Moral reasoning. The fat man and the impeding doom dilemma.
The following is a moral dilemma, adapted from Moral Reasoning, by Victor Grassian (Prentice Hall, 1981, 1992). I found it here, where is more moral dilemmas if you want to check it out: Some Moral Dilemmas
Here is the dilemma literally:
A fat man leading a group of people out of a cave on a coast is stuck in the mouth of that cave. In a short time high tide will be upon them, and unless he is unstuck, they will all be drowned except the fat man, whose head is out of the cave. [But, fortunately, or unfortunately, someone has with him a stick of dynamite.] There seems no way to get the fat man loose without using [that] dynamite which will inevitably kill him; but if they do not use it everyone will drown. What should they do?
personal opinion: I think one of the important aspects in this humorous or stupid dilemma is how the masses are always ready to act in common or group. It is a perfect example where we can see that most of the times humans will choose a solution to preserve the species. Because as Aristotle said the whole is greater than the sum of the parts is a metaphor of always will be there the group in terms of decisions not the individual.
divide et impera by Julius Caesar. The masses have to act as one to get the goals. Thus, the 16 individuals would probably act as a common sense to sacrifice the fat man amd survive. They do not want division against the obstacle.
Homo homini lupus by Thomas Hobbes. The human will sacrifice another human just to survive.
What are your thoughts about this dilemma? What should you do?
Here is the dilemma literally:
A fat man leading a group of people out of a cave on a coast is stuck in the mouth of that cave. In a short time high tide will be upon them, and unless he is unstuck, they will all be drowned except the fat man, whose head is out of the cave. [But, fortunately, or unfortunately, someone has with him a stick of dynamite.] There seems no way to get the fat man loose without using [that] dynamite which will inevitably kill him; but if they do not use it everyone will drown. What should they do?
personal opinion: I think one of the important aspects in this humorous or stupid dilemma is how the masses are always ready to act in common or group. It is a perfect example where we can see that most of the times humans will choose a solution to preserve the species. Because as Aristotle said the whole is greater than the sum of the parts is a metaphor of always will be there the group in terms of decisions not the individual.
divide et impera by Julius Caesar. The masses have to act as one to get the goals. Thus, the 16 individuals would probably act as a common sense to sacrifice the fat man amd survive. They do not want division against the obstacle.
Homo homini lupus by Thomas Hobbes. The human will sacrifice another human just to survive.
What are your thoughts about this dilemma? What should you do?
Comments (101)
The dilemma is spurious. Fat men (fat like they can block a tunnel) don't go hiking to begin with.
Note to self: Don't follow fat people.
Yes, you are right somehow fat Men probably wouldn't go hiking but I said this dilemma is quite humorous because of the characters :joke: But I was looking for what the people would think in this situation.
You blow the fat guy up. If he is willing to let so many others die so that he may live then he isn’t the kind of person worth sacrificing so many other lives for. Fat man would either choose to die to save the others or he is a cowardly, selfish person not worth saving.
Absolutely! What would be your answer according to moralism?
Interesting point. So he will die anyway but the sacrifice and the respect of the fat man could depend in his behaviour. End like a hero or a selfish
I understand your point. But what about if the fat man doesn't allow us to blow him up? His selfishness could kill us (the hikers in the example).
It interesting your example of fessing up but here we are just speaking about punishment. The fat man dilemma is about life choices and then, the group as a mass, would blow the fat man up...
How do I know that no other means of unsticking him will work? Personally, I would still be greasing his fat arse and pulling or pushing when the waves broke over my head, so you'd have to blow me up too, you callous bastards.
Cool then! :100:
Well greasing him is a good solution but imagine nobody has this object with themselves. It is not about being mean with the fat man I guess it is about of how supposedly the masses would act against one individual.
It is interesting how you and @ernest meyer are in the fat man's side. Most of the people choose blow him up...
So you would be only in his side just in extreme circumstances. Interesting :chin: It looks like sammaritan acts too.
If you choose to defend the fatman, which I take to mean preventing others from using the dynamite, then you are asserting your own morals not only over the morals of the other people but also over their lives. You are defending one persons right to life by violating the right to life of all the other hikers. This doesn’t seem at all different in principal than deciding to use the dynamite.
