Two Ethical Questions!

[P_R]

Senario A : Its easy 5:1. I will go for the single guy

Senario B : Saving is one thing and killing assuming that will save is another. I dont think i will kill a man believing it will save others.

This was the typical response to the test (I think it was conducted by this young prof in Princeton). Kind of asked Girish leading questions to get as close to this as possible 8)

One of the interpretations to this is as follows: Ethics, like every other human 'function' has evolved over the years in the brain. Physically killing a man is an activity we are used to since the cave man days. A sense of right and wrong has been developed for this situation. Hence we don't even have to consciously think if killing somebody is wrong. We instinctively know it is wrong and we need strong reasons to convince ourselves to do it (like saving the kids).
OTOH pushing buttons is relatively new to the human race. So the immediacy between the button and causing death has not become part of the evolutionary process. That is why we have no/less hesitation in pushing the button though the result is the same as killing the man.
Why does this result make one uneasy ? Ethics and values are things we pride ourselves over. Beauty and brains can just simply be inherited. This does not make them less important but they are not in the domain of personal choice. Ethics and values we adhere to, we like to believe are our choices and thus define us. This experiment calls that into question and supports a line of argument that ethics can also be a plain matter of reflex action having much less to do with free will than we thought.

[Rohit]

Though what I am going to write below is not directly related to the title of the topic, it involves general aspects of human reasoning behind ethical or moral understanding, depending on scenarios and situations encountered at the time, either by an individual and/or by society and humanity in general.

Ethics or more commonly known as morality is the conceptual knowledge of what is right and what is wrong; and it was and it is an essential part of human evolutionary process and thus it necessarily implies as a learned process.

The process of ethical or moral learning is based on a few simple cognitive rules.

If someone’s action or behaviour harms or hurts someone, the one who gets hurt or harmed realises that if he/she would do the same to others, it would hurt or harm them too; and so it must be bad. Thus, these kind of “bad” actions or behaviours would become known as anti-social behaviours.

If someone’s action or behaviour helps or benifits either an individual or the group of people to which an individual belongs to, the benefits brought about by such actions or behaviours coerce one to realise that such actions or behaviours are beneficial; and so they must be good. Thus, these kind of “good” actions or behaviours would become known as pro-social behaviours.

The real ethical concepts of right and wrong do not necessarily follow from good and bad outcomes. However, the correlations that hold between “good” outcomes and “right” and between “bad” outcomes and “wrong”, on average, tend to grow towards higher side as the learning progresses. Thus, what is experienced as “good”, bears the potential of getting translated into “right” and what is experienced as “bad”, bears the potential of getting translated into “wrong”. In the process, some "goods" must be rejected for better "goods" and some "bads" must be accepted as they were not as "bad" or "bad" at all as previously thought, believed or understood and subsequently accepted as "good".

On aggregate, whatever brings “good” outcomes are accepted as “right” and whatever brings “bad” outcomes are accepted as “wrong”. That is why the ethical or moral understanding of “right” and “wrong” is not universal. There exist stark differences between culture to culture and between individual to individual about what is considered “good/right” and what is considered “bad/wrong”.

Not every notion of “good/right” for one culture or an individual would necessarily be the notion of “good/right” for other cultures or other individuals.

And

Not every notion of “bad/wrong” for one culture or an individual would necessarily be the notion of “bad/wrong” for other cultures or other individuals.

For example; killing animals, especially cow, for food is widely considered “bad/wrong” in the Indian cultural perspectives, while it is not so in other cultures.

While there is hardly any ethical sense of understanding of such “rights” and “wrongs” in animal kingdom; killing other animals, including their own kinds and humans is the only survival strategy or activity for carnivorous animals like lions, tigers, cheetah, leopard, hyenas etc. There are cannibal animals who kill their own kinds for food; and not to anyone's surprise, there are/were plenty of instances of cannibalism in some human tribes. Killing and sacrificing human and animal lives were widely accepted practices in ancient times and they are still not completely rooted out from certain parts of the world.

Thus, the ethics or understanding of moral values has deep cognitive roots in the human evolutionary process, making most moral situations very subjective, depending on what is at stake and what are the available benefits in making certain choices, no matter how irrational they maybe. If the benefits outweigh the stakes, the social or individual choice would be to pick the one that has higher potential for bringing more benefits, either to the individual or to a certain group of people, while the stakes involved are rightly or wrongly deemed tolerable or affordable. The evidential proofs of such irrational choices of moral values are obvious. There are countless examples of some of the most outrageous and deplorable actions and behaviours of individuals and/or society that were/are justified as good/right when such actions and/or behaviours had/have their roots attached to certain aspects of conceptual, social, cultural or religious life. Questioning them itself were/are considered bad/wrong.

Such is the highly subjective nature of ethics or morality; but, on average, it must tend to grow towards an overall, social and cognitive development of humanity as a whole. The pace at which it happened in the past was slower, the pace at which it is happening at present is slow. The evolutionary process is unlikely to devolve and allow the notions or concepts of ethical or moral values to be continuously consumed and thus, abused just by a few individuals. It must grow towards serving a much wider and broader aspect of human development, if humans have to survive and evolve further as highly intelligent, social animals.

