3 ms·

> You saved humanity? Doesn't matter if you exterminated entire intelligent species for that. Do you truly believe that? In a war of extinction you feel the m

> You saved humanity? Doesn't matter if you exterminated entire intelligent species for that. Do you truly believe that? In a war of extinction you feel the moral choice is to allow humanity to be exterminated instead? Surely inaction is just as morally unjust as action? I do not believe that not switching the train onto the track which doesn't kill someone is different from switching it onto a track which does. In more direct terms I, for one, would feel no guilt killing to save my own life from an aggressor, or to save those of my family/friends.

mcguire 8y ago
Take care that you can distinguish "allow humanity to be exterminated" from "there is a vague possibility that some people may be hurt." In the heat of the moment it's not always an easy line to distinguish. Way back in the early 2000s, there was a discussion of the morality of torture; would it be moral, or should it be legal, to torture someone if they know where the bomb is? My answer was that it was the wrong question. Torture is wrong, and should be illegal, but a true patriot (or a reasonable facsimile) would certainly be willing to do it anyway if necessary, and if the bomb is defused I'm sure everyone would pardon him.
- scotty79 8y ago
  Fortunately whole theoretical debate was stupid because torture doesn't work as information extraction tool.
scotty79 8y ago
> In a war of extinction you feel the moral choice is to allow humanity to be exterminated instead? Moral choice is not always the right choice. The fact that the choice is right or logical doesn't make it moral. > Surely inaction is just as morally unjust as action? Nothing sure about that. For example in case of "trolley problem" I would not reroute the trolley so that 1 person dies instead of five because I believe that saving people is optional, but not killing them is mandatory. Or I would reroute the trolley accepting that even though it might be correct it was immoral. > In more direct terms I, for one, would feel no guilt killing to save my own life from an aggressor, or to save those of my family/friends. I would feel the guilt if I killed someone.
- LordKano 8y ago
  I don't believe that the dilemma faced by Ender is akin to the traditional trolley problem. It's not a straight utilitarian choice of 1 innocent or 5 innocents die based on your decision to act or not. Namely, the people on the trolley have intentionally run down innocents in the past and to the best of your knowledge, they are doing so again. You have the choice to do nothing and allow those innocents to be killed or to throw the switch and kill those whom are trying to kill the innocents.
  - scotty79 8y ago
    If you are seeking analogy he had a trolley problem where 5 people are his family and on the other track there is a guy who commited serious crime, maybe killing, some believe it was even a murder. Everyone around agrees he should make every effort possible to throw the switch while he himself is led to believe that he's throwing training switch and even after throwing real switch the bad guy will rather be maimed not killed. Still, he throws the switch, it was the real switch, guy is killed and eventually it turns out his offence was an accident and if left alone the trolley wouldn't kill 5 people. Ender is guilty of killng a guy even though what he did was perfectly reasonable considering circumstances.
    - LordKano 8y ago
      The occupants of the trolley had intentionally run over many people in the past. Ender had reason to believe that they intended to do so again. We only have the word of the dormant hive queen that they didn't intend to again. (Spoiler Alert) In the Shadow series, it's revealed that the hive queen lied to Ender about some things. The formic males struck a deal with Bean's children to keep Ender from finding out. Even if he had known, his actions were still just.

mcguire 8y ago

Take care that you can distinguish "allow humanity to be exterminated" from "there is a vague possibility that some people may be hurt." In the heat of the moment it's not always an easy line to distinguish. Way back in the early 2000s, there was a discussion of the morality of torture; would it be moral, or should it be legal, to torture someone if they know where the bomb is? My answer was that it was the wrong question. Torture is wrong, and should be illegal, but a true patriot (or a reasonable facsimile) would certainly be willing to do it anyway if necessary, and if the bomb is defused I'm sure everyone would pardon him.

scotty79 8y ago
Fortunately whole theoretical debate was stupid because torture doesn't work as information extraction tool.

scotty79 8y ago

> In a war of extinction you feel the moral choice is to allow humanity to be exterminated instead? Moral choice is not always the right choice. The fact that the choice is right or logical doesn't make it moral. > Surely inaction is just as morally unjust as action? Nothing sure about that. For example in case of "trolley problem" I would not reroute the trolley so that 1 person dies instead of five because I believe that saving people is optional, but not killing them is mandatory. Or I would reroute the trolley accepting that even though it might be correct it was immoral. > In more direct terms I, for one, would feel no guilt killing to save my own life from an aggressor, or to save those of my family/friends. I would feel the guilt if I killed someone.

LordKano 8y ago
I don't believe that the dilemma faced by Ender is akin to the traditional trolley problem. It's not a straight utilitarian choice of 1 innocent or 5 innocents die based on your decision to act or not. Namely, the people on the trolley have intentionally run down innocents in the past and to the best of your knowledge, they are doing so again. You have the choice to do nothing and allow those innocents to be killed or to throw the switch and kill those whom are trying to kill the innocents.
- scotty79 8y ago
  If you are seeking analogy he had a trolley problem where 5 people are his family and on the other track there is a guy who commited serious crime, maybe killing, some believe it was even a murder. Everyone around agrees he should make every effort possible to throw the switch while he himself is led to believe that he's throwing training switch and even after throwing real switch the bad guy will rather be maimed not killed. Still, he throws the switch, it was the real switch, guy is killed and eventually it turns out his offence was an accident and if left alone the trolley wouldn't kill 5 people. Ender is guilty of killng a guy even though what he did was perfectly reasonable considering circumstances.
  - LordKano 8y ago
    The occupants of the trolley had intentionally run over many people in the past. Ender had reason to believe that they intended to do so again. We only have the word of the dormant hive queen that they didn't intend to again. (Spoiler Alert) In the Shadow series, it's revealed that the hive queen lied to Ender about some things. The formic males struck a deal with Bean's children to keep Ender from finding out. Even if he had known, his actions were still just.