The only moral option if you truly feel like its morally wrong to use the dynamite is to abstain from the decision, making the decision not to use the dynamite for yourself. Then, if you are truly committed to making the correct moral judgements you would have to struggle with another moral dilemma; whether or not it is morally correct to exploit the dynamite use and exit the cave to save yourself. If you truly prioritise morals over life then you wouldn't exit the cave. If you do not, and instead exploit the immoral (in your view) actions for your own survival then you might as well have used the dynamite in the first place. You end up making the same moral violation anyway except the initial moral violation (using the dynamite) also saves the lives of a bunch of people. The latter moral violation (exploiting the immoral actions of others) only saves yourself. (Since you didn’t actually do anything to save the people, they saved themselves).
So I think in the end the fatman dying is the only morally sound way to do it. The other solutions simply pass the buck, shift the moral burden.
What you shared is very important because it is something I was waiting for. Exactly, what can happen if we pass the buck? Imagine we do so and them there are different criteria. 8 hikers would think it is good to blow up the fat man but the other 8 not. This a dilemma inside the dilemma itself but as you perfectly explained one will do it anyway because at least one of them will give up about morals and them would blow him up.
Another scenario here could be if the losing of time debating if they should or not exploding him can actually kill them because they do not take solutions in extreme context
So the moralism depends about the fat man's permission?
I understand that is your position, but it isn’t a morally sound position for the reasons I stated. You state your position but haven’t defended it.
Its possible none of the people want to kill the fatman and in that case I see no moral violation, except that of the fatman. A moral person would volunteer to die to save the others and if fatman doesn’t then fatman isn’t acting morally.
Losing time to debate is more mismanagement and costly hesitation rather than a moral issue. Ideally the hikers will have spent some time on a philosophy forum discussing moral dilemmas to avoid the consequences of inaction :wink:
This is where we get the commission/omission moral dilemma. If the fat man omitted the act of allowing the rest blowing himself up then he acts immorally or selfish. But, if the rest want to explode him, thus the act of commission, then it is somehow immoral because they are acting mean towards the fat man.
I guess this is like spiral we cannot get away. This is why I like dilemmas like this one :sweat: because is not clear who is more correct than the other.
The most egregious moral violation is fatman, who is clearly acting immorally and selfishly. The second worst violation is the man stopping the others from using the dynamite, for the reasons stated. The least egregious is the dynamite users as their action have good justifications both ethically and practically.
The only person who has clean hands and has made no moral violation is the person who abstains from dynamite use, doesn’t interfere with the others use of dynamite (except to offer his views I suppose) and does not exit the cave once the dynamite is used. He would die with full moral virtue.
That’s how I’d rank the moral decisions.
I really liked it. I love how you explain as a cascade, if you don’t mind I use this metaphor. Thanks for participating and sharing your thoughts in the dilemma. It was interesting your point of view :100: :up:
:up:
Since you take the utilitarian stance, you ought to consider other possibilities, like the following: You insert the dynamite in a suitable orifice and blow up the fat man and me who refuses to abandon him. And also the team of rescuers who are outside the cave working to free everyone. And of course the lifting gear they were setting up collapses into the hole along with their corpses and you still can't get out. What rotten luck!
Im not a utilitarian, my reasoning wasn’t dependent on the greatest amount of good for the most people. I would say the same thing if it was fatman and only one other person stuck in the cave.
If you refuse to abandon him then that is your decision, you can die righteously beside him if you want.
If there are rescuers then dynamite is no longer the only option, so my answer would change depending on the details of the rescue. If I didn’t know there were rescuers my answer wouldn't change. You can change the scenario however you like and I will always be able to answer, right up until you change the scenario to become nonsensical or self contradicting at which point I wouldn't be able to answer without likewise being non-sensical or contradicting. Garbage in garbage out.
If the dynamite kills rescuers and I still cannot get out the indeed, bad luck. It wouldnt be due to the morality of using the dynamite.
That would be so hilarious :rofl:
If you might die later because you are out of food, and I eat food you could need to eat later to stay alive, doesn't give you any right to kill me now.
