An update on recent technical problems and more from the admin: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/250292/on-technical-difficulties-mod-coverage-and-other-things/p1?new=1
Options
The responsibility of parents
Organichu
poopspeesRegistered User, Moderator mod
poopspeesRegistered User, Moderator mod
I thought about it for a few minutes and couldn't develop a more accurate title. If anyone can suggest a title that encapsulates the thread without being overly wordy, I'd be happy to edit it.
As an Israeli I've been primed my entire life with stories of the Holocaust- its historical import, its relevance today, and more particularly the heroes of the era. There's something particularly relatable about an everyman doing something valiant- hiding Jews, and saving them. Almost every museum dedicated to a major persecution- the Holocaust, slavery in America, the genocide in Rwanda- possesses an exhibit showcasing an ordinary person doing extraordinary things... from those who orchestrated stops along the underground railroad, to Oskar Schindler, to Paul Rusesabagina, etc.
I guess these thoughts have led me to consider what I would do. I'm a 22 year old guy and I don't have any children. I don't live with my girlfriend. Ostensibly I have no 'major' charges to consider. So, given immersion in a terribly hostile environment, I like to think that I would endure a certain measure of personal risk to relieve others of persecution. I'll likely never have the chance to put that theory to the test, but it's something I think is true. What if my situation were different, though?
What if I had a wife and children?
What if I couldn't discuss it with a partner- what if I were a single father?
What if I cared for a relative too old or gone towards Alzheimer's to discuss the issue?
To what extent are we permitted, morally, to exercise our sense of morality to the potential (physical) detriment of others?
If I live in Poland in 1943 and my wife and I decide that we are willing to shelter Jews, despite the potential consequences for us and our three year old twins... is that unethical of us?
As an Israeli I've been primed my entire life with stories of the Holocaust- its historical import, its relevance today, and more particularly the heroes of the era. There's something particularly relatable about an everyman doing something valiant- hiding Jews, and saving them. Almost every museum dedicated to a major persecution- the Holocaust, slavery in America, the genocide in Rwanda- possesses an exhibit showcasing an ordinary person doing extraordinary things... from those who orchestrated stops along the underground railroad, to Oskar Schindler, to Paul Rusesabagina, etc.
I guess these thoughts have led me to consider what I would do. I'm a 22 year old guy and I don't have any children. I don't live with my girlfriend. Ostensibly I have no 'major' charges to consider. So, given immersion in a terribly hostile environment, I like to think that I would endure a certain measure of personal risk to relieve others of persecution. I'll likely never have the chance to put that theory to the test, but it's something I think is true. What if my situation were different, though?
What if I had a wife and children?
What if I couldn't discuss it with a partner- what if I were a single father?
What if I cared for a relative too old or gone towards Alzheimer's to discuss the issue?
To what extent are we permitted, morally, to exercise our sense of morality to the potential (physical) detriment of others?
If I live in Poland in 1943 and my wife and I decide that we are willing to shelter Jews, despite the potential consequences for us and our three year old twins... is that unethical of us?
Organichu on
0
Posts
It might be stupid depending on the likelyhood of being caught.
Honestly, as Incenjucar was getting at, it is a matter of circumstance every time. The inclination to save others and the inclination to protect one's own children/family are BOTH good and positive inclinations, both from a perspective of societal good, AND from the perspective or pretty much every morality system in existance. It is the interactions between these two inclinations and the various probablities and risks of an individual situation which would decide what is the "ethical" direction in said situation. Addition, with these incredibly difficult scenarios, there isn't always a right and wrong answer, and there doesn't have to be.
Yes.
Parents have an ethical responsibility to avoid putting their children in harm's way. I see this as overriding any possible ethical responsibility one stranger has towards another (if in fact that responsibility exists at all in a given situation, which is entirely circumstantial).
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Arch,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_goGR39m2k
The problem is, are we able to always act ethically?
Are there some (many? any? all?) situations where there is no ethical choice?
