The death of a total stranger for enough money to find a cure for AIDS.

[Qwandri]

So "do the ends justify the means"?

I'm gonna say no.

For example if you were crane operator in the crane, building some house when rope holding paino which weights 10 tons ( Huge piano) on the crane started snapping.
Now you have following option : Drop piano on 3 men or on 1 man

You can't do anything else (shout at them, drop it on the house or anything else), age, family, personality, deeds of the men don't matter. They/he dies if drop the piano on them/him, they/he can't survive
We know that you think that the ends don't justify the means but how would you act?

I would try to minimize the casualties of course. But it's a different situation than the original post (in addition to being impossibly black and white).

What if the choice was: Drop the piano on 1 man or let it fall on 3 men?

I'm not sure I understand the situation you're trying to create. I'll assume you're proposing one where I am faced with either committing an immoral act but saving lives or retaining my moral integrity but being unable to save those lives. In which case I'd choose to let the piano fall.

That in my eyes isn't moral, as you, by inaction, let more people die that if you had acted and therefore saved a net two people's lives. Wether or not your hands were on the crane controls doesn't make a difference in my eyes.

So you don't consider purposefully killing an innocent person to be immoral?

Not at all, because you're killing three because you want to have some barrier between you and having to face the death(s) you just caused. I'm willing to take responsibility for ending one life if it means saving three. And not to be rude, I think not being able to is a sign of either not caring enough about human life to face it, or a sign of weakness.

[Nepycros]

Ultimately, do you want to cause more Good (assuming Good to be allowing more humans to live, than to die, in the situation), or hide behind your moral code?

[Qwandri]

Ultimately, do you want to cause more Good (assuming Good to be allowing more humans to live, than to die, in the situation), or hide behind your moral code?

I'm all about having morals, but in the end, having an absoloutely rigid code of morals is stupid. [/Trueformethat]

[Essence]

Part 1:
It is morally prohibited to X person A
It is morally prohibited to X person B
Therefore: It is morally prohibited to X people in the set (A, B)

But your conclusion doesn't necessarily follow.  What if the set (A, B) also happened to be the last two soldiers of a company at war?  It would be murder to kill the two people individually outside of their role in the group, but their role in the group allows them to be killed without hesitation.

Essentially, by stripping the question of it's context, you can make a logical-sounding argument, but "the set (A, B)"

But what you actually said (not The Mormegil's interpretation thereof) was

the rights of the many are the same as the rights of the one

Which is an out-and-out provable falsehood.  There are plenty of groups (i.e. ways to define 'many') that you must sacrifice your individual rights to join.  For example, being a member of this forum means you give up your right to free speech.  Being a soldier means you give up your right to not get murdered.  Being a criminal means you give up your right to freedom.  The list goes on and on and on. 

You could argue that, in the context of this question, since the stranger is 'random', it's not likely that he will have already joined a group wherein he gave up his right to not be murdered, but you can't actually know that. 

Some traits are maintained through Composition and Division. Not all instances of Composition or Division are fallacious.

If the statement is valid, there will be a logically valid way to prove it; Composition and Division are not valid, therefore if the statement is valid, there is some other way to prove it's validity.

[OldTrees]

@Essence
If it is permissible to kill soldiers then it is permissible to kill person A while they happen to be a soldier. If it is immoral to kill person A while they happen to be a soldier then it is immoral to kill soldiers. (do you disagree?)

second section:
You might have been confused by my unqualified usage of the word right. Replace right with moral right. I do not believe one cannot forsake a moral right. Even assisted suicide would not violate a moral right from unconsented killing. If all moral rights are derived from the nature of being an individual then the statement holds true for moral rights.

third section:
Perhaps I should have headed this off when The Mormegil used the word argument.
As you will see with my other comments in this thread. (including my desc note) I was not making an argument but rather describing my thought process. Recognizing that I had unjustified premises. (as all moral systems do)
I readily concede that the premise in unjustified. But it is a premise I hold for now.

[The_Mormegil]

As you will see with my other comments in this thread. (including my desc note) I was not making an argument but rather describing my thought process. Recognizing that I had unjustified premises. (as all moral systems do)
I readily concede that the premise in unjustified. But it is a premise I hold for now.

I think the point here is: what moral system do you build with that premise? How does it actually play out? Is it for the better of the world / mankind / God / insert whatever here? Morality has unjustified premises, but by choosing premises you build different worlds. While premises may not be based upon anything, you should ask yourself if the result is worth it and work on and tweak your premises so that the result is the best you can come across. At least, that's why I discuss ethics.