From your attitude, you're just inventing excuses because you like to kill. I heard alot of you fancy justificationists when I was working in gun control, loi, and I know you people exist now, so your fancy arguments for why your opinion is so superior that you need to be so rude don't impress me.
What did they do?
I'd kill the fat man and escape, and live with a troubled conscience.
You’ve still done nothing more to defend your position.
Anyway, which assertion and why exactly is it insulting? Also, I cannot follow how your food scenario is analogous to the fatman blocking the cave scenario or my answers to it.
They literally did this.
Understandable but I wanted to phrase it in that way just to point out the extreme situation they randomly ended up
Then it's moral.
I thought it more than moral, in a survival aspect. Somehow the masses will fight to survive. Doesn’t matter the sacrifice for the the fat man. I guess this is morality to them. It is interesting because we can clearly see how changeful the concept of morality could be
Suppose the person stuck was actually a gorgeous woman to whom at least several of the hikers were extremely attracted. Would a 'beautiful, sexy she' make the situation more difficult than a 'repulsively fat he'?
Good question! I think not. I guess it doesn’t depend about appearance. In extreme circumstances you do whatever just survive and if you have to sacrifice someone, the mass or the group will sacrifice the stuck person anyways. So, I guess is just secondary all the characteristics. The issue here is that someone is get stuck and somehow would sacrifice himself for others.
It is interesting because the website where I found this humorous dilemma asked: What would you think if were a pregnant woman instead? hmm...
...you were a bit overweight and happened to get in the way of a dynamite philosopher?
"Oh no, not again!"
:100: :rofl:
People who are very cognizant of global warming and its consequences still opt for the high-carbon output for their cars, lifestyles, agriculture, and so on. So do I -- I'm not a vegetarian, for instance.
In real life most of us seem to be willing to sacrifice people who are "in our way" especially if the sacrifice is at a distance.
There were 14,000 homicides in the US in 2018 -- situations where someone decided (with little to no deliberation) that someone else was expendable.
The point is, in real life--as opposed to forced-choice moral games--a significant number of people do decide "to kill the fat man" over stakes that are trivial. Collectively, billions of people toss the stick of dynamite.
Are so many people (billions) morally depraved? Maybe a bit dull, not depraved. Most of us will never have to make a forced-choice moral decision of a Trolley or Fat Man Plugging the Exit situation. Our capacity for empathy at a distance is cognitively limited--not absent, just limited.
We always (and I mean ALWAYS) sacrifice the few (or one) for the sake of the many. The modern way is to give the few (or one) a chance to volunteer so they can earn the appreciation. Either way, if and when necessary, that sacrifice must happen. It is part of nature's intelligent design.
Agreed. Good expression. :100:
Sure, the sacrifice always be there because as you explained, it is a natural selection. Nevertheless, I is interesting how the humans create masses to fight against the circumstances. I guess this could be an emphasis against individualism.
In the trolley problem, instinctively, I'd pull the lever, kill one and save five. In this case, instinctively, I'd kill the fat man and escape - but as a doctor I wouldn't therefore butcher a healthy individual for organs to save five. Logically, it's the same thing - but morally it's completely different, and in my view, this is because morality is an ingrained sense - like humour or aesthetics, from which moral rules are derived in different ways:
Utilitarianism: A Theory of Consequences. ...
Deontology: A Duty-Based Moral Philosophy. ...
Relativism: A Theory Based on Experiences. ...
Divine Command Theory: A Higher Power. ...
Virtue Ethics: Always Improve Yourself. ...
The first two approaches are particularly germane. The trolley problem and the fat man imply utilitarianism, but the medical dilemma - while logically identical, implies a deontological approach because of the doctors duty to individual patients to do them no harm. It would be unethical for the doctor to think in utilitarian terms with regard to the interests of an individual patient. The moral sense understands this instinctively - which is why I asked, "What did they do?"
Interesting point of view. So you defend that it could depends on the awareness in every individual in this dilemma. If a doctor is there, for him, the dilemma is even worse because as you explained one of his principles is not harm others. But sadly he has to. I am agree it could be unethical for the doctor thinking the sacrifice itself instead of preserving the life.
