See the thing is I don't think a driver who is negligent or does something on accident can be sentenced to death. Life in prison maybe, and I'm not even sure about that, but I'm pretty sure an accidental death case cannot receive the death penalty.

No one is saying that Jack should be pulled out of the cave and executed. It is not a punishment, but a means to an end. He lost his right to be thought of as merely an innocent bystander when he thoughtlessly and recklessly endangered the lives of others. Killing him is not in order to punish him, but killing him is allowed by what he has done in order to prevent him from killing five others. If a man with a gun is about to shoot five people, shooting him first to stop him is not the death penalty; it is killing him in order to prevent him from harming others. The only difference in this case is the intentions of the people involved; Jack did not intend to harm others, but that is exactly what you want to let him do. If the five people inside the cave kill Jack, they would be killing him in self-defence.

We can alter the case with a person who is drugged out of his mind and does not know what he is doing, who has a machine gun and is shooting in a crowded room. You have a gun and can shoot him to stop him. Do you decide to not do that, and let him kill everyone in the room, simply because he does not know what he is doing, and has no intention of harming others? In the case of the cave, you are suggesting that we let someone kill others if he did not intend to kill them. I say, we ought not let people kill others who are innocent, regardless of their intentions.

firstly, we are not talking about a man with a gun. Or a man on drugs....2 completely different scenarios.

And perhaps you may legally be able to claim in defense of life(IDOL), but morally, it doesn't feel right to me. It could have easily been you who got stuck in that hole vs. him.

It was more happenstance that he lived and you didn't....that is unless you deem that he die.

To me, it would be like you being in a boat with 6 people that was being threatened by a shark, and you pushing the fat guy in the water so you and the other 5 could escape.

That doesn't seem right to me.

---------- Post added 04-29-2010 at 12:59 PM ----------

Or better yet....the fat guy accidentally causing an avalanche in which you and 6 others(including the fat guy) get caved in....and then neglecting to give the fat guy shots of Dex to prevent edema while keeping it for you and the other 5 because he led to the accident and you deem him negligent and reckless. When really, it was no ones fault and could have happened to any one of you. That, to me, would not be right

Oh, that. I was not talking about valuing human life. I was talking about how to value a human life. It seems to me that human lives are to be valued in terms of their contribution to society, and to other people. Have you another suggestion?

Don't you think that when you allege that someone's argument is weak that you ought to back that criticism up? Philosophical criticism should not be merely drive-by shooting.

Yes, they are different. If anything, the man on drugs would have more excuse for his behavior.

As for a gun versus an incoming tide, dead is dead. The means are irrelevant to the essentials of the story.





No. Reread post 2. I would send the smallest person first, assuming that everyone is more or less equally agile. But even if I were as stupid and thoughtless as Jack, I would then deserve to not be considered an innocent person. If I were to carelessly endanger the lives of others, I would expect to be held responsible for my actions. I am suggesting that Jack be likewise held responsible for his thoughtless and reckless and selfish and stupid actions.





We are talking about choices that are made by people. People are responsible for their choices. They are responsible for their careless and thoughtless actions. Jack is responsible for plugging the escape route. The only way to make Jack innocent would be to change the scenario.





Then you obviously do not understand the scenario. Jack made a choice, and in so doing, he is responsible for his choice. Jack's choice plugged the escape route. With people in a lifeboat, the fat guy has not endangered the others by being in the boat (unless you add to your story, or, in other words, change it). With your lifeboat story, there is no indication that anyone has done anything thoughtless or reckless, and so everyone is presumed innocent. (And throwing him overboard would not keep the sharks away anyway; it would probably only attract more of them. Generally speaking, as long as the people are in the boat and it is afloat, and the shark is in the water, there really is no need to do anything about the shark.)





You would need to tell us more about the cause of the avalanche. If there was a sign warning about loud noises, and the one guy thought it would be funny to make a loud noise anyway, then that person would be negligent and stupid and not be an innocent victim.

Also, you seem hung up on someone being fat; that was relevant to the original story of this thread only as a means to set up the situation, but being fat seems to have nothing to do with sharks and avalanches. We could also change the cave story to a normal sized person and five midgets. If the normal sized person was a thoughtless and reckless fool who plugged the escape route with his body, the midgets would be right to kill the SOB blocking the hole. The essential ideas of the story have nothing to do with someone being fat. The essential point is, one person does something that brings about a situation in which, if nothing is done, five people die due to that person's negligence and stupidity and selfishness, and the only way to save the five people is to kill the fool who recklessly endangered them. If a person is reckless, then that person is not innocent and does not deserve the same consideration as those who are not reckless.

Valuing life in terms of their contribution to society, or in other words, their utility, is utilitarianism. I am against using utilitarianism to value life because it does not value life as the ends, but instead values life as a means to an end, that end being their utility. I'm with Kant on this, in that using people as means to an end is disrespectful.
That's why I can't agree with an argument that puts the president's life as more important than the life of a plumber. Perhaps the utility of a president is more important to society than the utility of a single plumber, but that is not the point.


As for your other argument - I just wanted you to reread your own words and possibly realize the flaws in it yourself. I know that's not traditional philosophical protocol, so...sorry?

It's not that I think you're wrong as much as it's I disagree with some your reasoning. It's not like this is an issue with a clear-cut right or wrong answer as either way something bad will happen but it can still be interesting to discuss.

It really has nothing to do with him being fat I was just using that to draw a separation between him and the rest. You seem to be more concerned with assigning innocence and guilt to an accident. And the whole fact that you would need more details about my avalanche scenario proves that. I already said it was an accident.

Here are 2 related scenarios that I think demonstrates what I'm saying better:

In scenario 1 Big Jack falls through a trap door as the cave caves in. A video then turns on(think Saw style here) where a man says the cave will flood in 5 minutes and the only way out is by killing Big Jack.

Do you kill him then?

In scenario 2 you are alone and much further down the cave during the time of the accident and when you happen upon the scene you notice Big Jack stuck in the hole and the other 5 people are unconscious. Big Jack doesn't tell you it's his fault(it's not by the way....he didn't cause the cave in and his only fault was getting stuck in the hole...something he obviously didn't intend) but you also know there is no other way out.

Do you kill him then?

I mean the thing about executing someone for an accident(negligent or not) just doesn't sit well with me. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone and such.

...