The moral choice. Why would we let a Nazi physician save a child?
![ragdish's picture ragdish's picture](https://www.rationalresponders.com/sites/www.rationalresponders.com/files/pictures/picture-10397.gif)
Many of you can come up with a trillion different moral dilemmas. There is the classic sinking boat scenerio and you had to choose which of the loved ones to save. Yet I find the following hypothetical scenerio to be compelling:
Suppose your loving child is suffering from a life threatening illness and the only person who could save him/her is a brilliant doctor who happens to be a Nazi. And this physician who hates you and your race/gender/sexual orientation/etc.. nonetheless agrees to save your child for the financial reward. Would you allow this doctor to proceed?
I have no doubt that 100% of sane respondents would allow the doctor to cure the child. It would be immoral to prevent the doctor from intervening and allow your child to die. After all you don't have to like the doctor and once the job is done, you can walk away still feeling contempt for Nazis. At the same time, you're arguably immoral for allowing a Nazi to treat your child.
I'm curious as to why from an evolutionary standpoint, we make such moral decisions. Is it an adaptation to see to the welfare of your kin at any cost?
- Login to post comments
Is it an adaptation to see to the welfare of your kin at any cost?
This is making a presupposition that all moral decisions are based in an evolutionary context which is a patently false assertion. While it might be nice to think that humans have the right to do anything they want to preserve their genes(and those of their kin), there are laws, societal norms, and other factors in place. I think it is already pretty apparent that human beings usually do go to great lengths to preserve the lives of their children, even when they find the means to that end reprehensible. Every situation and every person is different, and the extent to which one's genetic profile's survival and replication is concerned, some are overwhelmed by the societal consequences and conflicts with one's personal ethics while others make decisions by giving more weight to the emotional(perhaps genetic) side of themselves.
That being said, of course I would let the doctor proceed.
“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” Yoda
I would say yes.
"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci
I would let the doctor do it. I don't think it's immoral to let the doctor operate, in my opinion it'd be more immoral to let the child die when the solution is at hand.
Psalm 14:1 "the fool hath said in his heart there is a God"-From a 1763 misprinted edition of the bible
Argument from Sadism: Theist presents argument in a wall of text with no punctuation and wrong spelling. Atheist cannot read and is forced to concede.
The problem with these types of moral dilemmas is the fact that they're almost always completely implausible and would never actually happen.
Ted Bundy worked for a while on a suicide hotline, apparantly, he was quite good...
John Wayne Gacy entertained children as a clown, and was photographed with the First lady...
Hitler himself could accurately be described as a non-smoking, non-drinking vegitarian, a decorated war hero, and reputedly never once cheated on his wife.
The current Pope was a member of the Nazi Party...
LC >;-}>
Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.
I would allow the doctor to operate, then denounce the sucker to the authorities, after that it's fuck off to Nuremberg with you, you Mengele wannabe. And I would pay him with a check and call the police before he has a chance to cash it.
As for the current pope being an ex-nazi, I'm really not that worried, he's just a rebound pope after all. Sadly, he pretends not to know his place, dictating pointless and hypocritical new sins when clearly his job is just to keep the funny hat warm till the people get another lovable pope, one that doesn't scare the children away by his mere sight.
Lenore, The Cute Little Dead Girl. Twice as good as Jesus.
Well since Hitler was only married 2 days before he commited suicide this isn't a very big feat.
"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci
I would guess that in general, only people directly affected by the Nazis would take a hard line stand against the doctor operating. The son or daughter of a concentration camp survivor might, out of principle, rather see the child die than give the doctor the respect necessary to let him operate.
This is not really that complex a moral dilemma. People do this kind of thing all the time and don't worry too much about it. An environmentalist takes an SUV out to the mountains because he needs lots of equipment to study global warming. A really hungry atheist who normally avoids Christian businesses stops at Chick Fil-A because it's the only thing around. We make lots of little sacrifices to our principles, all the time. This example is just an extreme situation. It's not a particularly unique one.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Two points: I think you mean an environmental scientist. An environmentalist doesn't necessarily know jack shit about science. And have you ever noticed that the only time you want Chick Fil-A is on a Sunday?
