Moral and logical decisions.

[Sangetsu]

Originally Posted by Salvanas

Aye, like I said, it was an example situation.

So you believe that moral decisions should be taken over logical ones?

What exactly is morality? And what is behaving logically? In nearly all cases, the moral choice is also the logical choice.

A life is a life, regardless of age. The moral and logical choice would be to save that which is most likely to survive.

I was a medic in the Army, and one of the basic things we learned was how to triage patients, that is, to separate them according to how serious their injuries were. The most serious cases are treated first, and those with minor injuries are treated later. Sometimes you get those who are "expectant", which means they are most likely to die, and other than getting something to ease their pain (if they are conscious enough to feel it) they are not treated at all.

Morality is simply an extension of logic. Those who reason otherwise tend to fall into relativism, where black and white become shades of gray, neither moral nor logical. Morality is built upon logic and principle, providing people with a belief system (or common sense) which governs their behavior in civilized society.

[Eiri]

Originally Posted by Salvanas

After having a discussion with a group of friends, the topic of moral and logical decisions came up.

If you don't know what I'm talking about, let me explain it.

There are two sets of decisions. There is the moral set; Good and Evil, and then there is the 'logical' set; Logical and Illogical. After arguing long and hard about it, the groups were evenly split, we got no where with it, but we found out a lot about each other.

Personally, I believe that moral decisions, although good in a a few situations, is the illogical way to go about it. Logic leads me to believe that decisions should be made logically, without any moral or emotion causing me to lead to a decision, and only hard logic.

One thing I asked my group went like this, and it's a perfect example.

---------------------
Me: Let's say an old granny is crossing the road, and suddenly a car swerves and is about to hit her. You have the chance to save this old woman, but you know, that if you do a child will die because of that choice. What do you do?

Friend that always backed the Morals over logic: I let the Granny get hit.

Me: That is a logical decision. Now let's say the old woman is YOUR grandmother?
----------------------

That's when everyone stopped and had to think about it. I believe that if I was in that situation, I'd let her get hit. It's the logical thing to do. Someone who had hardly any life, in exchange for someone who has his life ahead of him. EVEN if the granny is my gran.

What are your views on this?

I'd say that protecting your own is something of a natural instinct so I would try and save my grandmother, but if a child was involved in some random way......it would depend on whats going on with the child and the situation the child would be in...

but if granny wasnt my own, Id save the child, granny has seen enough I think....

[Hyakushi]

Hahahahahaha! Ive always thought about this too, for me I believe in change (not to be confused with an Obama sort of change).

For the example, its not about being moral or being logical.
Why must there always be a white and black side to everything and everyone, sure you could be saving a "kid" by letting an elder die but would that really be Moral/Karma/Justice/Right.
I dislike black and white examples because not only do black and white exist but various colors inbetween (Same with religous cults, just saying).
Maybe you would be saving a "kid" but can we really say we saved "so" and "so" seeing how we do not know "so" and "so"?. What if they are not white but grey, what if they grow up to be just another arshole thinking they know everything there is in the world. There are so many infinite possibilities, people become infinitly closer but never touch.

Then can we really say what is logical or Moral?, Nazi's believed they were doing the most logical and moral thing for there Country/Family/Pride.

With so many influences and properganda what do we really know what is right and wrong. We may say we do because we feel that it IS but then are we just going with Ignorance is Strength because we are told what is right and what is wrong.

Are people today really learning and thinking or are they just repeating what they were told. (Are they really thinking or just thinking that they are thinking, taking something someone else said and reforming it as their own. Then again maybe they just want others to think for them because they just don't care or are lazy).

Will people understand what I am typing or do they not want to understand it because they don't want to change nor say they were wrong or right.

This was my whole reason for putting a no religous support for the Kill or No Kill thread I made awhile back, it wasn't because I was hating religons but I wanted people to think. I wanted to see if people could state something they really think is real with out announcing why it IS what it is because they were told what it is. I know this might cause some flaming but I really hope people can talk with out name calling or getting all razdraz inside.

[ozkai]

If any one of you have children, the first and natural instinct would be to save your child.

Of course you would come back for seconds to save the other.

Ever been scuba diving?

Run out of Oxygen, and the first think you will do a hundred feet down is to approach your buddy and share their regulator.

If they refuse, you will grab it out of their mouth, regardless of who it is. It really is a natural insticnt and a case of survival.

[MMM]

I agree with Sangetsu and am trying to figure out why moral=illogical and logical=immoral.

To oversimplify things, I might see morality as the x-axis and logic as the y-axis and different situations and decisions might be placed in different places on the chart.

For example, to borrow from another thread, to steal medicine if you are sick and have no money would be logical, but immoral. However to shoplift things you don't even want is both immoral and illogical.

I still don't understand the situation in the OP, but regardless of the answer someone will die. Therefore morality kind of goes out the window as regardless of the actor's action he will be saving a life and allowing a death.

So then the argument because an evaluation of the value of the child's life over the old woman's life.

[RadioKid]

I think morality is a part of logicality. Or I can say Logicality must based on the morality.

What does it mean when a logic is not based on moral? On what the logic is based other than moral?

[Megabyte117]

Capital Punishment could even be used as an example.

For some people, it is viewed as morally incorrect to execute another person, even if that person has committed horrible crimes.

However, logically, by executing a criminal, that criminal is unable to ever harm another person. And that's just another free space for a lesser criminal.

[Hyakushi]

Originally Posted by ozkai

If any one of you have children, the first and natural instinct would be to save your child.

Of course you would come back for seconds to save the other.

Ever been scuba diving?

Run out of Oxygen, and the first think you will do a hundred feet down is to approach your buddy and share their regulator.

If they refuse, you will grab it out of their mouth, regardless of who it is. It really is a natural insticnt and a case of survival.

But do people now days really need that instinct anymore? sure you can say "you will save the life of your child" but I can not believe everyone thinks that way. Were you told you should save your child, reconditioned to think that way year after year. Could say no but were you told to say no.
Not saying you are something because of this and that, I know nothing about you and you know nothing about me. So why do we always feel the need to judge others with out actually knowing them.

Just recently a woman killed her own baby and burried him under the playground at a park in Albuquerque. Many say she is a monster, a bad mother but with people only thinking about them selves today and not helping nor taking the time to be tactful with others. People can always say "I would do this, I would do that" but when the time comes there is always room for change. Personaly I think it wrong to blame the womans mother and sister for not helping the woman take care of her kid. If they judge them like that then multipule people should be arrested for seeing her and her baby living on the streets and turning there heads away and cranking up the radio.

When I was in the marines there was always a begining course of hell, where we try to form a bond between humans through insanity. there were always the same outcomes, either a group would have the latest time but get all their team members through or there were people leaving their comrades behind just for a faster time. They are a group and should act as one, if one falls then they all stop to repair what was lost not push forward. I really want to see this for society today but with everyone only thinking about themselves, what makes their lives easier then the cause is lost.

Heh I'm not sure if I made sense here, I tried putting it simple.

[Hyakushi]

Originally Posted by Megabyte117

Capital Punishment could even be used as an example.

For some people, it is viewed as morally incorrect to execute another person, even if that person has committed horrible crimes.

However, logically, by executing a criminal, that criminal is unable to ever harm another person. And that's just another free space for a lesser criminal.

Yup but thats just turning it black and white again.

Killing a puppy=Horrid crime

Killing person=Eh they diserved it one way or another.

[ozkai]

Originally Posted by Hyakushi

But do people now days really need that instinct anymore? .

Need or not need, up to each and their own.

If someone didn't want to save their child, that would be a huge concern.

If you have a child one day, you may understand my thoughts.