Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. A dilemma is a choice between two bad outcomes. There must be no other options available.
Constructing a useful moral dilemma is difficult in the abstract and may never be worthwhile in a real world situation.
Unless perhaps you are teaching a group of teenagers who have never thought about this before.
Sinking boat moral dilemma
- James the Giant
- Posts: 791
- Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2009 6:41 am
Re: Sinking boat moral dilemma
So, out with it then; which?alan wrote:Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. A dilemma is a choice between two bad outcomes. There must be no other options available.
Constructing a useful moral dilemma is difficult in the abstract and may never be worthwhile in a real world situation.
Unless perhaps you are teaching a group of teenagers who have never thought about this before.
Then,
saturated with joy,
you will put an end to suffering and stress.
SN 9.11
saturated with joy,
you will put an end to suffering and stress.
SN 9.11
Re: Sinking boat moral dilemma
Which what, Big James?
Re: Sinking boat moral dilemma
Agreed.alan wrote:Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. A dilemma is a choice between two bad outcomes. There must be no other options available.
Constructing a useful moral dilemma is difficult in the abstract and may never be worthwhile in a real world situation.
Unless perhaps you are teaching a group of teenagers who have never thought about this before.
It seems that pondering such "moral dilemmas" and trying to decide in them somehow can satisfy the human desire for drama, and the desire to appear morally superior, to maintain the image of a morally superior person.
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
Re: Sinking boat moral dilemma
It surprises me the amount of people who want to pick holes in, or criticise an abstract idea that I posted for a bit of fun, as a thought exercise. There's really no need for it. There's no real world application here, it's just a thought exercise to generate a bit of conversation. I don't think it says anything about a person one way or another. Sure it's not the best one out there and there's a lot of things that need to be set a side. But why do you care so much? If it's not your thing, then don't post. Sorry I haven't satisfied all your requisite perfections for a moral dilemma
Binocular, I'll reiterate what I said above, it's just a bit of fun. There's no desire to satisfy a need for drama or moral superiority in me, nor in anybody else that I can see in this thread.
metta
Jack
Binocular, I'll reiterate what I said above, it's just a bit of fun. There's no desire to satisfy a need for drama or moral superiority in me, nor in anybody else that I can see in this thread.
metta
Jack
"For a disciple who has conviction in the Teacher's message & lives to penetrate it, what accords with the Dhamma is this:
'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple. He is the one who knows, not I." - MN. 70 Kitagiri Sutta
Path Press - Ñāṇavīra Thera Dhamma Page - Ajahn Nyanamoli's Dhamma talks
'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple. He is the one who knows, not I." - MN. 70 Kitagiri Sutta
Path Press - Ñāṇavīra Thera Dhamma Page - Ajahn Nyanamoli's Dhamma talks
Re: Sinking boat moral dilemma
This question was put to the test on a management training programme.
People came up with different reasons for their decision. Outcome was that there is no right or wrong answer.
You can do whatever fits you for the situation.
However there is a Buddha’s story that he swan with his mother for her rescue, though his life was at risk. Perhaps I would do the same.
Problem is I can’t swim!
SOS
People came up with different reasons for their decision. Outcome was that there is no right or wrong answer.
You can do whatever fits you for the situation.
However there is a Buddha’s story that he swan with his mother for her rescue, though his life was at risk. Perhaps I would do the same.
Problem is I can’t swim!
SOS
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
Re: Sinking boat moral dilemma
Hi allBlackBird wrote:There's no real world application here, it's just a thought exercise to generate a bit of conversation.
I'd say that such a thought exercise can be valuable, in that it may be a way for us to cultivate greater sensitivity towards the limits of our capacity to know, greater hospitality to the 'outside' of thought. And I would say that it is pertinent to the real world - not in the sense that it has any immediate calculable application, but in the more general sense of how it touches on a some aspects of our day-to-day relations that cannot be easily compartmentalised or contained with 'objective' knowledge.
There's a distinctive element that characterises the initial scenario and all the responses that have been posted: the element of the unkown or unknowningness. The scenario turns on the unknowingness of whether the group would survive or not if they had stayed together, whether the person who decides to go with his/her friend would be betraying the trust of the group or honouring one's friendship, etc. It could go both ways - the outcome remains unknown, or at any rate, unknowable in advance.
Regardless of the reasons one gives and the decision one makes, the element of unknowingness is not eliminated as such - it remains, despite our rationalisation and calculation. To be sure, the reasons we come up with may be sound reasons, but when the decision is made to act a certain way, the unknowingness of what one's decision would lead to remains an open question. Our knowledge of the situation up till that point, our knowledge of why we choose to act a certain way, only takes us that far - at the point where the decision is made, our capacity to objectively know reaches its limit, thought stands exposed to its outside.