Quoting counterpunch
I don’t know now how to answer because your example made me feel a lot of intriguing questions. I guess it is not possible at all that the group of hikers would have voted blowing the fat man up. It could be the possibility of being someone against utilitarianism.
Nah, just as for his consent. Giving him the dynamite only risks sabotage if he makes the wrong decision. :wink:
True but he could act selfish in two ways: not deciding killing himself because he doesn’t want to or probably he could torch the dynamite and then kill the folks
:100: :up:
And if he does the latter, who can blame him? He’s trying to survive after all.
Yep; you'd have to trust him.
Were's your courage now?
What courage are you referring to?
Also, Its not cowardice to not trust someone in fatmans position. He has good reasons to sabotage if he is the type to sacrifice a bunch of other people to save himself.
I can some courage and trust in him but I only have 50 % of chances. This situation, the attitude of the fat man, could be like a Russian roulette.
Agree lol. But this what happens in spiral dilemmas like this one. There are infinite answers and I guess this is why so interesting and I like all of your responses :up:
Now there's a real moral problem - lack of trust.
Another dilemma inside the dilemma! I like it. Yes it is. Completely because now we have to consider if we are sufficient brave of give the fat man the dynamite. I guess most of them don’t want give the dynamite because as survive instinct they would think: If we give him the dynamite he would cheat us because this is literally we are doing now. We guess he would try to revenge.
I was actually asking which courage you were referring, not being sarcastic or snide if that mattered in you decision to ignore the question.
Anyway, Can you elaborate on why lack of trust is a real moral problem? I don’t think of trust as a moral/ethic, so I’m curious.
In the 1800s it was phrased as a vigilante question that became popularly approved of after Clint Eastwood movies on the issue. What is the necessary threshold of another man's faults to warrant taking his life without government authority to do so? In this case, the fat man hardly jammed himself in the hole on purpose.
Without intent, most of the arguments against vigilantism apply with stronger force. The individual taking another's life assumes that events will transpire such that the person causing problems will not otherwise be taken care of by authorities, chance events, or as a direct consequence of his own actions.
That's why taking of life in self defense is only approved of in most cases of 'the law' under direct imminent threat, and even then, only in the more violent nations.
Never thought otherwise.
Don't you think it would be good to be able to trust folk?
(That italicised word is not at all loaded, honest... trust me!)
Yes it is. Only allowed in violent countries. But I guess somehow goes further than just court resolutions because we are debating and sharing ideas of how some people would give up in their moral principles just to survive. Fortunately, this is something that doesn’t happen at all in reality but it is interesting speaking about the topic.
PD: it is 01:35 AM and I am sleepy. Sorry If I take a long time in answer again.
I don’t know how to respond to that.
But you won't trust me, and I wont trust you...
Lol, ok.
If he's stuck, then he can't sacrifice himself. He has no choice in the matter, he literally can't do anything.
Quoting Banno
And how exactly would you do that? He's literally blocking the hole.
And whose failing is that lack of trust?
The person who lacks trust, or the person who hasn't earned others' trust?
Interesting fact. We can see it also in this view. If he got stuck is his fault so somehow doesn't have the right of a choice. Then, the rest of the hikers are only the allowed of debating about the life of the fat man.
Asking "what did they do?" is a rhetorical question. It doesn't require an answer. Asking the question 'what did they do?' is to suggest that whatever they did - is what's moral (assuming that is, they perceived the moral dilemma and intended to act for the moral good.)
Why? Because morality is a fundamentally sense - that can be expressed in various ways, like those listed above. Personally, I would kill the fat man and save myself and four others, and be perfectly able to justify that with reference to utilitarianism.
Had I decided however, that I ought not kill the fat man, and had chosen to drown instead, I'd be able to justify that morally also - because morality is a sense, beyond definitive definition. In short, there is no right answer. That's what makes it a dilemma.