"The whole conception of God is a conception derived from ancient Oriental despotisms. It is a conception quite unworthy of free men."
--Bertrand Russell
Point well taken.
Oddly, the only thing I ever crave on Sunday is Zaxby's Chicken Finger Plate. I'm pretty sure it's the best hangover food in the world.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
I'm almost embarrassed by how often I agree with you, though I go for the Buffalo fingers myself. I always know the hangover's nearly gone when I feel the shooting pains in my left arm.
"The whole conception of God is a conception derived from ancient Oriental despotisms. It is a conception quite unworthy of free men."
--Bertrand Russell
In the Middle Ages, christians would often seek treatment from Jewish or Muslim physicians. Christians even went to Islamic lands to study medicine from Jews and Arabs and translated their textbooks from Hebrew and Arabic into Latin. People have crossed ideological barriers to seek help from physicians for a long time.
They're called thought experiments, and they don't have to be plausible in order to do the jobs they're required to do, one of which is illustrate how people think.
Wish in one hand, shit in the other, see which one fills up first.
Maybe i am just different but i would never even think of whether a person is a communist or a nazi or whatever, so yea i wouldn't care. We all are going to encounter different view points so you might as well be able to make acceptions for other contrasting viewpoints. I myself like Communism but i know that all the communist nations that have implemented there so called communism haven't implemented communism in the way that karl intended it to be... Its like saying to a christian if your child was sick and the only physician that new the cure is an atheist would you go to him to get your child cured?
P.S. sorry for going off topic
The drummer in my band is the Godson of the late Dr. Harold Shipman who for those who don't know was one of the most notorious serial killers in British criminal history. He murdered hundreds of elderly patients in his care for financial gain. My drummer told me that he wouldn't actually be alive if it weren't for Dr Shipman. I guess it's similar in a way.
Atheist Books
It has fallen down the Memory Hole by now, but right after Hurricane Katrina Fidel Castro offered to send Cuban physicians and some medical supplies to the afflicted areas in the U.S. Bush turned him down, of course. Castro's regime also manages hurricane survival better than the U.S. by moving the population out of harm's way. Despite the communist police state set-up, in some respects Cuba's government values human life more than the American government.
George Bush who values human life so much at all stages, that he values the lives of discarded embryos over living, breathing children, grandparents, mothers, fathers, etc.
Bomb first ask questions later George Bush. Sounds about right doesn't it?
Sorry I can't help myself bitching about GWB.
I fail to see how this corresponds at all.
Bundy wasn't the only suicide counselor available. It's not like suicidal callers had to make the tough decision of either receiving help from a future serial killer or dealing with their problems alone.
Gacy wasn't the only children's entertainer in Chicago in the 70s. Parents didn't have to choose between letting the man who was secretly killing their children entertain nonetheless and entertaining the children themselves.
As for Hitler, you assume that people can only be either all good or all bad. This runs counter to the nature of every human being who has ever existed - all people do good, bad, and indifferent things - just some to much greater extremes than others.
And did Pope Benedict really have a choice to join the Nazi party? Not only was he drafted at age 16, but he deserted a few years later (and was subsequently imprisoned). So it would seem as though he made the right decision when he was able. It's not like he was just sitting around at the seminary one day and said "You know what, I really hate Jews, so I think I'll join up with Hitler." That's just not how it worked. Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending Catholicism or even Christianity as a whole, but it's unfair to pretend like he joined the Nazi party of his own volition.
So I think my point still stands. There would very likely never be a situation where the only physician qualified to save your child was a Nazi. It's just like the classic moral dilemma of having to choose saving one child from drowning over the other. It's not like the father has time to stand on the shore and say "Well, I can only save one of them, now let's see..." Most likely he would either try to save them both at once or at least save the closest one first and possibly arrive to the second one too late.
But justin, you fail to see how your objection fails to have any relevance whatsoever. A thought experiment is a drastic situation designed to illustrate a principle about a normal situation. Suppose I ask you to imagine that someone offers you a billion dollars to simply pull the plug on an infant born prematurely. If you pull the plug, the day old infant will certainly die. You can be assured that nobody but your donor will ever find out what you have done.
