[DrTodd13]

In a hypothetical universe, if the murder, total enslavement, or economic enslavement of one innocent individual could guarantee universal happiness and lack of need, which of these actions would you consider right or wrong to achieve the aforementioned guarantee. Total enslavement here means that every facet of the one individual's life is controlled by the remainder of the population. Economic enslavement here means that non-productive personal matters such as religion and family are still under control of the individual but economically productive actions are under the control of the rest of the population...including dictating what jobs he can and can't do, how he does them, and up to 100% taxation.

[Al_U_Card]

You did say a "hypocritical" universe.....

[NickRW]

Even in a hypothetical universe, I cannot fathom how the enslavement/murder of another is the route to happiness for even one individual, never mind for society.

In other words, I think it is a silly question.

Nick

[awm]

Is there a such thing as an innocent individual?

If there was a person with a deadly, communicable disease that would almost surely kill everyone in the world and the only way to stop its spread was to kill this person, how many of us would honestly say that this person should live?

If there was a person who designed a device which can produce unlimited pollution-free electricity, but this person refused to share that device or the principles behind it with the rest of the world, how many of us would honestly say that we should leave this person alone rather than taking the useful device away?

Sometimes saving the lives and/or well-being of a huge number of people has to outweigh the happiness (or even life) of an individual.

Of course, all these things have to be weighed against one another. Fortunately, people have the ability to feel empathy for other people, which enables us to make better decisions in this regard than we otherwise would.

Returning to the real world, a national government makes a substantial investment in its citizens. The government helps provide education, clean air and water, protection of life and property. In return for this investment it is fair for the government to demand some return from the citizens in the form of taxes, and it further makes sense to demand that the citizens who have benefitted more from the status quo also return more (just as a successful company pays more to its shareholders than an unsuccessful one). It is not possible for individuals to "opt out" of this government investment, because it simply must be provided to all or none (how do we foul the air of the people who "opt out" of the clean air program while still protecting the air of those who didn't "opt out"? how do uneducated children make an informed decision about whether they want an education?). Of course, one has to decide exactly what the value of these various government guarantees are, and how much the government can fairly demand in return (and whether we actually want the government to do these things).

[pclayton]

Todd, I was your slave for 90 seconds while I read that.

[Al_U_Card]

I like to listen to Audio slave...

[Lobowolf]

awm, on Sep 24 2008, 06:45 PM, said:

If there was a person with a deadly, communicable disease that would almost surely kill everyone in the world and the only way to stop its spread was to kill this person, how many of us would honestly say that this person should live?

In P.K. Dick's "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" (loosely adapted into the movie Blade Runner, Deckard is told by the philosophical leader of, well, pretty much everyone on earth, that "sometimes one should do the wrong thing." This part of your post reminds me of that. I'm inclined to think both that this person "shouldn't" live, and that the fact that I think that way doesn't mean that killing him would not be immoral.

With respect to the original post, I believe that all of the options are morally wrong if the person in question in unwilling to undergo them, and any of them is morally right if the person in question is willing.

Edit: I like Audioslave, too. And Iron Maiden's Powerslave.

[akhare]

This reminds me of the dilemma faced by the protagonist in Tarkovsky's "The Sacrifice" (Offret).

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091670/

[Al_U_Card]

Lobowolf, on Sep 24 2008, 07:37 PM, said:

awm, on Sep 24 2008, 06:45 PM, said:

If there was a person with a deadly, communicable disease that would almost surely kill everyone in the world and the only way to stop its spread was to kill this person, how many of us would honestly say that this person should live?

I'm inclined to think both that this person "shouldn't" live, and that the fact that I think that way doesn't mean that killing him would not be immoral.

Any sane person, under those circumstances, would ask to be locked away.

Any insane person, under those circumstance, would have to be locked away.

