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

[Qwandri]

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.

Not being willing to change based on the situation points to a person who's unwilling to admit that they could ever be wrong. I prefer to adjust my actions to the situation rather than sit and cry about how the world isn't perfect for me at all times.

[OldTrees]

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.

Not being willing to change based on the situation points to a person who's unwilling to admit that they could ever be wrong. I prefer to adjust my actions to the situation rather than sit and cry about how the world isn't perfect for me at all times.

@everyone in this back and forth:
Having a code whose rules are never abandoned but inherently observe relevant moral details of the situation seems wise.

[Essence]

Having a code whose rules are never abandoned but inherently observe relevant moral details of the situation seems wise.

Strictly disagree.  Context changes everything, and there will always arise a context in which any rigid code doesn't apply.  Having a set of guidelines that directs your actions but giving you the agency to utilize your understanding and ability to reason alongside those guidelines to determine your actions -- that's wise.  Strict rules that cannot be broken are kind of the opposite of wise.

[Qwandri]

Having a code whose rules are never abandoned but inherently observe relevant moral details of the situation seems wise.

Strictly disagree.  Context changes everything, and there will always arise a context in which any rigid code doesn't apply.  Having a set of guidelines that directs your actions but giving you the agency to utilize your understanding and ability to reason alongside those guidelines to determine your actions -- that's wise.  Strict rules that cannot be broken are kind of the opposite of wise.

That's a very close approxomation of my feelings on the matter, and I can only thank and commend you for posting it before I even saw oldtrees' post.

[OldTrees]

Having a code whose rules are never abandoned but inherently observe relevant moral details of the situation seems wise.

Strictly disagree.  Context changes everything, and there will always arise a context in which any rigid code doesn't apply.  Having a set of guidelines that directs your actions but giving you the agency to utilize your understanding and ability to reason alongside those guidelines to determine your actions -- that's wise.  Strict rules that cannot be broken are kind of the opposite of wise.

You are thinking of more concrete rules than I was referring to. Or perhaps less qualified rules that I was referring to. Guidelines are more concrete cognitive shortcuts to the rules I was referring to.
An example of the degree of abstraction I was referring to would be:
"The right course of action is the one that maximises the overall "good" consequences of the action." (this example would be a utilitarian and would include inputs of reasoning to determine what "good" means and a situation to determine morally relevant consequences.)

Do you still disagree at this level of abstraction (not the particular example, just the degree of abstraction)

[Bloodshadow]

This thread is not intended to debate on the possibility that the magical being might trick you. Assume that it is completely trustworthy. I did say that should you accept the money, the chance of you discovering a cure for AIDS is 100%.

[Belthus]

I am (mostly) a consequentialist, but I don't endorse killing one to cure AIDS. In general, I don't think it's a good idea to leave those decisions to individuals to make on the fly. That's why doctors have medical ethics codes, and other fields have equivalent codes. Put me down as (mostly) a rule consequentialist.

When push comes to shove, I can come up with a scenario in which I would act to kill one to save many. Suppose a large asteroid is hurtling toward Earth. Its impact would destroy all civilization and possibly the human species and many others. A magnetic field can deflect the asteroid, but an innocent child would have to die.

There is also the famous overcrowded lifeboat dilemma (http://www.friesian.com/valley/dilemmas.htm). After a shipwreck, several survivors find themselves on a lifeboat. In the stormy sea, the lifeboat sits too low in the water because of too much passenger weight, and it is rapidly taking on water. As the commanding officer, do you order some thrown overboard, to die in the icy waters, giving the rest a chance to live? Or do you do refuse to sacrifice anyone and let the lifeboat go down, dooming everyone?

[Qwandri]

I am (mostly) a consequentialist, but I don't endorse killing one to cure AIDS. In general, I don't think it's a good idea to leave those decisions to individuals to make on the fly. That's why doctors have medical ethics codes, and other fields have equivalent codes. Put me down as (mostly) a rule consequentialist.

When push comes to shove, I can come up with a scenario in which I would act to kill one to save many. Suppose a large asteroid is hurtling toward Earth. Its impact would destroy all civilization and possibly the human species and many others. A magnetic field can deflect the asteroid, but an innocent child would have to die.

There is also the famous overcrowded lifeboat dilemma (http://www.friesian.com/valley/dilemmas.htm). After a shipwreck, several survivors find themselves on a lifeboat. In the stormy sea, the lifeboat sits too low in the water because of too much passenger weight, and it is rapidly taking on water. As the commanding officer, do you order some thrown overboard, to die in the icy waters, giving the rest a chance to live? Or do you do refuse to sacrifice anyone and let the lifeboat go down, dooming everyone?

You're basically presenting two other versions of the same situation that bloodshadow proposed, and as such, I will almost always choose to sacrifice the one. The only situation I can think of in which I would not sacrifice the one would be in a situation wherein I had gotten to know the people on the lifeboat, and determined that they were such awful people that I'd be willing to ignore my own loss of life in exchange for ridding the world of them. Before you jump on me, Imagine that it's me and 27 Hitlers.

The new sitcom from Fox..

[Belthus]

You're basically presenting two other versions of the same situation that bloodshadow proposed,

There are some differences. People can survive AIDS with modern treatments. AIDS is preventable through both policy and individual precaution. A cure will come anyway, though we don't know how soon. Given these facts, refusing the Faustian bargain doesn't leave AIDS patients without hope. On the other hand, in the other scenarios I mentioned, the deaths of the many would be immediate and without any other method of prevention.

P.S. Also, we seem to be dealing with a malevolent being. In my scenarios, the situation is thrust upon us by nature, not a person who offers a deal.

[Neopergoss]

I think clearly the lives saved by curing AIDs outweigh the value of the individual life. The difference between "actively" killing one person and "through inaction" letting someone die is overstated, if you ask me. Either way you're making a choice that has life/death consequences and should be held responsible for the results.

This does sound like a creepy Faustian bargain, though, and I think people are right when they say that they would view someone who gave them such a choice with deep suspicion. The problem with the whole "ends justify the means" thing is that we can't predict the future. We can't really know what would've happened had we not done the means and before we do it we can never know if it will really have the desired effect. Ultimately because of this I believe that the ends don't justify the means, at least not when the means are extremely evil. US foreign policy is a good example of the law of unintended consequences.

[parasite99]

If it's a random stranger I would accept it.

Then I would pay for researching a cure for AIDS and would sell the drugs 10000$ in every western country and give it for free in Africa and poor countries. After that I would be a Hero for poor people and more rich than before.
 THE END

[Terrilocks]

It's a no-brainer; yes.

Death is fairly random in the world anyway so in the grand scheme of things, it won't make any difference. Plus, given our ageing populations, there's a pretty good chance the person in question will already be reasonably old and have lived a decent life. If not, if the rewards are as good as you say they are, I for one would be willing to be the random stranger as I'm sure (hope) would many others.

Alternatively, if you say I can do whatever I want with it, I'd also use it to research bringing people back to life.