How far would you go for love?

[binary solo]

Akvod said:

binary solo said:
As this is all hypothetical, you left out the most important option: selling your soul to the devil. (i.e. the soul and the devil are hypothetical entities taken as being real for the purposes of this thread). All the other options are only limited in effect, selling your soul is everything. You could say killing someone else is selling your soul, but it's not an explicit pact of giving away your Self with the dark one, it's merely a permanent scar which can never be healed or erased.

I could not kill someone else (being an innocent 3rd party) to save another (or myself). Basically it's a losing calculus to do it. You might think it's a zero sum game (might as well have the person you don't know / know the least die because someone's going to die anyway), but the long term emotional and psychological outcome is worse if you do the killing, instead of the sadistic psychopath doing the killing. I'd be willing to lose a body part or suffer for another, just don't ask me to do the cutting, I'd even do it for a total stranger if it meant my hand vs. their life. Actually, if the maniac tries to lay the burden of decision on me by saying I get to decide whether I die or some other person dies then I'd choose to die every time, regardles of who the other person is. Or rather I would hope I had the courage to follow what I think is the right thing to do. If it's between my loved one and the psycho-maniac who is putting my loved one in a life threatening situation then the psycho-maniac will lose every time.

Ultimately it's not love for another that would motivate me, it's love for myself. I love myself too much to allow myself to be an agent of misery to another innocent party. I would rather suffer the anguish of losing a loved one by my own choice than cause others to suffer exactly the same anguish of losing a loved one when they had no say in the matter.

Even considering the scenario where there is no psycho maniac trying to manipulate your morality e.g. an accident scene with 2 people trapped in a car that's sinking under water . One is someone you love the other is someone you don't know / don't know well. My instinct would be to save the one I love. But if I had time to consider it I would first save the other, then hope there was time to save the one I love. Again I would rather suffer through my actions than cause someone else to suffer through my actions. I think the happiness created in the loved ones of the person I save would be greater than the grief suffered by myself and others at the loss of the one I love.

Of course this attitude is helped by the fact that I don't believe physical death is the end, only a transition.

Eh, see, first you were talking about morality and a bit of religion, but then at the end, now you sound utilitarian.

Screw the net utility and happiness that results. All you care about is your loved person being alive and happy, and you assume that the loved person would ultimately be happier if they were saved vs than killed.

So got that? Utility for loved person is greater if they are alive. We are assuming that, and we need to be on the same page.

Now are you willing to do anything? Whether it is causing suffering to yourself, to others, or selling your soul to the devil. All for the desire to make your loved person better off (And we are assuming that all the choices I gave, ultimately would).

 

Loved person or Your self, others, soul, morality, etc? Which one?

Nah, first paragraph was mostly hypothetical, primarily because I don't believe it's possible to sell your soul to the devil. It's just that selling your soul to the devil is a common fictional device, so if we are in fictional territory then this is an option.

I start from the premise that everyone is someone's loved one, so everyone is equal in whatever scenario you care to imagine (the assumption being that the people whose lives hang in the balance of your decision are innocent parties).

The thing is there's no right answer here, there's only what's right for you. It is right that you save your loved one's life knowing that through no fault of your own someone else will die. It is also right that you save another person's life knowing that a loved one will die. Morally it is right that you save a life, whose life you save doesn't matter. And the circumstances, whether accidental or contrived, are irrelevant, because it's your motives that matter to you, not the actions or influences of others.

It can be analysed both from a utilitarian point of view and moral point of view, both ways of looking at it are valid, and you can compare and contrast the outcomes suggested by both methods of analysis. So misery to happiness ratio (cost/benefit) can be esitmated to determine which outcome is likely to lead to greatest net benefit. And you can consider the morally correct approach, if you can in fact tie down morality sufficiently for people to agree on the fundamentals.

My moral code is that it is better to suffer than to cause suffering (there are always exceptions when there are 3rd parties involved, especially with an antagonist who is not directly accessible for you to prevent the suffering or deflect the suffering onto (which is where justice would come into the equation)). I think this way because I think if it was everyone's moral code then it would lead to a lot less suffering in the world. Others have a different moral code and I have no argument with people who view things differently, as long as their code isn't amoral or immoral.

In the scenario being suggested, the ability to kill the antagonist or prevent them carrying out their evil machinations isn't an option, so you have to decide between you and a loved one, or a loved one and another innocent. My moral starting point is that I will take on suffering before I will allow others to suffer (which is why I find it hard to be evil Cole, even though it's only a game). So between me and my loved one it is I who will suffer. Between my loved one and the other innocent, I would argue that the moral principle I subscribe to suggests I choose the other innocent to live because then I take on the suffering rather than allowing the loved ones of the other innocent to suffer; either way someone dies, whether a soul exists or not their suffering is at an end; it's the people who are left behind whose suffering is the real concern. I also say that taking a utilitarian approach can lead you to the same conclusion: the net benefit is greatest if I take on as much suffering as I can in order to eliminate or at least alleviate the suffering of others. Basically even though I suffer, I am also comforted knowing my suffering had meaning and purpose (i.e. it was righteous suffering), so they benefit a lot and I benefit a little. Whereas if I transfer the suffering onto them then I benefit a lot, but I feel grieved for the other's loved ones, and they suffer greatly. However, if someone has a different perspective and believes their own suffering is worse and there is no benefit to their personal suffering, then to save their loved on in favour of the other innocent is the right course of action.