TheLivingShadow said:
Alright before I respond to the challenge of answering in a purely pragmatical sense (which is a no-brainer by the way), I must say that the bolded is a bold (pun) statement to make and one that can be debunked easily. In fact, consider just two arguments: 1. The kids are kids. You didn't just run over an adult who has (or should have anyway) complete sense of what he/she's doing. You ran over kids. Before you say that I'm giving kids more moral power than adults, that is not true. The sole truth is you cannot fault kids for getting lost. 2. You're driving in full knowledge that you drank. This argument alone trumps everything else in a moral and legal (though I don't really care about the legality of the issue here to be honest; that is not what I'm discussing) sense. By doing that, prior to driving you should subconsciously know that if something should happen because of your drinking, then obviously it is your fault. Now, the situation doesn't state it but it is implied that you ran over the kids because of the drinking.
Now, for the pragmatical answer, it is quite obvious that if a plan is not devised in time that would allow for the child to live and me to not go to prison, I must save my life first simply because in a purely utilitarian sense, I need to look after myself. The dead kid is dead is dead, nothing to do about that; and the almost living kid is probably gonna have a ruined life anyway. To save them and to go to prison would also cause me to get me life ruined and be less happy. But if I'm not caught, I will live plentifully (without remorse at all because you said not to consider emotions, though let me emphasize emotions are useless and out of topic here. If emotions dictate your actions, then you're only saving the kid's life in a pragmatical sense, i.e. that you would). Because utilitarianism seeks to make the biggest amount of people happier, then it's a no brainer you should just run away. Emotions vary widely among people, but I know I myself would have no trouble supressing them. Others, however, may even commit suicide because they simply cannot forego of their guilt. In that case, the pragmatical answer is to save the living kid. It would ultimately make that person happier. But, I'm not such a person, and hence I would just run away, in complete disregard of others' lives and my very own conscious freedom, but I would. However, that is exactly the way an animal acts, enslaved to its own desires and emotions. I and everyone else here given enough time can find the utilitarian solution to most problems. The reason it doesn't work that way is because utilitarianism completely negates freedom. And I'm not talking about freedom as in you should do what you want, but freedom in the sense that you should have boundaries that you place upon yourself as a fully conscious and thoughtful being, and by adhering to these boundaries that you place upon yourself, in complete restraining of your emotions and your instincs, you are truly free. I understand it might be mind boggling at the beginning due to how society encourages you to take always a pragmatical approach, but while that is true for materialistic problems, it fails at dealing with the interactions of humans. I know that I may not have explained my view in the most understandable way possible. Look up Immanuel Kant if you're still unsure about what I'm trying to say. While I don't agree with Kant in everything, I decide to take his basic approach to freedom as the best moral one there is. If you do happen to understand what I mean and still disagree with me, please don't hold anything back in arguments. The only way to grow morally is to test them in logical debate. However, do note that I will only debate on the morality of the case, because otherwise we are not debating at all since we agree. |
For the first two paragraphs, the OP implied that the kids suddenly jumped into the street--suggesting that even if alcohol wasn't involved, an accident would still have occurred. It was also implied that the amount of alcohol was insignificant enough not to impair one's senses, but that the mere presence of alcohol would ensure a prison sentence. That portion of the senario ensures that even if the driver is not at fault, he or she would still be imprisoned. All that isn't really relevant though, since ultimately the moral question remains unchanged.
You are right that there really is nothing to debate. For the most part, we are in agreement as far as pragmatism is concerned, but it would appear that we disagree on the value and necessity of morals themselves--which I suppose is an entirely different discussion. By that, I mean the value and necessity of morals agreed upon as a group.
