Would it be moral to kill two or more people to save yourself even though their lives outnumber yours? — Captain Homicide

If two or more people were threatening me and my loved ones, certainly. That's what the self-defence defence is. The killing of innocent bystanders in order to save yourself is never accepted as justification.
The number you sacrifice or the number you save thereby are not at issue. (Except in religion, of course.) The moral justification only works if you kill someone in order to prevent them killing you or some innocent victim(s).
(No throwing the fat guy under the trolley, unless he's controlling its downward hurtle.)

Most people believe it would be morally right and justified to kill someone to save yourself or someone else because it’s basic self defense whether the person you’re killing did anything or not. — Captain Homicide

"Whether the person you're killing did anything or not"? This sounds like the exact opposite of self-defense. Self-defense implies that the other person did something.

I would suggest reading the thread on How to Write an OP.

What might be, from an abstract perspective, immoral would be completely irrelevant to someone acting to save their own lives and/or the lives of their loved ones.

Exactly.

The reason why "self-defense" in the moment of imminent or ensuing harm is acceptable is that the central nervous system does not allow reflection at the moment of crisis. Instead, physical resources are marshaled and directed against the threat. We either survive or we are dead. If we had time to carefully sort out the moral implications and then act, we probably were not existentially threatened.

If you can flee, you should flee.

Needless to say, provoking an attack so that self-defense can be invoked is immoral.

If you can flee, you should flee.

Needless to say, provoking an attack so that self-defense can be invoked is immoral. — BC

Nice pickups!

I should have clarified. The people in this situation aren’t attacking you but you are still forced to choose between killing them or sacrificing yourself.

The people in this situation aren’t attacking you but you are still forced to choose between killing them or sacrificing yourself. — Captain Homicide

Nobody knows what they would do in that situation. If it happens, you do what your instinct dictates, which you either do not survive or regret for the rest of your life. Unless you're a psychopath.

What might be, from an abstract perspective, immoral would be completely irrelevant to someone acting to save their own lives and/or the lives of their loved ones. — Janus

No. The moral status of self-defense is an age-old issue. It is not a de facto non-moral issue.

Neither is it practically irrelevant, for there are pacifists who maintain their pacifism even while in danger.

I should have clarified. The people in this situation aren’t attacking you but you are still forced to choose between killing them or sacrificing yourself. — Captain Homicide

Wait a minute. You've 'clarified' the matter out of existence. IF they are not attacking you, then there is no justification for an attack in self-defense. What the hell are they doing?

A man was just convicted of second degree murder in Minnesota. There had been an altercation at a river park in Wisconsin, Names were called, threats were made. The convicted person (a guy in his 50s) fell into the water, and when he stood up he brandished a knife, which he proceeded to use to kill one of the people who had been yelling at him.

The judge noted that the convicted man could have -- and should have -- left the scene of the conflict when he climbed out of the river -- nobody was stopping him from departing. Nobody was threatening his existence, however abusive the verbiage being tossed around might have been. It was homicide, not self-defense.

I’m suggesting something like the trolley problem except you’re the person that has to die for a larger number to live.

A drop of wine in a vat of sewage is still a vat of sewage. A drop of sewage in a vat of wine is now a vat of sewage. The good, innocent person being the drop of wine, and the vat of sewage being any number of those of sound mind and judgement who chose to take a life for purposes of pleasure or monetary gain or similar benefit including placating one's severely disturbed mind, childlike emotions, and inability to function as a mature adult.

I suppose a collapse of society and a "man trying to feed his wife and kids" changes the scenario. Somewhat. Maybe you're old and dying of cancer and the man trying to rob (and kill you if necessary) is young and I don't know, genetically or intellectually gifted, and can yet contribute to the world of tomorrow in ways you no longer can- or something.

Sure, if men were psychic and you could somehow know the man trying to kill you would somehow go on to pioneer a cure for cancer or something one might be inclined to let him live or allow oneself to be killed, not sure why the two have to be mutually exclusive. Personally, I'd at least give him a fair crack under such a scenario.

Or take a different scenario. Let's say you happened to have inherited a vast amount of generational wealth from a family you found out accumulated such wealth from less than honorable means and a large mob of angry villagers has breached your legal property line, nearing your dwelling. You also have a mounted military grade mini-gun for some reason. What do you do? What to do indeed. "Sin is a matter of perspective", some claim. While doing the sinning and not on the receiving end, naturally.

