5 ms·
I find the bit about Iraqis vs. Americans a bit superficial. As a liberal, I would consider collateral damage less of a problem when Americans die because all A
by sprout 16y ago
I find the bit about Iraqis vs. Americans a bit superficial. As a liberal, I would consider collateral damage less of a problem when Americans die because all Americans are responsible for the present situation in Iraq, while most Iraqis are innocent bystanders. I view this as utilitarian: if people who start wars have a greater chance of death than people who don't start wars, this should in theory decrease the incidence of war.
Similarly, when we talk about Tyrone vs. Chip, this is a question of a poor man vs. a rich man. But more to the point, "Chip Ellsworth III" evokes a sterotype of the rich Connecticut blueblood, a parasite aristocrat.
A much more interesting study would actually look at people in different clothes, with different skin tones. This just measures people's reaction to someone whose father was overly proud of his lineage and is likely a rich socialite.
Obviously this says something about my politics, but again it doesn't necessarily say anything vis-a-vis deontology vs. utilitarianism. Again, my impression of the name "Chip" is that he's a worthless individual who contributes nothing to society.
However, even if we assume that both are model citizens, it stands to reason that the death of the hypothetical lower-class black man is going to put his family through significant hardship, while Chip's family has enough money that mostly people will be getting a sudden unexpected influx of cash. So the question really becomes: kill one man, or kill one man and ruin his family's chance at a decent life.
- defen 16y agoIf you're going to play the odds and assume the blueblood is a "parasite", shouldn't you also assume that the lower-class black man is not present to support his family anyway?
- sprout 16y agoPlease finish reading my comment.
- defen 16y agoI didn't mean in your response to the hypothetical question ('assume each is a model citizen') - I meant in real life: "my impression of the name "Chip" is that he's a worthless individual who contributes nothing to society."
- sprout 16y agoI was being honest about my prejudices and examining them. I think yes, from the finish of my comment, I should assume either the best or the worst of both of them.
- Periodic 16y ago> So the question really becomes: kill one man, or kill one man and ruin his family's chance at a decent life. In the article they said that conservatives favored killing the "black" man while liberals favored killing the "white" man. It isn't as clear as the background simply providing more data. The internal stereotype and moral values of the subject are also influencing it. It would be a terrible study if they had just lumped everyone into one big pool. It became interesting when they gathered other information about the subjects and then found correlations with their behavior. Thus, it really isn't about what the common stereotypes are, but rather how two groups can perceive the same situation differently enough to make different decisions.
- jmatthews 16y agoThere's a flaw in the entire data set. I would "kill whitey" or the "blackman" to save the "victim group" but I would know that it was morally wrong. It doesn't test morality, it tests your response to the situation. Thus my moral code is absolute, and I willing act immorally for a utilitarian outcome.
- CWuestefeld 16y agoI would consider collateral damage less of a problem when Americans die because all Americans are responsible for the present situation in Iraq, while most Iraqis are innocent bystanders. Why would you say that? If you'll grant me for the sake of argument that the war is justified, then the Iraqi people are every bit as guilty as we are. In both cases, we (and the Iraqis) have allowed our respective governments to do immoral things. The fact that Iraq is not a democracy might temper the blame that we assign, but the fact is that they've failed to rise up to overthrow their evil government. When evil things are being enabled by the contribution one makes to the society, it is (I believe) morally required that it be stopped. (And I note that I am guilty of failing to do so, underscoring the point of the OP) I am similarly perplexed by people damning the US government, yet maintaining the nobility of our soldiers. If the war is wrong, then the soldiers are wrong for following the orders to fight it. "We did as we were told" is not a moral defense.
- notahacker 16y agoYou are not your government, and neither are the Iraqis. If we're talking about collateral damage _in Iraq_ though, it's reasonable to assume firstly that the American (civilian or otherwise) consciously chose to be there, which means they certainly accepted an elevated level of risks and secondly it is reasonably probable that they actively supported and are actively profiting from the war. Choosing a job with an oil company in Basra implies a much greater acceptance of the risks and ethical implications of being there than simply not choosing to overthrow the government. All you can tell about an Iraqi in Iraq is that they haven't managed to get out yet. The hawk would no doubt approach with a different line; it is less probable that the American is actively or passively supporting hostile combatants attempting to prolong the war not to mention more likely the American happens to be their old buddy from school. Either way both are making ostensibly reasonable value judgements.
- CWuestefeld 16y agoYou are not your government, and neither are the Iraqis. I would say that our nation is us, and the same is true of the Iraqis. The bad things that my nation does (including the entity that it allows to govern) is my responsibility, especially because its acts are enabled because of my production (i.e., taxes, technology I develop, etc.). The very same thing is true of Iraqis. They allowed their government to continue to run things the way they are. You might argue that we live in a democracy, and thus change is easier for us. I would reply that (a) the form of government doesn't matter, in the final accounting a government cannot survive without the acquiescence of its people; and (b) fundamental changes in the USA might actually be more difficult, because its government is stable, entrenched, and incredibly strong.