well the fact is, you've presented the dilemma in words that make it a very old act-utilitarian conflict that Putnam rephrased and generally get credit for these days, and it has been argued for hundreds of years.

In the 1800s it was phrased as a vigilante question that became popularly approved of after Clint Eastwood movies on the issue. What is the necessary threshold of another man's faults to warrant taking his life without government authority to do so? In this case, the fat man hardly jammed himself in the hole on purpose.

Without intent, most of the arguments against vigilantism apply with stronger force. The individual taking another's life assumes that events will transpire such that the person causing problems will not otherwise be taken care of by authorities, chance events, or as a direct consequence of his own actions.

That's why taking of life in self defense is only approved of in most cases of 'the law' under direct imminent threat, and even then, only in the more violent nations.

I was actually asking which courage you were referring, not being sarcastic or snide if that mattered in you decision to ignore the question. — DingoJones

Never thought otherwise.

Don't you think it would be good to be able to trust folk?

(That italicised word is not at all loaded, honest... trust me!)

That's why taking of life in self defense is only approved of in most cases of 'the law' under direct imminent threat, and even then, only in the more violent nations. — ernest meyer

Yes it is. Only allowed in violent countries. But I guess somehow goes further than just court resolutions because we are debating and sharing ideas of how some people would give up in their moral principles just to survive. Fortunately, this is something that doesn’t happen at all in reality but it is interesting speaking about the topic.

PD: it is 01:35 AM and I am sleepy. Sorry If I take a long time in answer again.

oh I better go do some other things anyway, good night, thanks for chat )

I don’t know how to respond to that.

:grin:

“And then, one Thursday, nearly two thousand years after one man had been nailed to a tree for saying how great it would be to be nice to people for a change, a girl sitting on her own in a small café in Rickmansworth suddenly realized what it was that had been going wrong all this time, and she finally knew how the world could be made a good and happy place. This time it was right, it would work, and no one would have to get nailed to anything.”

But you won't trust me, and I wont trust you...

Lol, ok.

The issue here is that someone is get stuck and somehow would sacrifice himself for others. — javi2541997

If he's stuck, then he can't sacrifice himself. He has no choice in the matter, he literally can't do anything.

Give the dynamite to the fat man and let him decide. — Banno

And how exactly would you do that? He's literally blocking the hole.

Don't you think it would be good to be able to trust folk? — Banno

And whose failing is that lack of trust?
The person who lacks trust, or the person who hasn't earned others' trust?

If he's stuck, then he can't sacrifice himself. He has no choice in the matter, he literally can't do anything.

Interesting fact. We can see it also in this view. If he got stuck is his fault so somehow doesn't have the right of a choice. Then, the rest of the hikers are only the allowed of debating about the life of the fat man.

Asking "what did they do?" is a rhetorical question. It doesn't require an answer. Asking the question 'what did they do?' is to suggest that whatever they did - is what's moral (assuming that is, they perceived the moral dilemma and intended to act for the moral good.)

Why? Because morality is a fundamentally sense - that can be expressed in various ways, like those listed above. Personally, I would kill the fat man and save myself and four others, and be perfectly able to justify that with reference to utilitarianism.

Had I decided however, that I ought not kill the fat man, and had chosen to drown instead, I'd be able to justify that morally also - because morality is a sense, beyond definitive definition. In short, there is no right answer. That's what makes it a dilemma.

In short, there is no right answer. That's what makes it a dilemma. — counterpunch

True! But another interesting fact is that the people argument different answers when they check the dilemma, even they end up creating another dilemma inside the original one. Previously, I randomly named this dilemma as spiral because it can led us in an infinite situation of debates. I would sound strange but this is the part I like the most about dilemmas :ok:

True! But another interesting fact is that the people argument different answers when they check the dilemma, even they end up creating another dilemma inside the original one. Previously, I randomly named this dilemma as spiral because it can led us in an infinite situation of debates. I would sound strange but this is the part I like the most about dilemmas — javi2541997

It does seem strange to me; I like answers, and I've found I've been quite successful in discovering them - but no-one wants to know. They're like you - in it for the debate; which, with centuries to kill - is probably a good strategy. But our time is short. We need answers now, and what we have instead is confusion.

There seems no way to get the fat man loose without using [that] dynamite which will inevitably kill him; but if they do not use it everyone will drown. What should they do? — javi2541997

As this is a question of morality, according to the author, I will answer accordingly.

I will get the consensus of all, including the fat man. I understand that this is about practicality so I gather that his saying "no" will lend little to the enlightenment of everyone in the cave. But since we are answering this as a matter of moral discourse, I'd say that his consent matters. If he says, "You have my permission. I'd like to save you", then thank him for his altruism and proceed to do it.

Here the fat man is doing an altruistic decision. The others have either no moral gain or moral burden to carry on with life. The act of the fat man is what matters here.

If, on the other hand, he says "No, I don't want to be blown up. Please don't kill me! I did not do this on purpose so you all could be stuck in this cave. I also did not know that the opening of the cave is too small for me to pass", then, the only thing left to do is to ask for his forgiveness before blowing him up against his will.

The fat man refusing to be blown up has no moral obligation, as intent here to harm others is lacking nor negligence is at issue. As to the individuals in the cave who killed him, the willingness to kill a person so others could live provides no moral gain when life is only seen as numbers. A moral act does not increase in moral value just because there are more people affected. Try asking this question on one on one: what if there's only one person stuck in the cave besides the fat man. It's either the fat man or the other.

But our time is short. We need answers now, and what we have instead is confusion. — counterpunch

Probably this happens because humans tend to think and use a ideas or knowledge to improve our reality. It is true that praxis and action take advantage of the important issues. Nevertheless, one of the unique aspects inside us is the ability of questioning everything. Like we both are doing here about dilemmas. I guess this was the important step when we evolved to Homo sapiens sapiens.