This will obviously never happen, but it illustrates a point -- namely, when there is enough advantage and few enough penalties, people will do things they find morally objectionable. You know that this happens all the time in real life, just with much tamer circumstances.
So, the fact that this thought experiment seems implausible to you does not really address anything relevant, only that you don't think this exact situation will ever occur. Incidentally, I can pretty easily imagine a snowstorm that locked a doctor and a few people into a house with no hope of rescue for 24 hours. Mission accomplished.
But, that's just not the point. The question asked by the experiment is: "Are there situations where people suspend sanctions on people they consider highly immoral, for essentially selfish reasons?" Clearly, the answer is yes. (Ask yourself, do you think everyone in the White House loves W, or do you think some of them kiss his ass so they can keep their high powered job?)
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
I worked for a number of years as a firefighter/Paramedic in my home town not long after I got out of the Army...
The ONLY time I ever personally was refered to as a 'hero' was when I worked very hard to save a church building that was on fire.
What actually happened was that the classroom and auxillary building was fully involved, and I set up on a small fire escape to provide a 'water curtain' to contain the fire and keep it from jumping to the chaple.
All was well until my boss came by and said quietly, "Bill, come down..."
The fire was arching over the roof at this time, so I said "but <name redacted>, it's gonna spread..."
He came back a few minutes later, and a little more forcefully said "Bill, come on down, now."
So, bitching the whole time, I retreated down the stairs and looked around the corner. Except for the wall that supported my little fire escape, the building was collapsed, a pile of smoldering ash on the ground. A local reporter had snapped a cute picture of me up on the landing, spraying water as the rest of the structure said 'fuck it'... They called me a 'hero', in the papers... for not being smart enough to get down when told...
I've often wondered how the good hard-shell baptists would have felt knowing their sanctuary was saved by a staunch atheist...
LC >;-}>
Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.
Well sure, people act in ways counter to what they thought they believed when they are pushed to new boundaries, but I guess (among other things) I was expressing my distaste for thought experiments. For the most part I find them to be pretty worthless. You can sometimes use them to gauge where your moral boundaries might be, but you can never know these boundaries until you're actually put in a bad position.
I personally don't think I would take an innocent life for any amount of money, because I'm one of those weird folks who values life over money or possessions - though this is of course all in theory, as I've never been put in such a position. I can think about what I would do if someone offered me a billion dollars to kill a newborn baby, but I'll never truly know what I would do until after someone really asks me.
But back to my original post: I think it adequately addressed Louis's points, in that Bundy wasn't the only available suicide counselor, and Gacy wasn't the only available child entertainer. Even if they were, they both performed these duties before they were known as serial killers, and I think it's pretty safe to say that a known serial killer will never be one's only option for any type of service, let alone suicide counseling and child entertainment. Thus there will never be a time when someone is forced to choose between accepting service from a known serial killer or performing the service on their own. Knowledge of Bundy's and Gacy's status as serial killers was hindsight to those involved. And although Gacy's clown routine was inexorably tied to his murder spree, Bundy may have been a wonderful suicide counselor - serial killers typically don't want all people to die in general, but rather target a select group of people in order to satisfy a very complex obsession. Had Bundy used his status as a suicide counselor to lure vulnerable people into a trap for the purpose of killing them, then he could be compared to Gacy, but still not to the original Nazi doctor thought experiment.
Serial murder is a crime, whereas Nazi ideology is not, at least not apart from acting out said ideology. You can be a neo-Nazi in theory, but you're not a criminal until they act violently toward a non-Aryan. Thus, equating a serial killer with a Nazi doesn't really work.
But in the end, not all people find that they are bad when put in potentially extenuating circumstances. Have you read any Viktor Frankl? I know that holocaust examples have probably been permanently banned from internet discussion, but he witnessed quite the opposite during his imprisonment in the Theresienstadt concentration camp. He saw people give their food to others who were going to be executed the next day. Above all he saw people love for no other reason than fondness for the person to whom the love was shown. That's not something Frankl could have approached with a thought experiment.