21-05-2003 04:19									#1
	The Moral Choice Increase Your PM Length

OK, here it is. This thread contains Reloaded SPOILERS, so read at your own risk.


The Architect gives Neo a choice. He can try to save Trinity, but witness the destruction of the human race, or he can take the other option, not save Trinity, and reload Zion with 23 people (saving, if you will, 23 people).

What is the moral choice here?

	21-05-2003 04:22									#2
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

I voted that the choice is amoral. No matter which option Neo picks, he won't be responsible for the death of anyone. The only thing he can potentially be responsible for is saving Trinity, but this is no guarantee, and, according to the Architect, not even possible.

But no matter what Neo does, he is not killing anyone. Therefore, the decision can simply be based on personal preferences and values, not an overriding moral value. If all the humans are going to die, that's the fault of the person who kills them, not Neo. If Trinity dies, that's also not the fault of Neo, as he didn't shoot her.

So, the choice is amoral, but I would go after Trinity.

	21-05-2003 04:30									#3
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

David:

I saw the original Matrix and didnt Keanu reeve's character have the exact same problem? Lawrence Fishburn was captured by the computer people and they said that it was only a matter of time before the computer people got the codes or whatever to get into the Zion computer... Keanu Reeve's could've killed Fishburn in his seat, saving Zion but killing Fishburn or he could've tried to save him and probably fail but have both Fishburn and the population of Zion die.

dont tell me Matrix 2 repeated the same problem but with a different person.

	21-05-2003 04:37									#4
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

anyway... what ever choice has the fewest number of casaulties is the most moral...

but if he did try to save trinity, and succeeded, everyone would die except for him and trinity?

	21-05-2003 04:37									#5
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd according to the Architect, not even possible.

Why would we believe anything the Architect says?

	21-05-2003 04:48									#6
	Support Apolyton

The Architect could talk all four legs off the Arcturan Megadonkey, but only Deep Thought could get it to go for a walk afterwards.

	21-05-2003 05:10									#7
	Put an end to popups!

quote: anyway... what ever choice has the fewest number of casaulties is the most moral...

In my opinion, this is wrong. The most moral personal choice is the one that involves 0 immoral actions.

	21-05-2003 05:21									#8
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

David Floyd:

What the hell? then what determines immoral actions? an action is more moral and than another if fewer people suffer because of it.

	21-05-2003 05:38									#9
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

I'm operating on the assumption that the Architect is lying out his ass. As such, I'd try to save Trinity, if for no other reason than because the Architect obviously doesn't want me to.

As for the most moral choice being the one that involves zero immoral actions, well, no ****. The problem is that this is not always possible. If by choosing to do nothing others are going to suffer, then said choice is not (necessarily) the most moral.

	21-05-2003 07:26									#10
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: What the hell? then what determines immoral actions? an action is more moral and than another if fewer people suffer because of it.

No, wrong. An action is immoral if you commit any immoral acts. For example, murdering one person on the premise that you'd be saving five is totally immoral.

Loinburger,

quote: If by choosing to do nothing others are going to suffer, then said choice is not (necessarily) the most moral.

What happens to others is never your own fault, unless you are the one directly harming them.

	21-05-2003 07:37									#11
	Remove this text

Bullocks. Unless you're operating on the assumption that taking no action is equivalent to taking positive action (e.g. that not-giving to charity is morally equivalent to giving to charity) then I fail to see how you can claim that the decision between helping or not-helping is amoral.

If you are operating on that assumption, then that's not a black-and-white moral system, it's a black-and-grey moral system.

	21-05-2003 08:04									#12
	Got spare money?

quote: then I fail to see how you can claim that the decision between helping or not-helping is amoral.

I have nothing against helping or saving lives. My problem comes in when my action to save one life also directly takes another life. I won't kill 1 to save 5.

	21-05-2003 08:15									#13
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Your original contention in the thread was that Neo's choice was amoral. Killing one person to save five doesn't come into play -- the question was about allowing one group of people to die in order to save another (or about letting everybody die and taking a nap), and unless you're operating on the assumption that taking no action is morally equivalent to attempting to save somebody's life then I don't see how you're justifying the amorality claim.

Last edited by loinburger on 21-05-2003 at 08:21

	21-05-2003 08:30									#14
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

What about the option:
They are equally moral?

	21-05-2003 08:55									#15
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: the question was about allowing one group of people to die in order to save another (or about letting everybody die and taking a nap),

You're missing the point. You're not the one allowing anybody to die, because you aren't the one killing them. The responsible rests squarely on the shoulders of the murderer, not on you.

	21-05-2003 08:56									#16
	Increase Your PM Length

Are you saying you wouldn't feel guilt, David, if you knew that you could have saved someone from dying if only you had acted, but you didn't so that person is dead?

	21-05-2003 09:05									#17
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd You're missing the point. You're not the one allowing anybody to die, because you aren't the one killing them. The responsible rests squarely on the shoulders of the murderer, not on you.