We need answers, and what we have instead is confusion. — counterpunch

The scenario is an artificial one designed to create confusion. Have some answers instead. Don't kill people. Not even when it is very convenient to do so. Don't blow them up even if they are right in the way and you urgently need to be somewhere. It's murder, even if you save some lives on the side.

While we're at it, don't torture people either, even if they have the magic life saving information and won't give it to you.

Try asking this question on one on one: what if there's only one person stuck in the cave besides the fat man. It's either the fat man or the other. — Caldwell

Interesting point! I put an example of a group because the original author pretended to defend that mostly the masses would act against to the individual just to survive.
If is only one man agains the fat man, this one would die anyways but I guess in this example is quite worse for awareness because the responsibility cannot distributed

Probably this happens because humans tend to think and use a ideas or knowledge to improve our reality. It is true that praxis and action take advantage of the important issues. Nevertheless, one of the unique aspects inside us is the ability of questioning everything. Like we both are doing here about dilemmas. I guess this was the important step when we evolved to Homo sapiens sapiens. — javi2541997

I'm delighted to be able to agree completely. People acting from a moral sense - define morality. Debates about if it was or wasn't moral, or in what way it was moral - come after, and are - as you observed, endless.

The scenario is an artificial one designed to create confusion. Have some answers instead. Don't kill people. Not even when it is very convenient to do so. Don't blow them up even if they are right in the way and you urgently need to be somewhere. It's murder, even if you save some lives on the side.

While we're at it, don't torture people either, even if they have the magic life saving information and won't give it to you. — unenlightened

Gee, you think there wasn't really a fat man stuck in a cave? I've been deceived!

I do generally try to avoid killing people. If there were a way to avoid killing the hypothetical fat man, and save myself and others from drowning - I would expend enormous efforts to achieve both objectives. It is not about convenience. It's only if there were absolutely no other way - I would kill him rather than let myself and 4 others die. And it's not utilitarianism either, because if it were just me or him, I'd light that candle and stick it between his giant arse cheeks just the same. Why? Because existence is a necessary pre-requisite to values!

Morality is too complicated to base it on iron-clad rules. What we would do in one situation with some people - strangers - we wouldn't do with other people like family and friends. This generalizes to most cases.

The real problem is actually being in such a situation. We can speak all we want, but when it comes to action, it's a whole different story. If I had to guess, I'd blow up the fat man. I'd feel like utter crap for quite a long time, but I want to live and there are more people with me.

Morality is too complicated to base it on iron-clad rules. What we would do in one situation with some people - strangers - we wouldn't do with other people like family and friends. This generalizes to most cases. — Manuel

Hence it becomes the application of heuristics - Muddling along, if you prefer. The best that can be done is to try to do better each time.

Virtue ethics, then. It's about growing, becoming better.

Hence it becomes the application of heuristics - Muddling along, if you prefer. The best that can be done is to try to do better each time.

Virtue ethics, then. It's about growing, becoming better. — Banno

Sure. If we commit ourselves to some extremely high moral standard, we are likely to fall short of it. This issue of looking to "moral leaders" and the like, is a big mistake. As you say, we can only try to be better, while acknowledging that in some respects, we will be way off the mark.

The three questions.

Quite a good story. And correct, or so it looks like to me. Thanks for sharing.

Cheers.

Interesting point! I put an example of a group because the original author pretended to defend that mostly the masses would act against to the individual just to survive.
If is only one man against the fat man, this one would die anyways but I guess in this example is quite worse for awareness because the responsibility cannot distributed — javi2541997

That is why this scenario, "choice" of action among available alternatives is not necessarily an ethical one. It is one of practicality -- "either you or me". Like I said, consent or the will is important.

is not necessarily an ethical one. It is one of practicality -- "either you or me". Like I said, consent or the will is important. — Caldwell

I guess it is somehow ethical because of the characteristics and the context. There are a group of unknown hikers and then a fat man. We can say blow him up is pure practical just to survive but I guess in a psychological point of view could be ethical because we are debating about the life of a fat man stuck in a doom, thus, a weaker person than the group. It is not a random person, is fat, meaning that he has more or less a characteristic which is taboo in society (for example, clothes tend to be recently for people with big sizes, etc...)
You see it as pure practical and is very understandable but others could see it as a group killing the weaker human just to survive, so they could think this is not "ethical at all despite the practical aspect"

Note: the original book talked about a pregnant woman. Imagine...

Sure. If we commit ourselves to some extremely high moral standard, we are likely to fall short of it. This issue of looking to "moral leaders" and the like, is a big mistake. — Manuel

Not at all. I might very successfully travel to London by following the instructions "Head North". It's not necessary for me to be able to actually get to the North Pole for the instruction to have utility.

If we try to act like 'moral leaders', then, in doing so, we will become more moral ourselves. It's not necessary that we are actually able to achieve their standards.

I think this varies by person. In my personal case, it has not been of much use. For you it seems to be different. Same with moral leaders.

To all the persons who are/were interested in this thread, PhD David Edmons (senior research associate at Oxford) answered to this dilemma in the following way: Would you kill the fat man?

"The Fat Man quandry highlights the stark clash between deontological and utilitarian ethics" [p.182]. The "Fat Man" in this case is not the fat man of the fat man and the impending doom, but the fat man of the trolley problem, where in one variant we are tempted to push a fat man off a bridge in order to stop a trolley and save people tied to the tracks. As it happens, we learn that both dilemmas go back to the same philosopher, Philippa Foot, who introduces the first fat man before we are given the Trolley Problem.

I guess you could be interested.