We got a questions asking about the "save one baby or save five embryos from a burning laboratory" dilemma. Assuming a pro-lifer saves the baby, it's supposed to "prove" that we don't really think that the embryos are fully human beings. But it doesn't do that at all. Here's why.
The only reason it's a dilemma is because it pits the value of both against each other. A dilemma is a difficult choice pitting competing values against one another. it wouldn't be a dilemma if there weren't two valuable things at stake. Something valuable is going to be lost with either choice. So the fact that it's a dilemma assumes the value of the embryos, otherwise it would be easy.
I'd probably grab the baby, assuming it was as easy to grab as the embryos, only because of it's viability to survive since the embryos need to remain frozen. After all, the point of saving someone is survival. The embryos are unlikely to survive the rescue in any case because they require strict conditions that probably can't be found in such an emergency. The baby will survive with easily provided help.
Now new variable could be introduced to the dilemma that change that survival calculation - a lab nearby could keep the embryos in their optimum condition, the baby has a terminal disease, etc. There are circumstances where I'd choose the embryos. But it's that issue of survival that determines the choice, not that deep down I think one is really more valuable than the other one. So the dilemma just doesn't prove anything.
I'd also probably save a 30-year-old gall bladder patient over someone hooked up to a respirator from a hospital fire for the same reason, but that doesn't mean one is more valuable than the other.
And here are some other thoughts on such a dilemma that Steve Wagner passed on in response to this question.
Here's a reductio from Ramesh Ponnuru.
Scott Klusendorf has also commented on it.
Another twist on the dilemma-
If I was forced to choose between saving two 3 yr old boys and one happened to be my own son, I would most likely choose my own son. That doesn't mean that the other boy wasn't valuable, it just means that I have a relationship, a parental obligation and a level of psychological closeness with my own son that would bear on my choice.
Posted by: Todd | December 30, 2008 at 09:20 AM
Human value is not the only factor in a moral decision of this kind. Presenting artificial characters and situations is missing the point about REAL situations and real people. This just shows that the only way to prove a point of this kind from the other side is to retreat into fantasy and sometimes without even being aware it is one.
Posted by: Louis Kuhelj | December 30, 2008 at 02:31 PM
If I understand Melinda correctly, she would choose to let a two-year old child die in order to save five embryos - if it were really cold outside (cold enough to keep the embryos frozen and put the toddler at some risk of getting pneumonia). Out of curiosity, do other readers believe that Melinda would be right in doing this?
Louis, would your judgments about what ought to be done change if you suddenly learn that the case turned out to be actual, rather than merely hypothetical? That strikes me as odd. So, what's wrong with thinking about hypothetical cases? Don't we do this all the time in "real life" anyways? Might not hypothetical cases be useful for reflecting upon our own judgments and beliefs?
Posted by: CT | December 30, 2008 at 06:59 PM
To be honest CT, the scenario is 'designed for failure'. But to answer your question, melinda's not wrong for doing it. Flipping a coin would be just about as good. Either way, a child is dead.
Posted by: Coteaux Du Tricastin | December 31, 2008 at 12:48 AM
"Louis, would your judgments about what ought to be done change if you suddenly learn that the case turned out to be actual, rather than merely hypothetical? "
It is not just an issue of being hypothetical. I said they were artificial. These are two different concepts that are worlds apart. It is like saying that a model of a child made out of plastic is the same thing as the real child. It is a statement of utter nonsense. My claim was that the model was made of the wrong stuff...it is fundamentally and materially flawed and the flaw cannot be repaired by pretending the flaw away.
"That strikes me as odd."
If I misunderstood the words I used, I would also consider it odd. So, I don't blame you for that.
" So, what's wrong with thinking about hypothetical cases?"
Nothing at all. Since I didnt said anything about hypothetical cases in my comment, I see no reason to take me to task for doing so.
"Don't we do this all the time in "real life" anyways?"
What? Confuse words? Sure...I am as guilty of it as anyone. But I know that is not what you mean. I was not talking about the hypothetical nature of the example, but its artificiality. A dead body might superficially resemble a living human being, but that doesn't make him a living human being. Big difference that should not be trivialized. Words convey ideas and ideas have consequences, so we have to track back to the precise choice of words in order to avoid serious consequences.
"Might not hypothetical cases be useful for reflecting upon our own judgments and beliefs? "
Yes, but not if they diverge away from hypothetical and branch out into artificial that takes a 180 degree turn in the opposite direction. Therefore, I stand by my choice of the word and the idea that it clearly conveys along with the soundness of reasoning behind it.
Posted by: Louis Kuhelj | December 31, 2008 at 09:22 AM
Louis, what's the difference between an artificial hypothetical case and a non-artificial one?
What, in particular, is it about the burning laboratory cases that make them artificial? Once you define this, perhaps we could think of a non-artificial hypothetical case that poses the same sort of dilemma.
