What are your thoughts about this dilemma? What should you do? — javi2541997

The dilemma is spurious. Fat men (fat like they can block a tunnel) don't go hiking to begin with.

Note to self: Don't follow fat people.

Yes, you are right somehow fat Men probably wouldn't go hiking but I said this dilemma is quite humorous because of the characters :joke: But I was looking for what the people would think in this situation.

it could depend on what the fat man wants, or not, depending on the beliefs of the group, so there is no one answer.

You blow the fat guy up. If he is willing to let so many others die so that he may live then he isn’t the kind of person worth sacrificing so many other lives for. Fat man would either choose to die to save the others or he is a cowardly, selfish person not worth saving.

Absolutely! What would be your answer according to moralism?

Interesting point. So he will die anyway but the sacrifice and the respect of the fat man could depend in his behaviour. End like a hero or a selfish

As it is a choice of life, Javi, and I hold right to life the most ineffable right, it could only be with the fat man's permission. But in less extreme cases, we've all given permission ourselves in similar situations, or we are not human. 'Fessing up at school to stop other schoolmates being punished comes to mind.

I understand your point. But what about if the fat man doesn't allow us to blow him up? His selfishness could kill us (the hikers in the example).
It interesting your example of fessing up but here we are just speaking about punishment. The fat man dilemma is about life choices and then, the group as a mass, would blow the fat man up...

I would have to defend the fat man and hope he changes his mind. lol.

A case of the thin end of the wedge justifying being mean to the fat?

How do I know that no other means of unsticking him will work? Personally, I would still be greasing his fat arse and pulling or pushing when the waves broke over my head, so you'd have to blow me up too, you callous bastards.

Cool then! :100:

Well greasing him is a good solution but imagine nobody has this object with themselves. It is not about being mean with the fat man I guess it is about of how supposedly the masses would act against one individual.
It is interesting how you and @ernest meyer are in the fat man's side. Most of the people choose blow him up...

it it weren't a matter of killing him, I probably wouldnt be. lol.

So you would be only in his side just in extreme circumstances. Interesting :chin: It looks like sammaritan acts too.

If you choose to defend the fatman, which I take to mean preventing others from using the dynamite, then you are asserting your own morals not only over the morals of the other people but also over their lives. You are defending one persons right to life by violating the right to life of all the other hikers. This doesn’t seem at all different in principal than deciding to use the dynamite.
The only moral option if you truly feel like its morally wrong to use the dynamite is to abstain from the decision, making the decision not to use the dynamite for yourself. Then, if you are truly committed to making the correct moral judgements you would have to struggle with another moral dilemma; whether or not it is morally correct to exploit the dynamite use and exit the cave to save yourself. If you truly prioritise morals over life then you wouldn't exit the cave. If you do not, and instead exploit the immoral (in your view) actions for your own survival then you might as well have used the dynamite in the first place. You end up making the same moral violation anyway except the initial moral violation (using the dynamite) also saves the lives of a bunch of people. The latter moral violation (exploiting the immoral actions of others) only saves yourself. (Since you didn’t actually do anything to save the people, they saved themselves).

So I think in the end the fatman dying is the only morally sound way to do it. The other solutions simply pass the buck, shift the moral burden.

I simply hold they cannot morally kill the fat man without his permission.

The only moral option if you truly feel like its morally wrong to use the dynamite is to abstain from the decision, making the decision not to use the dynamite for yourself.

The other solutions simply pass the buck, shift the moral burden.

What you shared is very important because it is something I was waiting for. Exactly, what can happen if we pass the buck? Imagine we do so and them there are different criteria. 8 hikers would think it is good to blow up the fat man but the other 8 not. This a dilemma inside the dilemma itself but as you perfectly explained one will do it anyway because at least one of them will give up about morals and them would blow him up.
Another scenario here could be if the losing of time debating if they should or not exploding him can actually kill them because they do not take solutions in extreme context

So the moralism depends about the fat man's permission?

I simply hold they cannot morally kill the fat man without his permission. — ernest meyer

I understand that is your position, but it isn’t a morally sound position for the reasons I stated. You state your position but haven’t defended it.