Some people would say there's always a right thing to do - you have to look after your family, or you have to look after those in the greatest need. Or in one particular situation you can add them all up and find the right choice.
I'm not sure, myself, if there're any right choices in a clusterfuck like the Holocaust.
Yes.
Ethics is reserved to the possible, for obvious reasons.
Alternate interpretation of poshniallo's statement: Is it possible to lead a "perfect" life, ethically speaking? Well, probably, but I've seen no evidence of anyone actually accomplishing such. But whatever, how is that germane to the topic at hand?
I thought that was obvious.
If you help others in trouble you put your dependents at risk. Your life is not merely your own to risk, it is deeply interconnected with your family and other loved ones.
You're damned if you do, damned if you don't.
You can either try to work out some convoluted algebra of moral worth, where a 25% risk of danger to a baby you care for can equal a 78% chance of torture to a human you have just met, but this seems farcical to me. There are so many unknowns, both in terms of probable outcomes and in terms of comparing the morality of different actions. No-one can know what's right to do, surely?
So then you end up making choices from your feelings, because there is no ethically correct solution.
If ethics is 'reserved to the possible' then it has stark limitations. Predicting the future correctly is impossible. Comparing radically different is impossible.
So this dilemma is only worth debating if you believe there is always one correct course of action.
Otherwise it's just down to the feelings of the people in that situation.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Personally, I'd like to think that I would try and save lives, but at the same time I and my wife would have to strongly consider things. Is there a way to keep the children out of danger? Is there a way where perhaps only one parents could take a potential risk while the other remains with the children? Is there a way to effectively shelter and protect people from harm? There are many more questions of course but I'm merely trying to illustrate a fraction of the thoughts that would be coming into my head were I in this position.
Are your neighbours likely to inform against you or are they friends who would they take your secrets to their grave?
Can you afford to bribe people to stay quite if someone discovers you?
Even with all that information I don't think you could fault someone for making either choice.
I think that many people draw an ethical line at actually facilitating and supporting pain/death yourself.
As in, it is not neccesarily unethical to stand by and do nothing while others suffer, in order to protect yourself, but to step up and add to that suffering crosses a line.
Oh man, I remember when they assigned this to us back in high school, and I never bothered to actually read it.
Can trade TF2 items or whatever else you're interested in. PM me.
I liked it, although I thought some of the answers at the end were a little iffy, as I would have pointed out that I'm not the Jew pope and so have no place in his forgiveness.
The plot is about nazi who did the above.
So when my child falls under my full family health insurance I should decide that they are being protected and fuck y'all and your HCR?
You see, governmental programs cost me money, money I could be spending on making sure my own children have the best I can afford for them. Supporting governmental programs that I don't directly benefit from is stealing from my children who will be provided protections and comforts based on the wealth I am able to retain.
Or on a different tact, if I was one of the Jews, don't I have an imperative to now silence the family I sought refuge with when that refuge was denied? They might report us to save their own children, so to protect my own I would be forced to threaten or harm theirs.
For your analogy to be valid, you would first have to show that UHC would increase your taxes, second that the increase in taxes would noticeably impair your ability to provide health care for your children, third that UHC would not benefit your children more than the increase in taxes, and fourth that any increase in taxes would actually be spent providing better health care for your children and not, say, buying a bigger TV.
In other words, when you want to generalize any given ethical principle into policy, as you're trying to, you need to actually perform (or critically read) an economic analysis of the policy in question. If you really wish to get into the nitty-gritty of that economic analysis, we have a health care thread over here. :arrow:
Your counterargument shows that you fundamentally misread my point, anyway. I believe that we have an ethical requirement to help other people in general, but that there is no blanket requirement to help others every single time we have the opportunity, because the decision on whether or not to help a particular person in a particular situation must depend on the peculiar circumstances of the person and situation in question (as Evander said early on in this thread). Any responsibility we have to our children must exceed the responsibility we have to random strangers, or else the very notion of parentage breaks down completely.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.