Review of cave events
I vaguely remember the shock brought by the famous Harvard open class Justice. At that time, I first came into contact with all kinds of moral model problems, such as the train problem, the cave dilemma, and other problems like doctors saving lives and eating people at sea. Most of them are interpreted in the framework of a person changing his life, but each model is different. The most amazing thing is the result of seemingly subtle differences-most people have changed their original answers. These questions are all tests and reflections on one's own morality, and I have never had such a clear experience of opening my heart. The implementer is still himself, and only himself.
The real question in this case is whether homicide constitutes homicide under special circumstances. The judgments in the cave mystery can be mainly divided into two categories. One group thinks that the judgment cannot be chosen (because the law is clear), and the other group thinks that the judgment needs discretion or some extra-legal factors (because the law is unclear).
In addition to the three legal conflicts summarized in the last article, this model leaves a lot of room for discussion because of its rich details.
From a moral point of view, it is inevitable to define the value of life. If it is appropriate to sacrifice ten lives to save them, why is it wrong for these people to reach an arrangement of sacrificing one person to save four people? In the book, a judge expressed the following view: this is a good deal. Cold but true. But if we put efficiency first, we are no different from robots. Is there any behavior that has nothing to do with the result, and the behavior itself is a manifestation of moral decay? Contrary to the above view, every life is equal, noble and precious, and any sacrifice must be voluntary. The death of ten rescuers is unpredictable. How to calculate personal value is also a huge proposition. One person to four people is the so-called duty, and 990,000 people are equal to one million people. This is almost a nightmare, reminiscent of massacres and wars.
Another striking argument is the choice of death. In the story, the victim proposed to draw lots and then chose to quit, thinking that he should stick to it for a while and try to wait for rescue, but he was rejected. Indeed, in the case that the final result is unknown, waiting for seven days will reach the fastest rescue time mentioned by the rescue team, which may keep everyone alive. Similar to the discussion of the value of life, waiting for the weakest person to die naturally is also a cost-effective transaction for everyone, which refers to the sum of all people's happiness indexes, that is, utilitarian morality. It is fairer than waiting for the weak to die of natural causes. Everyone should have the same chance to survive. If the weak die first, this mode of thinking is no different from the lawless society where the law of the jungle prevails. Judging from this reasoning, denying the victim's choice to withdraw from the lottery is to reduce the chances of more people withdrawing (because everyone withdraws, there is a greater chance in the agreement), that is, rejecting the law of the jungle. This is also one of the arguments for the victim to withdraw from the lottery.
When to consider the collective interests and when to consider each individual? For everyone, the answer seems simple, and the discussion of moral issues can be completely abandoned. "It depends on your point of view", "It depends on the specific situation" and so on ... On the one hand, it does avoid a lot of troubles, such as deep fear of being exposed to the psychological dangers associated with the process of value exploration, but some necessary thinking and in-depth exploration are also abandoned. It's interesting to think about them, but as time goes on, you may gradually despair because you know it has no end.
Finally, the dead end of moral model discussion lies in the unpredictability of the scene without putting yourself in the other's shoes, that is, neither hindsight nor model evaluation can give people a sense of reality, so the real conclusion about behavior model is superficial.
Yale University's "Morality in Daily Life" open class mentioned a research result that men's moral sense of sexual behavior will be greatly reduced when they are erect. If you put it in a cave problem, why do onlookers simply classify the people in the story as lacking moral sense and need to amend the criminal law judgment? Here we can ask another question to think about the purpose of punishment-is it to deter possible future events, or to correct evil personality, so as to ensure the safety of the public and themselves? What if punishment can't stop this loss of morality?
The discussion on these propositions has never stopped, and human beings are constantly advancing in this process. Despair is too pessimistic. We might as well admit that some dilemmas are indeed unsolvable today. French jurist Garcai Erule once wrote: "Justice is not something that can be grasped or fixed. If a man seeks true justice ... he will never know where the end of justice is. There are always some unpredictable things in the law created as something with just function that make jurists feel embarrassed. "
20 16- 10-08