As interested as I am in philosophy, in recent years I've taken the "go my own way" approach, purposely choosing to neglect reading established philosophers and their related philosophies so as to foster a sterile environment in which I can develop my own, free of influence or persuasion from others (likely based on what was already done, but allows me to enjoy a sense of pseudo-originality regardless). What comes to mind would be "the trolley problem", which doesn't seem to line up exactly considering one's own life is in danger in your line of scenario versus the life or lives of others. To my understanding people generally get their sense of morality from a few main sources, most choosing only one. Dogma (absolute notions, typically derived from religion or the idea of a higher, supernatural power), social contracts (everybody must adhere to some sort of standard in order to bring about a greater quality of life and reduce suffering and anguish), or personal relativism (golden rule, treat others as you wish to be treated, if it hurts me, it would hurt another, therefore, don't do it because ... it's wrong?). Or some haphazard mess of two or more. In some primitive nomadic cultures devoid of science or modern medicine, a broken arm or leg was an easy death sentence. I believe there was a ceremonial cliff or volcano where one would defenestrate oneself if able, or have it done by the group, typically without immense anguish due to a prevailing belief of being "reborn" whole at a later time, or as a bird or something. I can't recall. The reason I bring that up is there is a social aspect where one can become too much of a burden to the point the society suffers or even risks collapse. A modern case would be a violent criminal or dangerous mental invalid, etc. It is generally immoral to imprison someone who is not guilty of the charge of consciously committing a crime, however if the person is a dangerous invalid who would otherwise seriously injure or kill others, not doing so would be immoral. Stuff like that. In short, depends who you ask I guess.

The Trolley Problem is a question of the 'greatest good for the greatest number of people". Somebody is going to die, one way or another. It's interesting, but it's been done to death.

Stick with your original post and don't change it anymore.

"Your money or your life"

You probably have never heard of Jack Benny; too bad if you haven't, great if you have. He was first popular on radio, then later television. Here's the punchline of a radio comedy skit about having to make an existential choice:

No. The moral status of self-defense is an age-old issue. It is not a de facto non-moral issue. — Leontiskos

I didn't say it was a "non-moral issue". I said that its status as a moral issue may be irrelevant to the one defending themselves in the act of defense.

That there might be pacifists whose ideology carries more weight to them than their own wellbeing or survival, even in the mortally threatening moment, doesn't seem relevant. People enslave themselves to all kinds of ideas, human diversity being what it is.

I didn't say it was a "non-moral issue". I said that its status as a moral issue may be irrelevant to the one defending themselves in the act of defense. — Janus

Therefore...?

I am imagining the parallel where we are having a discussion about whether one should eat unknown mushrooms, and then you come along and say, "Well, someone who is very hungry might eat unknown mushrooms." But what is the purpose of such a comment supposed to be? That people might do things they know to be stupid? Just as people might do things they know to be immoral?

That there might be pacifists whose ideology carries more weight to them than their own wellbeing or survival, even in the mortally threatening moment, doesn't seem relevant. — Janus

How do you figure that it is irrelevant that people will undergo harm for moral reasons? Why don't you try to set out some form of syllogistic argumentation for why you believe this to be irrelevant.

That people might do things they know to be stupid? Just as people might do things they know to be immoral? — Leontiskos

People do things they think to be immoral all the time if it suits them. How much more so will they lose whatever moral compass they may have thought they had when their lives, or the lives of loved ones are threatened?

This reminds me of an argument on another philosophy forum long ago. The question was whether it would be morally right to torture the kidnapper of your wife or child to find where he had hid them, if you knew they had them imprisoned somewhere and had planted a bomb set to go off in a couple hours that would kill them.

The one who posed the question said people were hypocrites to morally condemn torture in any and all circumstances when most of them would torture the kidnapper in that situation. I said that was wrong—even if there is no good argument to support condoning torture in any circumstance, it is nonetheless understandable that anyone who cares about their family would torture the kidnapper in that circumstance and would not be concerned about being justified in doing so. They are two different questions.

People do things they think to be immoral all the time if it suits them. — Janus

Obviously, but again, what in the world does this have to do with the OP?

The one who posed the question said people were hypocrites to morally condemn torture in any and all circumstances when most of them would torture the kidnapper in that situation. I said that was wrong—even if there is no good argument to support condoning torture in any circumstance, it is nonetheless understandable that anyone who cares about their family would torture the kidnapper in that circumstance and would not be concerned about being justified in doing so. They are two different questions. — Janus

He was right and you were wrong. They are hypocrites. It makes no difference whether their hypocrisy is understandable.

Do murder and torture belong in the behavior pattern of the morally upright?

I think not.

Would murdering someone in an act of self-defense irredeemably stain your soul forever and condemn you to eternal hellfire in the hereafter?

Maybe not. But that doesn't make it moral.

There seems to be confusion about the meaning of the word.

- The claim that self-defense is murder would seem to beg the question at hand.