You're doing nothing do prevent their deaths despite presumably having the power to do so, therefore, regardless of where the responsiblity for their deaths lies, you're allowing them to die. That's what allowing means -- it doesn't mean that you're directly killing them, it means that you're failing to prevent their deaths despite having the ability to do so. If you were directly killing them, then I'd say that you were killing them -- it's pretty unusual to say that a murderer "allowed" the death of his/her victim...

All of which still fails to address the point that you claim that this is an amoral decision, which I can't see how you can justify without assuming that there is no such thing as "good" (merely the "absence of bad").

	21-05-2003 16:22									#18
	Support Apolyton

David Floyd applying his odd libertarian viewpoint to a movie...

how about existentialism? It should fit libertarianism what with existentialists saying that you have complete rights and control over yourself... yet existentialists would blame you for not helping when someone died. hell, they'd blame you for trying and failing.


thanks

	21-05-2003 16:32									#19
	Put an end to popups!

What's up with these Matrix-threads? Make one thread, then stick with it, I say!

	21-05-2003 18:21									#20
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Well, this isn't really a Matrix thread per se (hell, "matrix" isn't even in the thread title), since there are bajillions of hypotheticals that Floyd could have used in place of the given hypothetical. Plus, the topic would probably threadjack any "serious" and/or "movie-review" Matrix discussion beyond recognition.

	24-05-2003 01:04									#21
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Why would we believe anything the Architect says?

Your example falls apart, DF.

Besides this point has been argued before, in an older threat. Different hypothetical.

	24-05-2003 01:11									#22
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Grab the Architect, try to copy Agent Smith's copying technique, and one Neo goes through each door, with the real one going to save Trinity.

	24-05-2003 01:40									#23
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

It is imoral if you can save someone's life but you dont.

	24-05-2003 10:18									#24
	Put an end to popups!

quote: You're doing nothing do prevent their deaths despite presumably having the power to do so, therefore, regardless of where the responsiblity for their deaths lies, you're allowing them to die. That's what allowing means -- it doesn't mean that you're directly killing them, it means that you're failing to prevent their deaths despite having the ability to do so.

Yikes, so if I don't try to remove guns from society via government, I'm morally responsible for people who get shot?
Doesn't that mean we're also morally responsible for people who die from alcohol, drugs, over eating, etc, if we don't use government to regulate our entire existence?

	24-05-2003 10:19									#25
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Go after Trinity. She's hot!

	24-05-2003 10:34									#26
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Berzerker Yikes, so if I don't try to remove guns from society via government, I'm morally responsible for people who get shot?

Floyd presented a simple dilemma, whereas the issue of regulating handguns is quite a bit more complex. You might wind up causing more harm than good through regulation (e.g. if regulation prevents innocent people from defending themselves from criminals). It's not necessarily a black-and-white "regulate handguns, prevent murders," whereas Floyd's is a black-and-white "use your god-powers, prevent murders."

quote: Doesn't that mean we're also morally responsible for people who die from alcohol, drugs, over eating, etc, if we don't use government to regulate our entire existence?

This isn't analogous to Floyd's dilemma either, since his did not deal in self-inflicted harm.

	24-05-2003 10:41									#27
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

But if we can determine that X number of people will be killed with guns if they're legal and Y number will die if they're illegal and X is larger than Y, would that mean we are responsible for people who die from gunshots? And what if we determine X is larger than Y and we outlaw guns, what is our moral complicity when people are killed by criminals because we legally prevented the victims from owning guns?

	24-05-2003 11:04									#28
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Is Y a subset of X? If so, then assuming that there are no additional benefits or ill effects of outlawing guns, and assuming that we're omniscient, then we would share partial responsibility (the bulk of it still falls on the criminal, of course) for the deaths of those members of X that are disjoint from Y should we fail to illegalize guns. We're not complicit in the deaths of members of Y regardless of our choice of actions, since there is no way for us to prevent their deaths in this hypothetical.

	24-05-2003 12:06									#29
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: We're not complicit in the deaths of members of Y regardless of our choice of actions, since there is no way for us to prevent their deaths in this hypothetical.

But they might be able to prevent their own deaths with legally bought guns. We've made it illegal for them to own guns, so are we morally complicit when they are killed by criminals when they would have successfully defended themselves? For example, guns are outlawed and I break into your home and murder you and your family. Are the people who outlawed guns morally complicit?

But had guns never been outlawed and you owned one and prevented me from murdering you and your family, are you morally complicit if I break into someone else's home instead and murder them with a legally bought gun? Seems to me there is no contest between the moral complicity of action (outlawing guns) and inaction (no law banning guns).

	24-05-2003 12:17									#30
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Restart Zion (but it should be 'Maintain Current Order').

Even though Trinity is hot, she's nothing compared to the rest of humanity. Even if humanity is enslaved, at least they are still alive and can, hopefully, be liberated another day.