What is it, then, that carries forth our decision? Could it be this thing called faith? Or if you prefer, trust, anticipatory confidence, fidelity - in any case, what is generally expressed by the notions of 'doing something in good faith', or saying 'Yours Faithfully'. What makes such scenarios difficult is because of our bonds of relationality to those involved: a good friend, a family member, loved ones, those to whom we have made a promise. The promise could be explicit such as when the person agrees to be part of the group; but the promise need not be articulated for it to be a promise, such as when we feel an unspoken responsibility those dear to us. In any case, aren't we making promises all the time when we say to our family, friends, and loved ones: "I love you', 'I'll see you around', 'I do'. When we say these things, we are effectively saying without articulating it: 'trust me, I will honour fidelity to our relationship.'
The relation between faith-as-trust-anticipatory-confidence-fidelity and knowledge is a reciprocal one. We reflect on the reasons why we ought to act a certain way, then we make the decision. But from that point it is no longer the duty of knowledge but the duty of faith-as-trust-anticipatory-confidence-fidelity to hold us true to our decision - which, btw, could very well generate consequences against our wishes. Things could always go pear shape. There is no guarantee that our decision would not meet its own ruin, that our faith-as-trust-anticipatory-confidence-fidelity would not be violated by its own chance. Our decision must expose itself to chance for it to be a decision in the first place.
So there is a certain double bind here. But I'd say that it is precisely because of this double bind - the lack of guarantee that our decision would not become that which burdens us - it is because of this im-possibility of guarantee, of objectively knowing in advance - that we have the ongoing movement of responsibility. Why exert constant effort to reflect on our decisions, to readjust them, to retake them, over and over again, if the decision is not exposed to what is beyond its capacity to know or settle once and for all? I believe the general thrust of what I'm suggesting is expressed by this passage in Tilt's signature:
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.
With metta,
zavk
zavk
Re: Sinking boat moral dilemma
Great!BlackBird wrote:It surprises me the amount of people who want to pick holes in, or criticise an abstract idea that I posted for a bit of fun, as a thought exercise. There's really no need for it. There's no real world application here, it's just a thought exercise to generate a bit of conversation. I don't think it says anything about a person one way or another. Sure it's not the best one out there and there's a lot of things that need to be set a side. But why do you care so much? If it's not your thing, then don't post. Sorry I haven't satisfied all your requisite perfections for a moral dilemma
Binocular, I'll reiterate what I said above, it's just a bit of fun. There's no desire to satisfy a need for drama or moral superiority in me, nor in anybody else that I can see in this thread.
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
Re: Sinking boat moral dilemma
I'd stay, even if I really wanted to get home to my kids. And if they were grown up and no longer needed me, I'd stay without hesitation, since these other people would already be terrified by approaching death, and to leave them would be to compound that fear while increasing the odds of its realization.
Not that I'd be totally at ease with dying, myself, but that's my problem to come to grips with; but I don't trust other people to come to grips with their own mortality, and would seek to spare them that as much as possible.
Not that I'd be totally at ease with dying, myself, but that's my problem to come to grips with; but I don't trust other people to come to grips with their own mortality, and would seek to spare them that as much as possible.
Re: Sinking boat moral dilemma
Hi Ed
Thanks for your post which was as always a thought provoking read.
I think you've got to the heart of the matter when you point out that unknowingness is a crucial element of this.
My thinking on the matter goes like so:
Only one of the four outcomes for me would be ideal, one is life for all and no moral repercussions, one represents death, the other represents guilt, and the final one represents shame. The decision would seem to be easy, but it's not.
Say you stay, and help does not arrive, as the boat is going under and you're about to die you wonder why you didn't take the chance to jump ship, at least then one life could have been saved - If the other life raft was here now, you'd take it, and probably not experience guilt for doing so, at least not as much than if you had braved the uncertainty of jumping at the start of things. Hindsight is 20/20 though.
Say you jump, and the help does not arrive, but because you shortened their remaining time, how can you know it would not have arrived in time to rescue them if you had stayed? Do you not share a degree of responsibility for consigning them to sink 3 hours earlier to save your own hide, when they might otherwise have lived?
Say you jump, and they do get saved anyway. They all send you abusive emails and letters berating you for your cowardice, how could you have left them at their moment of need? They got lucky to be rescued they say, and you could have killed them. You ask yourself what the point was in jumping ship - If only you had stayed on board you wouldn't have to go through the abuse. But again, hindsight is 20/20.
Finally, say you stay, and help does arrive in time. Everyone lives, and your friend from the other life boat asks you: Why the hell did you take the risk? How do you justify that? By saying you would rather have risked death than live in a world carrying the guilt of others lost lives, or the shame of being abused for your supposed cowardice and selfishness.
The fact is, when you make the decision you don't know what's going to happen. Even once you have made the decision there is still uncertainty over what the outcome will be.
It's interesting that you make this point because the thought occurred to me at one stage to add a kicker to the game that would identify the people in your life boat as work colleagues or friends, as opposed to strangers. I think that would definitely modify the results. On the flipside, if they're all strangers and your wife and kids, mother and father are all at home eagerly awaiting your arrival from your trip on a ship, do you put your life on the line despite them?
Thanks for your post which was as always a thought provoking read.
I think you've got to the heart of the matter when you point out that unknowingness is a crucial element of this.
My thinking on the matter goes like so:
Only one of the four outcomes for me would be ideal, one is life for all and no moral repercussions, one represents death, the other represents guilt, and the final one represents shame. The decision would seem to be easy, but it's not.
Say you stay, and help does not arrive, as the boat is going under and you're about to die you wonder why you didn't take the chance to jump ship, at least then one life could have been saved - If the other life raft was here now, you'd take it, and probably not experience guilt for doing so, at least not as much than if you had braved the uncertainty of jumping at the start of things. Hindsight is 20/20 though.
Say you jump, and the help does not arrive, but because you shortened their remaining time, how can you know it would not have arrived in time to rescue them if you had stayed? Do you not share a degree of responsibility for consigning them to sink 3 hours earlier to save your own hide, when they might otherwise have lived?
Say you jump, and they do get saved anyway. They all send you abusive emails and letters berating you for your cowardice, how could you have left them at their moment of need? They got lucky to be rescued they say, and you could have killed them. You ask yourself what the point was in jumping ship - If only you had stayed on board you wouldn't have to go through the abuse. But again, hindsight is 20/20.
Finally, say you stay, and help does arrive in time. Everyone lives, and your friend from the other life boat asks you: Why the hell did you take the risk? How do you justify that? By saying you would rather have risked death than live in a world carrying the guilt of others lost lives, or the shame of being abused for your supposed cowardice and selfishness.
The fact is, when you make the decision you don't know what's going to happen. Even once you have made the decision there is still uncertainty over what the outcome will be.
zavk wrote:What is it, then, that carries forth our decision? Could it be this thing called faith? Or if you prefer, trust, anticipatory confidence, fidelity - in any case, what is generally expressed by the notions of 'doing something in good faith', or saying 'Yours Faithfully'. What makes such scenarios difficult is because of our bonds of relationality to those involved: a good friend, a family member, loved ones, those to whom we have made a promise. The promise could be explicit such as when the person agrees to be part of the group; but the promise need not be articulated for it to be a promise, such as when we feel an unspoken responsibility those dear to us. In any case, aren't we making promises all the time when we say to our family, friends, and loved ones: "I love you', 'I'll see you around', 'I do'. When we say these things, we are effectively saying without articulating it: 'trust me, I will honour fidelity to our relationship.'BlackBird wrote:There's no real world application here, it's just a thought exercise to generate a bit of conversation.
It's interesting that you make this point because the thought occurred to me at one stage to add a kicker to the game that would identify the people in your life boat as work colleagues or friends, as opposed to strangers. I think that would definitely modify the results. On the flipside, if they're all strangers and your wife and kids, mother and father are all at home eagerly awaiting your arrival from your trip on a ship, do you put your life on the line despite them?
"For a disciple who has conviction in the Teacher's message & lives to penetrate it, what accords with the Dhamma is this:
'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple. He is the one who knows, not I." - MN. 70 Kitagiri Sutta
Path Press - Ñāṇavīra Thera Dhamma Page - Ajahn Nyanamoli's Dhamma talks
'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple. He is the one who knows, not I." - MN. 70 Kitagiri Sutta
Path Press - Ñāṇavīra Thera Dhamma Page - Ajahn Nyanamoli's Dhamma talks
Re: Sinking boat moral dilemma
If the good boat is close enough to swim to, it should also be close enough for them to paddle over and assist the sinking one. You could hear your friend, so she can hear you. Why not just yell for help?
Re: Sinking boat moral dilemma
zavk: I don't understand. Maybe I'm not smart enough. A distillation of the argument would be helpful.
Re: Sinking boat moral dilemma
No matter what you decide now by thinking and pondering - in real-life situation your action will be absolutely different
Re: Sinking boat moral dilemma
Oh, I'm not sure about that.
The value of mental games like these is that it can help clarify your values, so if the time comes to make a momentous decision, it will not be disorienting.
The value of mental games like these is that it can help clarify your values, so if the time comes to make a momentous decision, it will not be disorienting.
Re: Sinking boat moral dilemma
I think that for that, it's important to establish the big picture for life in general, the basic premises, to figure out what are the key principles by which one would like to act - ie. principles that will remain the same regardless of the specifics of the situation at hand.alan wrote:Oh, I'm not sure about that.
The value of mental games like these is that it can help clarify your values, so if the time comes to make a momentous decision, it will not be disorienting.
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!