True! But another interesting fact is that the people argument different answers when they check the dilemma, even they end up creating another dilemma inside the original one. Previously, I randomly named this dilemma as spiral because it can led us in an infinite situation of debates. I would sound strange but this is the part I like the most about dilemmas :ok:
It does seem strange to me; I like answers, and I've found I've been quite successful in discovering them - but no-one wants to know. They're like you - in it for the debate; which, with centuries to kill - is probably a good strategy. But our time is short. We need answers now, and what we have instead is confusion.
As this is a question of morality, according to the author, I will answer accordingly.
I will get the consensus of all, including the fat man. I understand that this is about practicality so I gather that his saying "no" will lend little to the enlightenment of everyone in the cave. But since we are answering this as a matter of moral discourse, I'd say that his consent matters. If he says, "You have my permission. I'd like to save you", then thank him for his altruism and proceed to do it.
Here the fat man is doing an altruistic decision. The others have either no moral gain or moral burden to carry on with life. The act of the fat man is what matters here.
If, on the other hand, he says "No, I don't want to be blown up. Please don't kill me! I did not do this on purpose so you all could be stuck in this cave. I also did not know that the opening of the cave is too small for me to pass", then, the only thing left to do is to ask for his forgiveness before blowing him up against his will.
The fat man refusing to be blown up has no moral obligation, as intent here to harm others is lacking nor negligence is at issue. As to the individuals in the cave who killed him, the willingness to kill a person so others could live provides no moral gain when life is only seen as numbers. A moral act does not increase in moral value just because there are more people affected. Try asking this question on one on one: what if there's only one person stuck in the cave besides the fat man. It's either the fat man or the other.
Probably this happens because humans tend to think and use a ideas or knowledge to improve our reality. It is true that praxis and action take advantage of the important issues. Nevertheless, one of the unique aspects inside us is the ability of questioning everything. Like we both are doing here about dilemmas. I guess this was the important step when we evolved to Homo sapiens sapiens.
The scenario is an artificial one designed to create confusion. Have some answers instead. Don't kill people. Not even when it is very convenient to do so. Don't blow them up even if they are right in the way and you urgently need to be somewhere. It's murder, even if you save some lives on the side.
While we're at it, don't torture people either, even if they have the magic life saving information and won't give it to you.
Interesting point! I put an example of a group because the original author pretended to defend that mostly the masses would act against to the individual just to survive.
If is only one man agains the fat man, this one would die anyways but I guess in this example is quite worse for awareness because the responsibility cannot distributed
I'm delighted to be able to agree completely. People acting from a moral sense - define morality. Debates about if it was or wasn't moral, or in what way it was moral - come after, and are - as you observed, endless.
Gee, you think there wasn't really a fat man stuck in a cave? I've been deceived!
I do generally try to avoid killing people. If there were a way to avoid killing the hypothetical fat man, and save myself and others from drowning - I would expend enormous efforts to achieve both objectives. It is not about convenience. It's only if there were absolutely no other way - I would kill him rather than let myself and 4 others die. And it's not utilitarianism either, because if it were just me or him, I'd light that candle and stick it between his giant arse cheeks just the same. Why? Because existence is a necessary pre-requisite to values!
Morality is too complicated to base it on iron-clad rules. What we would do in one situation with some people - strangers - we wouldn't do with other people like family and friends. This generalizes to most cases.
The real problem is actually being in such a situation. We can speak all we want, but when it comes to action, it's a whole different story. If I had to guess, I'd blow up the fat man. I'd feel like utter crap for quite a long time, but I want to live and there are more people with me.
Hence it becomes the application of heuristics - Muddling along, if you prefer. The best that can be done is to try to do better each time.
Virtue ethics, then. It's about growing, becoming better.
Sure. If we commit ourselves to some extremely high moral standard, we are likely to fall short of it. This issue of looking to "moral leaders" and the like, is a big mistake. As you say, we can only try to be better, while acknowledging that in some respects, we will be way off the mark.
The three questions.
Quite a good story. And correct, or so it looks like to me. Thanks for sharing.
That is why this scenario, "choice" of action among available alternatives is not necessarily an ethical one. It is one of practicality -- "either you or me". Like I said, consent or the will is important.
