the agenda of others. Disempowered, confused and vulnerable to being misled. — Benj96

In addition to my other comments, this to me does not follow. How would you demonstrate that ignoring the word leads to any particular outcome? Why wouldn't it lead to happiness and satisfaction? Hence ignorance is bliss?

Might it not also be the case that knowing and accepting the word could lead to being misled and misdirected by others? We know this is how religion works all over the world. What version of truth are you describing where there is no possibility for it to be misused by bad faith actors?

It is. And by trying to keep the truth to yourself alone whilst another actively shares it (the originator) then by default you're opposed to them spreading it as throught their action it is less ajd less in your sole posession. — Benj96

No - to me there is a fourth option - to deny it from a position of knowledge and to actively work to take it down because you beleive the truth to have bad consequences for humanity.

Benj96

In addition to my other comments, this to me does not follow. How would you demonstrate that ignoring the word leads to any particular outcome? Why wouldn't it lead to happiness and satisfaction? Hence ignorance is bliss? — Tom Storm

There was no mention of it leading to happiness nor satisfaction. As a passive player, your circumstances are solely contingent on others who either know the truth and impart it to you (out of good faith) , or those that keep it from you (lie to you).

What version of truth are you describing where there is no possibility for it to be misused by bad faith actors? — Tom Storm

It is misused - by those who take option 3: keep it to themselves. By knowing it, they have control, in the sense that they can deny it to you by knowing exactly what not to speak of. They are aware of it, and refuse to share that. Therefore all they can do is misguide/ create deceit. These are the "bad faith actors" you speak of -option 3.

Benj96

and to actively work to take it down.
5m — Tom Storm

This is option three - please refer to the OP. To actively oppose the truth and its spread.

Benj96

because you beleive the truth to have bad consequences for humanity — Tom Storm

Well ought you be the sole/exclusive decider of whether the truth has bad consequences for society? Surely that's highly autocratic. As any democracy is based on many people being allowed their own free will to a). know the truth (be taught/educated) and b). to judge how to use it themselves (autonomy):

Therefore, I don't see how any one individual should take it upon themselves to decide for everyone else that it ought not be spread. This would be assuming the role of option three of the OP - keep it to oneself and actively suppress any attempt by others to disseminate it.

Tom Storm

]The options you have presented seem limited and skewed i.e., they don’t seem plausible,

I do not see how ignorance and knowledge are the same.

Well ought you be the sole/exclusive decider of whether the truth has bad consequences for society? Surely that's highly autocratic. As any democracy is based on many people being allowed — Benj96

If you are certain it is harmful you may think this is vital work. But in this scenario have you ruled out others also taking a position against the content of the word?

Benj96

I do not see how ignorance and knowledge are the same. — Tom Storm

They are not. Ignorance is a lack or avoidance of knowledge when faced with such. Knowledge is simply knowledge.

If you are certain it is harmful you may think this is vital work — Tom Storm

But if the case is that you're ignorant, your "certainties" are falsely placed correct? Someone who opts for choice 2 (ignorance) can still exert what they "think" is true and ethical. That doesn't mean their actions are well rationalised. Intentions are not enough alone.

Good intentions and a lack of knowledge = reckless action. Good intentions and adequate knowledge = apt, duely considered and ethical action.

But in this scenario have you ruled out others also taking a position against the content of the word? — Tom Storm

The content of the word in this case can always be expanded/ explained in more depth if required - as the Truth can be examined superficially or in depth but neither changes its quality as inherently truthful. One can explore it further before deciding or decide despite investing no effort in understanding it (blind faith -option 1 or ignorance -option 2)..

Janus

Therefore, I don't see how any one individual should take it upon themselves to decide for everyone else that it ought not be spread. — Benj96

Accepting that principle, it follows that no one should take it upon themselves to decide for everyone that it ought to be spread.

wonderer1

↪Janus

:up:

Benj96

Accepting that principle, it follows that no one should take it upon themselves to decide for everyone that it ought to be spread. — Janus

And no one has done that. Choice is the principle of the trilemma set out into the OP.

One has the free will to share it, ignore it or oppose it. But their hand is forced in making one of those three choices. However, in no instance is any single person deciding anything on behalf of everyone else.

The outcome would always be the summation of every individuals personal decision.

So you're correct despite it not really having any impact on the actual ultimatum itself.

Janus

And no one has done that. — Benj96

Of course someone has done that. The so-called "Word" would not have gotten out there in the first place if no one had done that.

Benj96

↪Janus

And who propagates it? One person cannot propagate the "Word" by themselves alone. Especially if they're ignored by everyone they communicate with (option 2). It takes two (or more) to tango (see option 1).

Things only spread by numbers, by co-operation and accordance, not by ignorance (option2) or silencing (option 3) but everyone makes a choice in the end.

Janus

And who propagates it? — Benj96

Anyone who decides to take it upon themselves to decide for everyone that it ought to be spread.

tim wood

An ultimatum forces a decision, not an external act. Here there is the very large difference between choice and coercion. — Leontiskos

Then you shall have to draw your line with care. And care to note I referred to practical choice. As to action, there is no ultimate. Excepting perhaps gravity, under the influence of which I'm obliged fall, I don't have to do anything, although perhaps being subject to persuasion.

The OP seems to be about the creation, usually by argument of some kind, of systems of dilemmas. Douglas Hofstadter in Godel, Esher, and Bach, coined the verb "joots," which he meant to be understood as "jump out of the system" - a might fine and useful verb. Not always easy to do, but fatal to ultimatums. Which leaves of course all matters of practical concern, in which decisions I think always lead to one or another choice of action.

Tom Storm

But if the case is that you're ignorant, your "certainties" are falsely placed correct? Someone who opts for choice 2 (ignorance) can still exert what they "think" is true and ethical. That doesn't mean their actions are well rationalised. Intentions are not enough alone. — Benj96

No, as I see it. You have this scenario -

Consider someone declares they are God and that this statement is the absolute/fundamental truth or "the word". They then offer you a trinary choice: — Benj96

People may decide that this god is a prick and that the truth they are peddling is bad for humanity. I may do this in full understanding of the content of that truth.

For instance: let's pretend that the Bible is true. There are plenty of folk who consider the Bible to be full of evil advice (it's pro slavery, misogynist, homophobic, sanctions genocide, etc). People may chose to oppose this truth in full knowledge of its content. Many people would consider Yahweh (as described) to be a Mafia boss style tyrant.

You seem to make an assumption that truth - even if understood - is always welcome. They know exactly what is going on and what this God stands for but consider this god objectionable.

So option four remains on the table. The active opposition.

But a theist, creating such a thought experiment will already have made the assumption that only ignorance would oppose any truth presented by a god. I would maintain that this can't be demonstrated and is likely to be wrong.

Scripture as an ultimate moral dilemma

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions