Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="FireLance" data-source="post: 3253590" data-attributes="member: 3424">It really depends on where you consider your moral responisbilities to start. Some would argue that inaction is equally a moral choice. After all, even though it applies to robots, Asimov's First Law of Robotics implies that allowing harm to come to another through inaction is just as bad as causing harm yourself.In the simplest case, if you are standing on a river bank, there is a drowning man in the water, and there is a life preserver next to you, most people would agree that you have the moral responsibility to throw that man a life preserver and save him (even though he might eventually go into politics and become the Evil Leader - it's a risk we all take <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />).Now, if obtaining the life preserver puts you in some danger - say, it is at the top of an old, rotted, life guard tower that could collapse at any moment, some people would argue that you no longer have a moral responsibility to try to save the man since you would be putting yourself in danger. It is good if you do, but it is not evil if you do not.It gets even messier if you must hurt or kill someone else to save that man, for example, if the life preserver is guarded by an enemy of the drowning man. Still, if you can get the life preserver without killing the enemy, even if you had to punch him out or severely injure him, some people would still argue that it is a good act, although hurting someone would normally be evil.I happen to agree with you <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />, but some people do find consequentialism to be an appealing moral philosophy.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="FireLance, post: 3253590, member: 3424"] It really depends on where you consider your moral responisbilities to start. Some would argue that inaction is equally a moral choice. After all, even though it applies to robots, Asimov's First Law of Robotics implies that allowing harm to come to another [U]through inaction[/U] is just as bad as causing harm yourself. In the simplest case, if you are standing on a river bank, there is a drowning man in the water, and there is a life preserver next to you, most people would agree that you have the moral responsibility to throw that man a life preserver and save him (even though he might eventually go into politics and become the Evil Leader - it's a risk we all take ;)). Now, if obtaining the life preserver puts you in some danger - say, it is at the top of an old, rotted, life guard tower that could collapse at any moment, some people would argue that you no longer have a moral responsibility to try to save the man since you would be putting yourself in danger. It is good if you do, but it is not evil if you do not. It gets even messier if you must hurt or kill someone else to save that man, for example, if the life preserver is guarded by an enemy of the drowning man. Still, if you can get the life preserver without killing the enemy, even if you had to punch him out or severely injure him, some people would still argue that it is a good act, although hurting someone would normally be evil. I happen to agree with you :), but some people do find consequentialism to be an appealing moral philosophy. [/QUOTE]

Verification