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

[johannhowitzer]

This has an application to a question of morals that came up a few months ago in this part of the forum... the quantification of pleasure/pain as opposites along a single continuum, and any action resulting in a net worldwide gain of pleasure (or reduction of pain) being a moral action.  Here we see an extreme example that becomes a powerful reductio ad absurdum for this question of morals.  Killing one person to save millions of lives - and improve countless more - would by the above definition be such an extremely good action as to render the one performing it worthy of sainthood, knighthood, and the Nobel prize simultaneously.

But is it OK to kill someone?  It's one thing if the person is willingly offering his life, in which case there is no question - it's his choice and he's the one worthy of honor.  But if the person doesn't know he's about to die, or doesn't want to die, I hold that it's morally wrong, despite the vast amount of good it would ultimately produce.  I don't believe the ends justify the means, and I also don't believe a positive "∑∆p" value attached to an action makes that action morally sound.

[Belthus]

Here we see an extreme example that becomes a powerful reductio ad absurdum for this question of morals.  Killing one person to save millions of lives - and improve countless more - would by the above definition be such an extremely good action as to render the one performing it worthy of sainthood, knighthood, and the Nobel prize simultaneously.

I think it would be perverse to have someone walking around in everyday life with a calculator and eying every person with a readiness to kill on the spot if the numbers seem to weigh in its favor. That's why a general rule along the lines of "Do not kill another human" is important. However, I also think that in extraordinary situations, sometimes the best thing to do is to break or bend the rules, which cannot anticipate every scenario. Of course, breaking the rules would put a heavy burden on the rule breaker to justify the action afterward, and a rule against murder is among the most serious and least likely to be granted pardon.

[Nepycros]

Or simply make rules that give way to circumstances. Rules don't necessarily have to put a wall up in front of everything. Simply creating a net to filter out that which is acceptable, despite the norm means to reject that sort of behavior. Circumstances are the most important thing when it comes to deciding the validity of an action.

[johannhowitzer]

The trouble with "circumstances" is always that everyone thinks "circumstances" applies to their situation.  It gets abused fast.  That's exactly why rules must be a wall in front of everything.

[Nepycros]

The trouble with "circumstances" is always that everyone thinks "circumstances" applies to their situation.  It gets abused fast.  That's exactly why rules must be a wall in front of everything.

Then what? Block out obscurities and extremities completely? Let more and more people slip through the cracks and suffer because their situation was unavoidable, even when it wasn't at their proper fault?

[johannhowitzer]

Be more specific.  What kind of situations are you talking about?  I can't address this catch-all.

[Qwandri]

I still can't buy the fact that rules and morals can be a catch-all. Can someone with that viewpoint explain in as much detail as possible why they think that's appropriate?

[Nepycros]

Be more specific.  What kind of situations are you talking about?  I can't address this catch-all.

A captain is manning a lifeboat filled with too many people after his ship sank. In order to save some of them, rather than have everyone drown, he makes the weaker ones go overboard. When his passengers were finally rescued some time later, they tried him for murder. If he had not let anyone go overboard, and ended up having everyone die from the lifeboat's sinking, he'd be an innocent man.

True story.

[YoungSot]

I still can't buy the fact that rules and morals can be a catch-all. Can someone with that viewpoint explain in as much detail as possible why they think that's appropriate?

If your "rules" are constantly being bent or broken, it's time to reexamine why you hold to those rules in the first place. If there isn't any solid reasoning behind your rules, you'd just be making your ethical decisions based on feeling and whim. Rules should be unmoving, because they should have a specific reason for their existence.

[OldTrees]

I still can't buy the fact that rules and morals can be a catch-all. Can someone with that viewpoint explain in as much detail as possible why they think that's appropriate?

How complex of rules are you able to understand?
How complex of rules are you able to imagine?
How complex of rules have you been exposed to?

For instance have you thought about possible moral rules as complex as
"It is immoral to kill a non consenting individual that has not forfeit their negative right against murder or already in danger due to the amoral actions of nature or actions of others?"
(This is a extremely simple rule as far as applied ethical rules would go.)

However a simplified argument would be as follows:
P1) Ought implies can
1->2) There does not exist a situation without at least 1 moral option
P3) The universe is finite
3->4) There are a finite number of situations that can occur
2+4->5) There can exist a list/summary of the finite number of moral options in each of the finite number of situations
5->6) The rule mentioned in 5 can catch all.

Now there may be a simpler set of rules with equal validity to the rule mention in step 5 above.

[Qwandri]

Reserved for a post that makes more sense than the one that I didn't just post. In the morning. Once sleep is attained.

[BluePriest]

Be more specific.  What kind of situations are you talking about?  I can't address this catch-all.

A captain is manning a lifeboat filled with too many people after his ship sank. In order to save some of them, rather than have everyone drown, he makes the weaker ones go overboard. When his passengers were finally rescued some time later, they tried him for murder. If he had not let anyone go overboard, and ended up having everyone die from the lifeboat's sinking, he'd be an innocent man.

True story.

I believe we do all have situations that come up where there is an unavoidable wrong "Lesser of the 2 evils situation". In those cases, it is better to take the "lesser of the 2 evils" Right there, you had 2 choices. Let all of them die, or let a few of them die. Its an obvious choice. Meanwhile, the OP produces a similar, although distinctly different question (I know yours was just an example for a catch all, and not meant to be a direct comparison, but I want to compare anyways).

You still have a lot of people dieing, and you can do something about it.  The big difference is that the 1 person you kill, wouldn't die (unless he happened to have aids).
So instead of-A few involved people die, a few involved people survive-
you have -a completely innocent bystander dies, everyone involved survive.-
The big difference between the 2 is that the 1 guy didnt have to die, therefor he shouldnt be forced to die, and the others, although a much larger group, should be allowed to die.