The moral thing to do
  • Zosito
    18
    You're a young, healthy man. You get on a small bus and go sit at the back. There are other seats available, but you like sitting at the back (you are aware of everything going on inside the bus). There is one guy sitting in the last row (left side), and another in the penultimate (right side). You sit beside the guy in the last row (he makes way so that you don't block his access to the aisle. Three guys are sitting in the middle (left side) and other people at the front.

    You reach an area rife with gang activity and crime, and the bus slows down because of some traffic in front.

    The two guys, who have been throwing you looks the whole time, suddenly get the jump on the three guys in the middle, the one sitting besides you switches to the penultimate, left hand row. He takes out a ferocious-looking knife.

    They demand to know where the three guys are from, if they are gang members, and end up asking for their phones.

    These guys are using the element of surprise in their favor against the 3 dudes in the middle. But you've been watching them for some time and know they're up to something. This hasn't taken you completely by surprise. You can decide what to do and not just react.

    Take into account that you're commuting to work. This is the only route you can take, and it always passes through that area. Do you intervene?

    The 3 men will lose their cellphones... is it best to start a fight where there is none? Because the only way you'll stop them is getting the jump on them, punching like mad or choking the guy in front of you and hoping the 3 guys take the other one. One gang member has his back to you, but the other one can see you, and he is one large, fat SOB whose weight alone might prevail in such an enclosed space.

    What is the moral thing to do? Are you a coward and immoral if you don't do anything? Are you rash if you escalate and risk serious physical injury, not only to yourself but also to the bystanders who are choosing to comply, for the sake of some smartphones?
    Zosito Options
  • tim wood
    9.3k
    The moral action is just that, an action and not a re-action. Action requires decision; decisions require thought; thought considers possible and desirable outcomes.

    Your situation is not simple. A reassuring clue comes from Kant. In the face of conflicting imperatives, if you can pick the right one, then the rest fall away: you only can be burdened by one.

    Which is interesting. Imagine it necessary to shoot them down. If so, then you cannot worry too much about collateral damage. But that's part of the back-and-forth of competing imperatives. If you must worry about collateral damage, then maybe you cannot be obliged to shoot them down. (A distinction hidden here: it may be necessary to shoot them down, but not incumbent upon you to shoot them.)

    Judging yourself coward - or hero - before the necessary work of judging the situation has been done, is merely vanity out of control. But we all watch too many movies and think that maybe we should jump in, because we heard about someone else who did. That someone else is either a lucky idiot, or someone who has it all thought out before the situation even arises. There are such people, but what they can do is the result of a lot of hard work.
    tim wood Options
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.

Sign In Create Account

Categories