[YoungSot]

I'm all about having morals, but in the end, having an absoloutely rigid code of morals is stupid. [/Trueformethat]

Having a code of morals that is not rigid but changes with the situation just points to a poorly thought out code. I would consider such a "flexible" code to be stupid.

Ultimately, do you want to cause more Good (assuming Good to be allowing more humans to live, than to die, in the situation), or hide behind your moral code?

I am curious why you define Good in that way. Upon what is your definition based?

[Nepycros]

Ultimately, do you want to cause more Good (assuming Good to be allowing more humans to live, than to die, in the situation), or hide behind your moral code?

I am curious why you define Good in that way. Upon what is your definition based?

Is it Good to know you had the ability to save several lives, but didn't do so because you didn't want blood on your hands?

I define Good as doing what is necessary to prevent as many deaths as possible, and to lessen suffering.

[OldTrees]

As you will see with my other comments in this thread. (including my desc note) I was not making an argument but rather describing my thought process. Recognizing that I had unjustified premises. (as all moral systems do)
I readily concede that the premise in unjustified. But it is a premise I hold for now.

I think the point here is: what moral system do you build with that premise? How does it actually play out? Is it for the better of the world / mankind / God / insert whatever here? Morality has unjustified premises, but by choosing premises you build different worlds. While premises may not be based upon anything, you should ask yourself if the result is worth it and work on and tweak your premises so that the result is the best you can come across. At least, that's why I discuss ethics.

I apologize for the brief off topic to follow
I am dealing with 3 different perspectives. (2 of which have been seen in this thread)

• Remains of an intuition based moral code
• Attempt at as logically pure as possible search for the True Moral Code assuming it exists
• Determinism

I have but do not respect my first perspective. When asked ethical questions I describe what this perspective would have me believe. It only exists because I have not succeeded at removing it and have nothing detailed enough to replace it.
The second perspective is seen when I test devil's advocate positions, make informative descriptions about belief systems or think about very basic questions like "What does Ought mean?".
The third perspective is one that I am also developing because it appears to more accurately describe the world when I look past my desire to obey a "True Moral Code".
Your reason for discussing Ethics fits your Consequence based ethics.
I discuss Applied Ethics to increase empathetic understanding in myself and others. (since I don't respect my first perspective I try to describe not persuade)
I discuss Meta Ethics to develop my second perspective.

Ultimately, do you want to cause more Good (assuming Good to be allowing more humans to live, than to die, in the situation), or hide behind your moral code?

I am curious why you define Good in that way. Upon what is your definition based?

Is it Good to know you had the ability to save several lives, but didn't do so because you didn't want blood on your hands?

I define Good as doing what is necessary to prevent as many deaths as possible, and to lessen suffering.

Do you distinguish between:
Morally Prohibited, Morally Permissible, Morally Praiseworthy and not Morally Praiseworthy?
Or do you only distinguish between:
Morally Prohibited and Morally Obligatory

[Nepycros]

Do you distinguish between:
Morally Prohibited, Morally Permissible, Morally Praiseworthy and not Morally Praiseworthy?
Or do you only distinguish between:
Morally Prohibited and Morally Obligatory

I focus on my sense of value for other humans. 1 human =/= 3 humans. I suppose I'm going with the second option, then. I just don't get the logic behind having 3 people die unaccounted for, when you had the means to prevent it. Not doing it because you don't want blood on your hands is selfish.

[OldTrees]

Do you distinguish between:
Morally Prohibited, Morally Permissible, Morally Praiseworthy and not Morally Praiseworthy?
Or do you only distinguish between:
Morally Prohibited and Morally Obligatory

I focus on my sense of value for other humans. 1 human =/= 3 humans. I suppose I'm going with the second option, then. I just don't get the logic behind having 3 people die unaccounted for, when you had the means to prevent it. Not doing it because you don't want blood on your hands is selfish.

Some people intuitively find killing to be more immoral than letting someone die. It has nothing to do with not wanting blood on their hands. It is about believing putting blood on their hands is immoral. (Intuitions are used to form moral codes. That does not make them justified.)

[DrOctaganapus2]

Yes. This person would do it for the money, why shouldnt I?

Also, wasnt this a movie. A guy had a desicion. Press a red button; get 1,000,000 Dollars but someone in the world had to die.

Besides, 1 Death to save millions. Its OK if someone takes one for the team. But if its someone I dont want to die, like my mother, father, self, friends, etc. I wouldnt press it.