I’m suggesting something like the trolley problem except you’re the person that has to die for a larger number to live. — Captain Homicide

I covered that one.

(No throwing the fat guy under the trolley, unless he's controlling its downward hurtle.) — Vera Mont

Nobody, except the high priests of ancient religions and military commanders, has the right to decide who is to be sacrificed for whom, how many deaths are worth how many lives and which ones. Except in ancient religions and warfare, self-sacrifice is voluntary, not morally required.

A breach of moral standards is wrong, no matter what the practical or emotional justification.

If you want to replace "murder" with "killing", be my guest. The point stays the same.

Well, I don't see it that way because I am no moral purist. Of course, torture must be condemned tout court, If I torture the perpetrator to save my family, I will never claim that act is morally justified, because the standard for society has to be "no torture under any circumstances" and I support that. If I feel circumstances call for me to commit an immoral act then I take full responsibility for that, and would feel justified and would not feel myself to have been a hypocrite,

In other words, we have the general rules for society, and then each of us has their own moral sense that we must accept responsibility for. If I didn't torture the perpetrator to find out where my child was, I would feel I had committed an immoral act even though it would have been in accordance with the general rule, and at the same time I would be prepared to accept whatever condemnation or punishment I had rightly subjected myself to and nor would I reject the well-earned epithet of "hypocrite' even though I didn't feel it to be so.

- You seem to be tying yourself up in knots. A large part of the problem is that you are equivocating on the term immoral, between what-society-deems-immoral and what-Janus-deems-immoral. Hypocrisy obviously pertains to the latter and not the former.

No, I'm allowing that society needs general moral rules which I feel I should support but which unfortunately cannot be expected to adequately cover all circumstances. I'm not at all "tied up in knots" about it, it's crystal clear to me, so the seeming must be a projection on your part.

Of course, torture must be condemned tout court, If I torture the perpetrator to save my family, I will never claim that act is morally justified, because the standard for society has to be "no torture under any circumstances" and I support that. — Janus

Why should that be the standard? Do you torture the terrorist to get the code to disarm the nuke that's about to go off and kill a million people? I think you have a moral obligation to start pulling some fingernails.

As I said, we need general rules, but those rules cannot adequately deal with all cases.

As I said, we need general rules, but those rules cannot adequately deal with all cases. — Janus

I agree it should be a general rule to avoid torture, but there are hypothetical cases where it would seem to be the moral thing to do. Shouldn't the government carve out exceptions for those cases? Or are those exceptions already "built in"? Consider the following:

Suppose government agents catch a terrorist with a nuke in the heart of NY and there's one of those Hollywood digital readouts counting down 30 minutes. Further suppose those agents start breaking the guy's fingers and he spills his guts about how to disarm the bomb and they disarm it. Would you support prosecuting those agents? No jury in the world would convict them and rightly so.

Shouldn't the government carve out exceptions for those cases? — RogueAI

Governments do. They condemn torture - except when they condone it for National Security. And they don't call it torture; they call it 'enhanced interrogation'.
The RCC condoned it, too, in order to save the souls of people whose neighbours thought they might be witches, warlocks, Satanists, heretics or believers in other solar systems capable of supporting life.

Suppose government agents catch a terrorist with a nuke in the heart of NY and there's one of those Hollywood digital readouts counting down 30 minutes. — RogueAI

That's a movie. In real life, what they catch is a seventeen-year-old zealot who is suspected of knowing something about a possible plot to place a nuke somewhere in NY sometime. Six years without shoes in a concrete cell and 82 waterboardings later, he still doesn't know.

Further suppose those agents start breaking the guy's fingers and he spills his guts about how to disarm the bomb and they disarm it. — RogueAI

His fingers and toes are all broken, and he still doesn't know how to disarm the bomb, because he didn't make it or arm it. He doesn't know who they are or where they are. The terrorists are smart enough to send an ignorant mule to plant it.
These hypotheticals are Hollywood. Real conflict is not scripted.

These hypotheticals are Hollywood. Real conflict is not scripted. — Vera Mont

I agree with that.

- You still require the distinction that I pointed out, and this is obvious given the way that you conceive of government epikeia as distinct from personal epikeia.

I agree it should be a general rule to avoid torture, but there are hypothetical cases where it would seem to be the moral thing to do. Shouldn't the government carve out exceptions for those cases? — RogueAI

It would be too complicated, the kinds of arguments you would get would be "Well it applies in that case, why not this one?".

The distinction is between a general rule and those edge cases it cannot reasonably deal with. The law as practiced, whether judicial or moral, is never black and white, but the general rules must be set out as black and white.

:up: Ah, some subtlety!