What you shared is very important because it is something I was waiting for. Exactly, what can happen if we pass the buck? Imagine we do so and them there are different criteria. 8 hikers would think it is good to blow up the fat man but the other 8 not. This a dilemma inside the dilemma itself but as you perfectly explained one will do it anyway because at least one of them will give up about morals and them would blow him up.
Another scenario here could be if the losing of time debating if they should or not exploding him can actually kill them because they do not take solutions in extreme context — javi2541997

Its possible none of the people want to kill the fatman and in that case I see no moral violation, except that of the fatman. A moral person would volunteer to die to save the others and if fatman doesn’t then fatman isn’t acting morally.
Losing time to debate is more mismanagement and costly hesitation rather than a moral issue. Ideally the hikers will have spent some time on a philosophy forum discussing moral dilemmas to avoid the consequences of inaction :wink:

Its possible none of the people want to kill the fatman and in that case I see no moral violation, except that of the fatman. A moral person would volunteer to die to save the others and if fatman doesn’t then fatman isn’t acting morally. — DingoJones

This is where we get the commission/omission moral dilemma. If the fat man omitted the act of allowing the rest blowing himself up then he acts immorally or selfish. But, if the rest want to explode him, thus the act of commission, then it is somehow immoral because they are acting mean towards the fat man.
I guess this is like spiral we cannot get away. This is why I like dilemmas like this one :sweat: because is not clear who is more correct than the other.

The most egregious moral violation is fatman, who is clearly acting immorally and selfishly. The second worst violation is the man stopping the others from using the dynamite, for the reasons stated. The least egregious is the dynamite users as their action have good justifications both ethically and practically.
The only person who has clean hands and has made no moral violation is the person who abstains from dynamite use, doesn’t interfere with the others use of dynamite (except to offer his views I suppose) and does not exit the cave once the dynamite is used. He would die with full moral virtue.
That’s how I’d rank the moral decisions.

That’s how I’d rank the moral decisions. — DingoJones

I really liked it. I love how you explain as a cascade, if you don’t mind I use this metaphor. Thanks for participating and sharing your thoughts in the dilemma. It was interesting your point of view :100: :up:

:up:

That’s how I’d rank the moral decisions. — DingoJones

Since you take the utilitarian stance, you ought to consider other possibilities, like the following: You insert the dynamite in a suitable orifice and blow up the fat man and me who refuses to abandon him. And also the team of rescuers who are outside the cave working to free everyone. And of course the lifting gear they were setting up collapses into the hole along with their corpses and you still can't get out. What rotten luck!

Im not a utilitarian, my reasoning wasn’t dependent on the greatest amount of good for the most people. I would say the same thing if it was fatman and only one other person stuck in the cave.
If you refuse to abandon him then that is your decision, you can die righteously beside him if you want.
If there are rescuers then dynamite is no longer the only option, so my answer would change depending on the details of the rescue. If I didn’t know there were rescuers my answer wouldn't change. You can change the scenario however you like and I will always be able to answer, right up until you change the scenario to become nonsensical or self contradicting at which point I wouldn't be able to answer without likewise being non-sensical or contradicting. Garbage in garbage out.
If the dynamite kills rescuers and I still cannot get out the indeed, bad luck. It wouldnt be due to the morality of using the dynamite.

setting up collapses into the hole along with their corpses and you still can't get out. What rotten luck! — unenlightened

That would be so hilarious :rofl:

First of all, your attitude is insulting.

If you might die later because you are out of food, and I eat food you could need to eat later to stay alive, doesn't give you any right to kill me now.

From your attitude, you're just inventing excuses because you like to kill. I heard alot of you fancy justificationists when I was working in gun control, loi, and I know you people exist now, so your fancy arguments for why your opinion is so superior that you need to be so rude don't impress me.

What should they do? — javi2541997

What did they do?

I'd kill the fat man and escape, and live with a troubled conscience.

You’ve still done nothing more to defend your position.
Anyway, which assertion and why exactly is it insulting? Also, I cannot follow how your food scenario is analogous to the fatman blocking the cave scenario or my answers to it.