I guess it is somehow ethical because of the characteristics and the context. There are a group of unknown hikers and then a fat man. We can say blow him up is pure practical just to survive but I guess in a psychological point of view could be ethical because we are debating about the life of a fat man stuck in a doom, thus, a weaker person than the group. It is not a random person, is fat, meaning that he has more or less a characteristic which is taboo in society (for example, clothes tend to be recently for people with big sizes, etc...)
You see it as pure practical and is very understandable but others could see it as a group killing the weaker human just to survive, so they could think this is not "ethical at all despite the practical aspect"
Note: the original book talked about a pregnant woman. Imagine...
Not at all. I might very successfully travel to London by following the instructions "Head North". It's not necessary for me to be able to actually get to the North Pole for the instruction to have utility.
If we try to act like 'moral leaders', then, in doing so, we will become more moral ourselves. It's not necessary that we are actually able to achieve their standards.
I think this varies by person. In my personal case, it has not been of much use. For you it seems to be different. Same with moral leaders.
"The Fat Man quandry highlights the stark clash between deontological and utilitarian ethics" [p.182]. The "Fat Man" in this case is not the fat man of the fat man and the impending doom, but the fat man of the trolley problem, where in one variant we are tempted to push a fat man off a bridge in order to stop a trolley and save people tied to the tracks. As it happens, we learn that both dilemmas go back to the same philosopher, Philippa Foot, who introduces the first fat man before we are given the Trolley Problem.
I guess you could be interested.
Two useful references:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_dilemma
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-dilemmas/
Exactly! This is what I was wanting when I posted this dilemma and I guess I reached what I was looking for. There were a lot of different arguments and opinion regarding the moralism inside this dilemma. I think sometimes it is interesting debate about this issues.
Quoting baker
I just checked the Stanford one. It was so helpful to develop a better criteria in social dilemma. Now, I have the principles to build a better one.
Wiki has actually been a pretty good source for quite some time now, no need to eschew it anymore (as there was in the olden days).
Yes I know I going to check Wikipedia too but somehow I guess Stanford is a good university and I suppose all the content is so good in terms of quality.
Let's not sound like a cheap self-help book ...
Survival of the body or to do to stay physically alive.
Survival of the mind, your conscious is a threat to your mental health. Which can lead to corrupting your logical state. Leading to self mutilation like suicidal tendencies.
Which take precedence, body or mind? What is the solution to preserve both?
Well, the fat man is my loved one, I'm a bad ass with a gun and his life means more to me than my own or anyone else in the cave. We all die. In all other cases, we wait until just shy of too late, blow his ass up and we all get out.
:rofl: you are a wacky head with a gun that doesn’t care about the life but probably the others do and then steal your gun, kill you and the fat man, then they run away. How the tables have turned!
I think that is actually my scenario. Morally. So the tables have not turned. They are doing what I would expect, morally.
The only thing that seems incongruous is your use of the words "the life". That sounds singular, in which case I'd think you were talking about the fat man, in which case they would not kill him if they cared and I didn't. Instead, I think you meant to say "their lives". Therefor: "you are a wacky head with a gun that doesn’t care about their lives but probably the others do and then steal your gun, kill you and the fat man, then they run away." That makes more sense. Correct me if I'm wrong, and please clarify.
If by "the life" you meant me in my first scenario, then your hypothetical is still in accord with my moral position.
I was referring to your life (singular) because you previously said: Quoting James Riley
I was not referring to the fat man but you as the example. I guessed you don't care at all about your own life but others do in their own so they steal the weapon and kill you instead.
Also, I even think they would kill the fat man because they were ready to blow him up anyways.
That makes more sense (singular meaning me in the first scenario, rather than the fat man in the second). But the actions of the group still comport with my morality: if the fat man means less to them than their own lives, they will kill him. Same with me. If he does not, they, like me, would not let the group or anyone in it stand in the way of blowing him up.
Now, the scenario I expected someone to raise in response to my post but did not (so I'll do it on my own) would be, what if one or more of the group were as dear to me as the fat man? What would I do then? Well, I would do the same, though I suspect my job would be even easier. For anyone I cared so deeply about would likewise sacrifice themselves for the fat man. If they would not, then they would be to me as the rest of them: secondary to the fat man.