On the podcast with Daniel Doshi – The Problem of Evil
The questions I will ask are based on the following assumptions –
- There are people who are *objectively* more moral than others. It’s not always easy to compare, but it seems to me that a person who donates his entire personal fortune to research for a solution to cancer is a more moral person than the leaders of the Nazi regime, almost objectively.
- Even considering the existence of free choice, there is an influence between a person’s genetics and biology and their morality.
- If we replace a single person with a more moral person, the world will be a better world.
Therefore –
- Couldn’t it be possible to engineer a world in which the average human brain would evolve to have a more “good” moral disposition than it does today, thus creating a better world, if only slightly? This can be compared to the ability to cooperate, which has developed significantly through evolution.
- For a single baby born into an immoral society, to parents with immoral genetics, I assume that probabilistically, it is most likely to be immoral as well. So, is the most correct course of action to kill the baby (who has done nothing else)? To forcibly cut him off from society in order to increase the chances that he will become a better person (or to ensure that he is raised in a way that is different from the society in which he grew up)? Or to do nothing and hope that the least expected thing will happen, and the baby will miraculously turn out to be moral? While the first two solutions seem absurd, the last solution is the least rational of the three.
A question with such a logical structure was already asked today. Was that you? Whether or not you were, you should be careful not to fall for such logical structures. They have a persuasive power far beyond their actual quality. From experience. I too have gone through this logistical phase.
As for your question, there are logical leaps here. I accept your three assumptions. But notice where you got to with the last assumption: such a replacement would make the world a better place. This is true consequentially. But you ignore the moral problem in the actual murder or kidnapping, even if the result is better. The act itself is morally problematic. In other words, it is not true that every act that brings the world to a better state is necessarily a moral act. This is of course also related to the well-known troll dilemma (you can search the website or the Internet in general).
In the question of whether it is possible to engineer, are you talking about God? I assume it cannot be done, at least not under the other constraints he wants to achieve. Search here on the site for a discussion on natural evil.
Regarding the baby, you can understand my answer from what I wrote above.
Hi, I really appreciate your response! This was my first question today and ever on the site 🙂
I would be happy to clarify your answer regarding the baby in relation to your claim in the podcast, that if necessary, it is possible and even obligatory to destroy a person even if he commits a robbery in exchange for a single shekel (if I understood you correctly).
In parallel with Gaza (just for convenience) – If a Gazan committed a terrorist attack, is it right to eliminate him and prevent future attacks? What if he enters the country and plans to carry out a terrorist attack in the near future? Is it right to prevent this and eliminate him before he does so? What if he plans to carry out a terrorist attack in the distant future? What if he “just” joined the military wing of Hamas? What if he only shows interest in joining Hamas? And what if he has just been born, but in light of the statistics it is likely that he will join Hamas and carry out a terrorist attack?
At what stage is the most moral action murder/kidnapping? I'm afraid we're entering a kind of stacking paradox that's hard to solve…
As for the troll's dilemma, I understand the parallel in general, but I can't find a sufficient analogy in it for the probability factor, which is that there is a non-negligible chance that that person does deserve the death penalty.
Thanks!
Any situation in which there is a threat justifies killing, as long as the threat is clear and unfulfilled. I don't understand what the problem is? What does this have to do with killing a person simply because he is less moral? And even if we enter into cumulative considerations, then what? There are situations like this. Life is no picnic, and sometimes there are no clear answers.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