[luke warm]

once again it all comes down to philosophy... do the means justify the ends? you either think they do or they don't (there's no such thing as an answer of "sometimes")

[Gerben42]

The mathematical logic of this universe must be that only 1 human is present. If you kill him, all humans in this universe will be happy. I can prove that this solution is unique, but this post is too small to contain it.

There is no such thing as "universal happiness". And if there would be, it would be so boring that it has a very short decay time.

[helene_t]

luke warm, on Sep 25 2008, 11:20 AM, said:

(there's no such thing as an answer of "sometimes")

Of course there is. People are sometimes willing to sacrifice individuals for the sake of society. Sometimes they are not. Of course it depends on proportions. It may also depend on irrational decision making (a hospital is willing to spend more money on saving an individual's life than are authorities responsible for road safety improvement. Presumably the life of a particular person is more valuable than the life of a hypothetical future person. Also, failure to save a life is considered less cruel than murder).

It may be difficult to formulate a coherent philosophy consistent with a "sometimes" policy. Nevertheless, if I were to phrase a single absolute moral statement I believe in, then "absolutism is always wrong" would be a good candidate.

Agree with Gerben, btw.

[Hanoi5]

Quote

Any sane person, under those circumstances, would ask to be locked away.

Any insane person, under those circumstance, would have to be locked away.

What if locking away this individual doesn't 'solve' the problem?

This is not a tough choice and I don't believe too much in the people who suggested 'none of the above'. Although there is a short story on this exact topic called 'The ones who walk away from Omelas' by Ursula LeGuin, so if someone is really interested, read it and we'll see if you'll really walk away from Omelas.

[kenberg]

DrTodd13, on Sep 24 2008, 05:54 PM, said:

In a hypothetical universe, if the murder, total enslavement, or economic enslavement of one innocent individual could guarantee universal happiness and lack of need, which of these actions would you consider right or wrong to achieve the aforementioned guarantee. Total enslavement here means that every facet of the one individual's life is controlled by the remainder of the population. Economic enslavement here means that non-productive personal matters such as religion and family are still under control of the individual but economically productive actions are under the control of the rest of the population...including dictating what jobs he can and can't do, how he does them, and up to 100% taxation.

I believe I would first ask "Which individual do we have in mind here?" The answer might affect my choice.

But once we get past that issue, it seems that you hardly need a hypothetical universe to find the answer given by almost everyone. We regularly send soldiers into very dangerous situations, and sometimes to certain death, to achieve far less than universal happiness, whatever that might be.

Incidentally, on the various possibilities of death and slavery, I think I am with Patrick Henry on that one.

[pigpenz]

makes me think of the capture and execution of Sadam Hussein

[helene_t]

pigpenz, on Sep 25 2008, 03:28 PM, said:

makes me think of the capture and execution of Sadam Hussein

innocent?

[dicklont]

I voted two but want to add a little something.
This individual has a choice and when he chooses to agree he can stop it at anytime.

[gwnn]

dicklont, on Sep 25 2008, 04:52 PM, said:

I voted two but want to add a little something.
This individual has a choice and when he chooses to agree he can stop it at anytime.

That doesn't sound anything like enslavement.

[Lobowolf]

luke warm, on Sep 25 2008, 05:20 AM, said:

once again it all comes down to philosophy... do the means justify the ends? you either think they do or they don't (there's no such thing as an answer of "sometimes")

I think there's such an answer as "sometimes." I believe in private property rights, but I'd trespass on your front your lawn to cure cancer. I wouldn't murder you, though, even if I knew I wouldn't suffer any consequences.

[akhare]

Gerben42, on Sep 25 2008, 05:32 AM, said:

The mathematical logic of this universe must be that only 1 human is present. If you kill him, all humans in this universe will be happy. I can prove that this solution is unique, but this post is too small to contain it.

I just noticed that the the numbers for the top two responses are 42.86.

I think we converged on the actual solution to the "secret.....", but the Pentium floating point division bug caused the precision error.

Now wait, that was more than a decade ago, but what is a little decadance when we are dealing with such profound questions ?