[Buddha-l] Ethical Dilemmas

[Dan Lusthaus]

Erik,
> Let me remind you that ethics is not about the best decision, but the
> about which decision one can justify the best.

That's an odd -- and dangerous -- definition of ethics. Anything can be 
"justified" after the fact.

> So it's a decision to the
> best of your knowledge.

Different situations have different stipulations. Deciding who gets the 
first cookie is not the same as deciding who lives and dies, and the 
requisite information and grasp of principles is radically different for 
each situation.

> It is obvious that the decision that causes he
> least amount of victims is the easiest to justify, no matter what kind
> of ethical vision you use.

Nonsense. There is nothing obvious about it. It depends who they are. They 
are not simply equal-unit integers. Quantity might be one factor to 
consider, but not the sole factor, nor will it invariably trump all other 
factors.


>The most difficult one is when you have two
> persons against each other.

Only if they are "equal in every respect" -- which rarely is the case.

Let me illustrate the insufficiency of relying on quantification to decide 
by offering a well-known example from the rabbinic tradition.

Situation 1:
Your city (or group, or caravan) is under siege. The attackers demand Person 
X be turned over to them (they intend to kill that person), and they will 
let everyone else go. Otherwise they will kill everyone. What do you do?

Situation 2:
Your city (group, or caravan) is under siege. The attackers demand you hand 
over any person to them, and they will let everyone else go. (they intend to 
kill that person.) Otherwise they will kill everyone. What do you do?

Situation 3:
Your city (or group, or caravan) is under siege. The attackers demand Person 
X be turned over to them, and they will let everyone else go. They want 
Person X for a capital offense, for which Person X is known to be guilty. 
Otherwise they will kill everyone. What do you do?

Situation 4:
Your city (or group, or caravan) is under siege. The attackers demand Person 
X be turned over to them, and they will let everyone else go. Person X is an 
innocent person, Otherwise they will kill everyone. What do you do?

Situation 5:
Your city (group, or caravan) is under siege. The attackers demand you hand 
over any five (or ten, or twenty) persons to them, and they will let 
everyone else go. (they intend to kill those people.) Otherwise they will 
kill everyone. What do you do?

First, these situations are not the same. The overriding ethical 
consideration is all these cases is NOT the quantity (save many by turning 
one, or five, or ten, etc., over), but the innocence or guilt of the person 
being demanded. If the demand is nonspecific, not requesting someone 
specific but just anyone, then one does not accede to the demand, even at 
the risk of every else's life. If the request is for a distinct individual, 
AND if that person is indeed guilty of a capital offense, then turn that 
person over so that everyone else is spared. If that person is innocent, 
then you do not turn over the person, even if that means everyone else will 
die.

Your supposedly "obvious" justification is why the Nazis could fill 
concentration camps with innocent people. "We" were saved by turning "them" 
over, and there's more of us than them. Hallelujah! Obvious!

Dan