You pass someone in the street who is in severe need and you are able to help them at little cost to yourself. Are you morally obliged to do so? You have a brother. You know that someone has been seriously injured as a result of criminal activity undertaken by him. You live in a country where the police and legal system are generally trustworthy. Are you morally obliged to inform them about your brother's crime? Do you think that assisting the suicide of someone who wants to die - and has requested help - is morally equivalent to allowing them to die by withholding medical assistance (assuming that the level of suffering turns out to be identical in both cases)? You are able to help some people, but unfortunately you can only do so by harming other people. The number of people harmed will always be 10 percent of those helped. When considering whether it is morally justified to help does the actual number of people involved make any difference? For example, does it make a difference if you are helping ten people by harming one person rather than helping 100,000 people by harming 10,000 people? You own an unoccupied property. You are contacted by a refugee group which desperately needs somewhere to house a person seeking asylum who is being unjustly persecuted in a foreign country. Your anonymity is assured. You have every reason to believe that no harm will come to your property. Are you morally obliged to allow them to use your property? A charity collection takes place in your office. For every UK£10.00($16 USD) given, a blind person's sight is restored. Instead of donating UK£10.00($16 USD) you use the money to treat yourself to a cocktail after work. Are you morally responsible for the continued blindness of the person who would have been treated had you made the donation? Someone you have never met needs a kidney transplant. You are one of the few people who can provide the kidney. Would any moral obligation to provide the kidney be greater if this person were a cousin rather than a non-relative? You can save the lives of a thousand patients by cancelling one hundred operations that would have saved the lives of a hundred different patients. Are you morally obliged to do so?
My answers: 1.Weakly Obligated, if they are not in life-threatening danger i may not oblige. 2.Obligated but understandably emotionally apprehensive 3.Yes, every person has the right to suicide and no government, law or ideology should prevent or condone that. 4.No, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. 5.Strongly Obligated, it is a vacant piece of property and i'm not using it. 6. Yes, in addition i don't see myself drinking any cocktails ( i avoid alcoholic beverages.) 7. Yes, my emotional ties would drive me to help my immediate family over a stranger. 8. Yes, again the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
This is the one that falls within the general principle of the easy deed for you or I that makes a big difference for (an)other(s). This is just about the best principle for morality in society, in my opinion, and I consider it quite obligatory. I don't feel comfortable in going much into the rest of the things in the list because these matters are very complex in reality and not easily determined hypothetically. I think that you did well, though in thinking about these things, and giving thoughtful answers.
"You can save the lives of a thousand patients by cancelling one hundred operations that would have saved the lives of a hundred different patients. Are you morally obliged to do so? " Does one life outway another? personally i dont think so. i think i would save the many but i would acknowledge and except the fact that the many are no more important than the few. Here's another moral dilema. there's two men and one of them has to die. you have a choice to kill one or both of them. one of the people is a lovely person and has a positive effect on everyone he mets and everything he does. The other person is a real bitch and drag on society and has a negative impact with everthing he does. Which one would you kill? Something you should realise is that these are only moral dilemas becuase of are own set perception of right and wrong. in the end the situation that you choose is down to your own perception there is no right or wrong. what one person percieves as an unjust act another percieves as heavenly enlightenment. to illustrate this here's an example. A man on a warfield stabs someone in the back, takes his weapon and kills three others. A man in a house stabs someone in the back, takes his weapon and kills three others. the man on the warfield is given a medal for a courages act and honoured as a war hero. the other man is accused of manslaughter and murder and spends the rest of his life in jail. Whats the difference? here's a exa
Yes. Golden Rule. No. But you probably should try to get your brother to compensate the victim, and possibly to turn himself in. No. One is an act, the other is an omission. People tend to distinguish those morally. I can't see how the absolute number would make any difference. Whether you should go ahead or not probably depends on the relative levels of help and harm involved. Probably not, but it might be a nice thing to do. I'd say no. A similar argument says we should all give away money to others until everybody in the world is at exactly the same standard of living. No. But the family pressure might be greater. No.