Posted by: CT | December 31, 2008 at 03:41 PM
It is revealing to watch Scott Klusendorf attempt to defend this argument on a recent post. Straw men lay scattered everywhere.
Posted by: CT | January 01, 2009 at 03:13 PM
"Louis, what's the difference between an artificial hypothetical case and a non-artificial one?"
Good question and I hope to be able to answer it in this particular case a bit further down.
"What, in particular, is it about the burning laboratory cases that make them artificial?"
For something not to be artificial, it must conform to the material of the real article as closely as possible in the particulars that define the original. The problem with the example is that it picks and chooses the elements of that material without careful consideration of the significance to how closely the model resembles the real thing. This is why only human value is made to be under consideration when the real model has many other critical variables that must be taken under consideration. It is like looking at a life size realistic plastic doll and concluding on the basis of only appearance that it is actually a child. The lack of careful consideration of the many other variables, make it an artificial construct that by the merit of its many deficiencies is not fit to be considered a hypothetical.
" Once you define this, perhaps we could think of a non-artificial hypothetical case that poses the same sort of dilemma."
Since the item described is not a moral dilemma in the first place, what would be the point? You are not killing a child by saving one over the other when a situation allows the saving of only one and you are not killing an embryo when you you choose to save a child and certainly, you are not making a value judgment in a situation like this by saving one over the other. You are simply trying to do the best you can to do the most good under the circumstances given the materials you have at hand. Can a person be blamed for not being able to punch through 5 inches of concrete using a chisel because he doesn't have a jackhammer available? The scenario is contrived and irrelevant to the issue raised.
I take that back, if you had an opportunity to save two children, but you chose to save only one of them because you detested the other and would rather that he be dead, now there is a moral genuine moral dilemma. But your conscience should be quite instrumental in working out the right thing to do in that situation. This is an example of a genuine moral dilemma. It is when your conscience is pitted against your fallen human nature that you face such a dilemma and only then.
Posted by: Louis Kuhelj | January 02, 2009 at 09:37 AM
CT, what a strange scenario. If the weather outside were at the cryogenic temperatures required to preserve an embryo, we'd all be in serious trouble!
Posted by: Jesse | January 02, 2009 at 10:46 AM
"CT, what a strange scenario. If the weather outside were at the cryogenic temperatures required to preserve an embryo, we'd all be in serious trouble!"
Expecting a human being in an emergency situation to make a dispassionate decision regarding the rescue of those in danger is simply a fantasy. We are not calculating machines and certainly cannot function as such under the circumstances that are being described by the scenario. To rescue anyone under those circumstances is an act of heroism and to be applauded, not degraded by second-guessing the motives of the individual placed in the unenviable position to make a choice. It is time to count our blessings and celebrate the fact that anyone was saved at all and not all had perished. It is better to have done some good then doing no good at all. Considering the human condition, sometimes that is the best we MERE HUMANS can do. Perhaps there is a lesson in this that we should accept our limitations with humility rather than arrogantly insisting that we are capable of find a solution to every problem that comes our way.
Posted by: Louis Kuhelj | January 02, 2009 at 12:14 PM
"For something not to be artificial, it must conform to the material of the real article as closely as possible in the particulars that define the original."
Louis, I'm having difficulty following your train of thought. To begin with, what's "the original" (specifically, what's supposed to be "the original" for the hypothetical cases we're imagining)?
Posted by: CT | January 02, 2009 at 03:23 PM
"Louis, I'm having difficulty following your train of thought. To begin with, what's "the original" "
The original is a concept of a moral dilemma. I gave an example in my last post of an actual moral dilemma that is the genuine article and not an artificial construct masquerading as a moral dilemma. A moral dilemma must, by definition, include a strong incentive on the individual to do something clearly wrong while the conscience dictates he do other wise.
"(specifically, what's supposed to be "the original" for the hypothetical cases we're imagining)?"
The point here is that the illustrations given are misrepresented as a moral dilemma, when they have nothing more than a superficial appearance of being one. The original is an actual moral dilemma as I described it earlier and the artificial is one where either the conscience or the proclivity toward wrong moral choices for evil reasons on the part of the individual are substituted with either a human value judgment or no-win situation in which there, by necessity of the situation, must be someone who dies. This is a cheap Chinese copy of a real moral dilemma. It might be good enough for undiscriminating tastes where truth is concerned, but my pallate refuses to dine on this trash.
Posted by: Louis Kuhelj | January 03, 2009 at 07:28 AM
It would seem that there is a lot of confusion as to what a real moral dilemma entails. Maybe an example that would hit closer to home is an one where a married man is tempted to cheat on his wife with an attractive coworker. Does he give up his pursuit of self gratification by engaging in an illicit affair or does he incur the wrath of his wife and suffer the breakup of his marriage and possibly his family? These are the two unfavorable choices confronting him. There is no question as to which is the right course of action to take in this situation. The source of the real dilemma is not in the situation external to the person, but within the heart of the one facing it.