[P_R]

Rohit, by far that's the best written post I've read in the Hub.

The evidential proofs of such irrational choices of moral values are obvious.

Quite right. But I always believe that we are here to bring love and hate closer to reason which is why this is disturbing. Though subjective is a very human word one is reluctant to be associated with such a moniker. IMO such a reluctance is natural and in fact a good thing. Because the individual makes an individual unhappy with reflex actions/choices and encourages him to be as conscious as possible.

The evolutionary process is unlikely to devolve and allow the notions or concepts of ethical or moral values to be continuously consumed and thus, abused just by a few individuals.

I didn't get this, particularly the abuse bit. Please elaborate.

[Rohit]

Dear Prabhu Ram

I would be inconsiderate if I fail to acknowledge your compliments. Thank you.

At the same time, it would be even more inconsiderate of me if I fail to acknowledge and appreciate the precision in your posts.

As you mentioned, I do recognise the dire need to bring love and hatred closer to reason. However, I am under no delusion that to reach such an ambitious situation is undoubtedly remote. There is no solecism in human urge to be loved, but the fault arises when it is impracticably and irrationally rested upon the false notion of unconditional love, when hatred itself originates from such faulty notions. The dilemma lies in not realising the obvious diffusion or spread in humans’ cognitive dimensions, only a certain measure of which would carry the requisite power of generating valid reasoning, while a majority of it would be entrapped in a discordant interaction with a chaos of emotions. Such emotional perplexities carry inherent limitations and danger of being misappropriated; and thus the reason itself would not allow the bridging of this existing intrinsic gap, but work as a major driving force in bettering our understanding of ethics in its truer sense.

I didn't get this, particularly the abuse bit. Please elaborate.

I can see the reason for your request to elaborate

Of course, the use of word “devolve” may sound misleading, but it was not meant here in biological sense, rather it was intended to convey cognitive degeneration. I am bit surprised by you missing the point behind the “abuse bit”, when the world’s history itself provides countless accounts of such abusive use of ethical or moral sentiments of the masses by a few individuals occupying social, religious or political positions they hardly deserved.

[P_R]

when the world's history itself provides countless accounts of such abusive use of ethical or moral sentiments of the masses by a few individuals occupying social, religious or political positions they hardly deserved

This is why I wanted you to elaborate. Yes, we do try to get readymade lists of right and wrong from individuals and institutions but doesn't all institutional evolution have its origin in public choice ? Moreover aren't we to blame for handing over the reigns ? I am very reluctant to blame the 'abusing' individual.

fault arises when it is impracticably and irrationally rested upon the false notion of unconditional love, when hatred itself originates from such faulty notions

In fact to be really harsh one can view unconditional love to be a prescription for degeneration. To sustain the motivation to grow becomes that much more difficult. Compared to that hate does not seem as dangerous. The worst that it can do the individual is shut a few doors prematurely because of his prejudices, but he will still have the motivation to explore,know and grow.

reason itself would not allow the bridging of this existing intrinsic gap, but work as a major driving force in bettering our understanding of ethics in its truer sense

...and with a better understanding of ethics our yardsticks would be better that'd help reason out love and hate better.

[Girish11]

Hi PR

Was away for a couple of days.

Nice analaysis and great posts from you and Rohit, thanks for
the insights Rohit.

But frankly I did not understand many things as my English is
not so good.

Anyways, PR, as I asked you before, what was your reaction/response to the same questions when you came
across the same??

Rgds.

[P_R]

Hi PR,what was your reaction/response to the same questions when you came across the same??

Same as yours. Kill man in both cases, but a reluctant response in the second case. The more interesting response is one of my friends': he said the children ought not to have been playing in the tracks and the man was walking on a safe track on which there was no train expected. So to kill the man would be supporting wrong behaviour and rewarding errant behaviousr. So let the kids die.

[Girish11]

Hi PR,what was your reaction/response to the same questions when you came across the same??

Same as yours. Kill man in both cases, but a reluctant response in the second case. The more interesting response is one of my friends': he said the children ought not to have been playing in the tracks and the man was walking on a safe track on which there was no train expected. So to kill the man would be supporting wrong behaviour and rewarding errant behaviousr. So let the kids die.

Thanks for the reply. The reply of your friend is interesting,
but somehow does not justify to me. This new avathar is nice
PR.

[Badri]

Good God! I will certainly start praying that I am never confronted with such difficult scenarios and choices in real life!!! I don't think I can handle them!

[NOV]

Scenario B ) You are bystander and you see the traion rushing at the group of kids. There is no paralell track.There is this large man next to you and you can surprise him and push him on the tracks. If you do that the train hits and kills the man but stops and thus the kids are saved. If you don't do anything the kids will die.
What would you do ?

Why shouldn't YOU do the right thing and step onto the tracks, to stop the train?