People vs. Property an ethical dilemma

[#-3]

I'm a dyed in the woll moral relativist. I actually find the concept of moral absolutism morally repugenent, as someone who is unwilling to consider circumstances when make decisions is someone who is unwilling to think.

Peurly for a value of life prospective, animals died to produce the meat in my freezer, many many insects probably dies producing the lumber to build my house. The grain to provide the flour in my pantry is likely linked to a minor gopher genocide. The chemicals related to the production of all the vinyl products in my house may have on net taken a couple minutes off several peoples lives equating to a real human toll. Simplifying a questions to "do you value human life more than objects" reduces the fact that the two things a inextricably linked.

All of that to say, LET THE ######ER DIE!

[GGG]

everyone posting in this thread should watch The Good Place if they haven’t yet.

[Brendone]

Originally Posted by ThisIsAnOutrage

If the homeowner does nothing, the bomber will be killed and their house will be spared.

It this a trick? Why would I give a second thought to the life of some psychopath attempting to blow up my house? I think there is some additional context missing here, like if they don’t blow up the house someone will murder their family?

[photon]

Spoiler!

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Brendone

It this a trick? Why would I give a second thought to the life of some psychopath attempting to blow up my house? I think there is some additional context missing here, like if they don’t blow up the house someone will murder their family?

No, the context is correct. I would let the house burn rather than sentence someone to death for it. It's just a house.

Would your answer change if it was a stranger's house?

[DownInFlames]

Why is nobody asking why some guy is trying to bomb my house and some other guy is trying to kill him? Am I Bill Hader's character from Barry?

[Brendone]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

No, the context is correct. I would let the house burn rather than sentence someone to death for it. It's just a house.

Would your answer change if it was a stranger's house?

So random psycho looking to blow things up? Don’t care who’s house it is. This is a person that takes joy in destruction, terror and misery. No place for them.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Brendone

So random psycho looking to blow things up? Don’t care who’s house it is. This is a person that takes joy in destruction, terror and misery. No place for them.

Jail is a good place for them.

[flylock shox]

Too much focus on the psycho with the bomb. Who's this psycho going about the neighborhood sniping people?



I'd yell "Don't shoot" and then duck and cover.



But since I live in Vancouver, I don't have a house, so it's all academic.



And my landlord's problem.

[Brendone]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Jail is a good place for them.

Wasn’t an option in this scenario.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Brendone

Wasn’t an option in this scenario.

Because it follows an act. The discussion was around the act itself.

[scobel]

I know you said there is no right answer but I always seem to solve all the world problems when I get to the intelligent part of the bottle. I just cant ever remember what I solved.

[Brendone]

Originally Posted by flylock shox

Too much focus on the psycho with the bomb. Who's this psycho going about the neighborhood sniping people?.

I assumed we live in Texas and I wasn’t carrying for some reason but my neighbours all had sniper nests on their roofs

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Classic utilatarianism though doesnt care about property beyond its ability to cause 'happiness' to the population, the classic utilatrian arguement would be 'does saving the building cause more happiness than keeping the bomber alive?' for instance a hospital might be worth killing the bomber for where as if the building was a military base not only should you not kill the bomber you should actively help him

Then I guess you could also be arguing if the bomber was about to throw the bomb, not at a house, but a cultural landmark. Is the bomber's life worth the Eiffel Tower or the Great Pyramids or even an art gallery?

[JR449]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

If you could go back in time knowing what you do would you kill baby Hitler? Consider that his death could mean that you would never be born, but ignore for this exercise the fact that if you were never born you wouldn’t be able to go back in time to kill Hitler.

I’d do it.

Id make him an A+ Art student. The end. /s

[ThisIsAnOutrage]

Well, so far I think there has been some productive discussion.

Some comments bring in consideration of intent, utility, and other possible consequences, beyind the destruction of the house. All good adds to the scenario.

In general, I'd say that one unifying point to thoughts like these is that it isn't necessarily as simple as deciding that one of people or property is always more morally valuable than the other. Context (like intent, utility, and other possible consequences) weigh in. In the quote below, I take the word "psychopath" to be a reference to intent. IE Why would someone spare the bomber if the bomber is just blowing up the house for no good reason?

Originally Posted by Brendone

It this a trick? Why would I give a second thought to the life of some psychopath attempting to blow up my house? I think there is some additional context missing here, like if they don’t blow up the house someone will murder their family?

Maybe the discussion can continue with some intent ascribed to the bomber:

In one scenario let's say the bomber is being forced to blow up the house, in order to save his own house so that the bombers' family isn't forced into living on the street.

In another scenario, let's say the bomber just hates the design of the house, and wants it gone, and chosen a time to bomb it, when they know no one will get hurt.

Does either intent change what's right?

What pushes the moral scales one way or the other?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

No, the context is correct. I would let the house burn rather than sentence someone to death for it. It's just a house.

So, the preservation of life is your absolute maximal value? Preserve life in all cases?

Or is it just in this situation, where the value of the life is being compared to the value of the house? If it's the latter, what is it about the life that makes it more valuable than the house? I.e., what is the criteria that makes one thing more valuable than another (whether it be a house, a human life, a non-human life, or something else entirely)?

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Classic utilatarianism though doesnt care about property beyond its ability to cause 'happiness' to the population, the classic utilatrian arguement would be 'does saving the building cause more happiness than keeping the bomber alive?'

I'm not sure if you're saying that this is your answer. If it is, my question is what you mean by causing increased happiness for the population. Do you mean that you want everyone to be happier on average?

Or do you mean we should determine what will increase the total happiness in the world - that is to say, you'd conclude that a situation with 5 billion people on earth who are only happy 20% of the time is better than a situation with 1 billion people on earth who are happy 90% of the time?

[_Q_]

Why do we even care about the bomber's life? If it were my house, I would let the ####er die.

[firebug]

Originally Posted by _Q_

Why do we even care about the bomber's life? If it were my house, I would let the ####er die.

Because the bomber is your son and it’s my Vacant house that’s being threatened.

[BoLevi]

It's axiomatic that people put a lower value on human lives that are either more geographically distant, socially distant, or even culturally distant.

We then reverse engineer our moral imperatives to accommodate this natural instinct.

I see no evidence to suggest that this mentality is modifiable, so discussing such moral dilemmas is somewhat pointless.