Posted by: Louis Kuhelj | January 03, 2009 at 07:45 AM
"It would seem that there is a lot of confusion as to what a real moral dilemma entails."
So it seems. Here's how the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on "Moral Dilemmas" begins: "Moral dilemmas, at the very least, involve conflicts between moral requirements. Consider the cases given below."
"The original is an actual moral dilemma as I described it earlier...."
Have you in fact described any actual moral dilemmas that fit the necessary requirement stated in the SEP? By trying to clarify what you would accept as a non-"artificial", hypothetical moral dilemma, we seem to have uncovered another confusion.
Posted by: CT | January 03, 2009 at 11:51 AM
CT
"So it seems. Here's how the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on "Moral Dilemmas" begins: "Moral dilemmas, at the very least, involve conflicts between moral requirements. "
Then they have it wrong. Only when you contrive an artificial situation can you come up with conflicts between moral requirements. It only exists in theoretical philosophical arguments that have a most tenuous link to reality if they have any at all.
"Consider the cases given below."
"The original is an actual moral dilemma as I described it earlier...."
"Have you in fact described any actual moral dilemmas that fit the necessary requirement stated in the SEP? By trying to clarify what you would accept as a non-"artificial", hypothetical moral dilemma, we seem to have uncovered another confusion. "
Yeah...the one in SEP. A lot of very intelligent people make mistakes when it comes to these types of issues.
Posted by: Louis Kuhelj | January 03, 2009 at 12:13 PM
Louis, so you deny that "moral dilemmas, at the very least, involve conflicts between moral requirements"? What's confusing about this is that in discussing a philosophical issue you are using a philosophical term, but you are assigning your own unique meaning to the term. I'll try to catch up, but you must be patient.
I think I've found the situation you're referring to as the "actual moral dilemma" described earlier:
"if you had an opportunity to save two children, but you chose to save only one of them because you detested the other and would rather that he be dead, now there is a moral genuine moral dilemma."
But I was under the impression that such a case would, in your terms, be an actual moral dilemma only if it actually happens. But, as it stands, it is merely hypothetical. Is that right? (Or, do you also have a unique definition for "actual" and "hypothetical"?)
I'm still left wondering what is supposed to be the "actual" moral dilemma that a hypothetical moral dilemma must "conform to" if it is to be non-"artificial".
Posted by: CT | January 03, 2009 at 12:39 PM
Louis, I'm sorry we weren't able to make much progress here. I'll have to call it quits for now. Until next time, best wishes.
CT
Posted by: CT | January 04, 2009 at 09:42 PM
"Louis, I'm sorry we weren't able to make much progress here. I'll have to call it quits for now. Until next time, best wishes.
"
It is a shame that you have to call it quits because I haven't quite gotten to the real problem in your presentation of your side.
The definition that you described has in fact been tampered with and is no longer a definition, but an interpretation. It no longer describes what the thing is in itself, but what a thing is as filtered through the bias of a particular world view. I see clear evidence of definition tampering. The idea that the phrase “moral dilemma” denotes has a broad and far reaching implications. As such, it requires a broad definition to fit it properly and the narrow one offered is inadequate to the task. The definition that you offered is in fact a narrowed…or whittled down…one that has clearly been whittled down to fit a particular world view. That is clear evidence of definition tampering. It is foolhardy to trust a source that has been demonstrated to be unreliable as is the case in point. Therefore, pulling out definitions from sources that happen to disagree with your debating opponent is inadequate to the task of proving a point and properly driving it home. The facts have to fit the case, not just someone’s corrupted definition.
Posted by: Louis Kuhelj | January 05, 2009 at 12:45 PM
"But I was under the impression that such a case would, in your terms, be an actual moral dilemma only if it actually happens."
No, it is an actual dilemma if it is possible for to fit the definition that is properly informed by the real thing. It has to fit. The issue that was raised is not a moral dilemma because it does not fit anything other than a contrived artificial definition of the word. It is quite clear that saving any party from danger of being kill while being unable to save all is a problem with the issue of a lack of omnipotence, not of a moral deficiency. The real question here is, would the person that was put in the spot if they had the opportunity and ability to save all parties concerned do just that. I think that the answer to that question in vast majority of the cases is that they would. The problem is not a moral one, but the real conflict is a tension between one's moral sense and one's physical limitation. So, the dilemma described is between the moral and the physical and does not fit the definition that even you offered. So, this simply is not the kind of thing that it is presented as.
The whole scenario is simply being misrepresented as being a moral vs. moral conflict. It just isn't.
Posted by: Louis Kuhelj | January 05, 2009 at 12:57 PM