Hello world, today I hopefully start a journey of discovery, adventure, exploration of all things mentally rich and wholesome, or perhaps the opposite, a realisation of an ever present nagging feeling that in the end it all doesn't matter but more importantly even if it did; that no one would care. Anyway sorry to start this on a bit of a low note but I actually have no desire of this being the lowest double bass solo in this symphony; if you think this is grim, it gets much better. I feel the need to give you a brief introduction to my person before we continue, so I will pander to this need of yours: I am a 20 year old musician (so excuse any corny musical puns), who is too hot to Handel but you know you’ll be Bach for more (see it’s started already) and a keen philosophising-type-person.
I was thinking today, something I find to be an ever less popular hobby in this world of iPhone, iPod, iMac and ITV, Dancing on Ice aside however, what I was actually thinking about was morality; specifically the distinction (if one exists) between 'killing' and 'letting die'. My first example involved a class full of a 100 innocent and hapless kids in London and a hall full of a 1000 people in a most unsavoury place that I've never heard of... Scarborough for example. Now I am presented with the dismal choice of killing the 100 kids to save the 1000 people, or save the 100 kids and let the 1000 die. My initial response was to think that I'd rather save the 1000 people and kill the 100 children because it would be for the 'greater good' whatever that is but then I thought about it for a minute, would I really be able to do that? Could I really kill 100 kids? I couldn't really, and more importantly I wouldn't, I’d much rather let the 1000 die I mean after all it was destined to happen had I not been informed of my possible choice to change it otherwise, therefore there is clearly a difference between actively killing and passively letting die.
Or is there?
I was happy with that conclusion until I was made aware of an example my friend told me. Consider the following scenario, a man is responsible for making sure the water tank is always full in a hotel room, one day he sees another man pour a vial of cyanide in the tank, he decides not to do anything, after all the tank is full, which it is his job to ensure, it just happens to contain cyanide. In this particular instance I would lay the same amount of blame on the man who did nothing and the man who actually poured the cyanide into the tank, so... there is no difference between killing and letting die. It still however didn't seem right; for some seemingly inexplicable reason letting someone die always feels less blameful and less chivalrous than actually killing someone take (consider telling someone you just ‘killed a hundred kids’ to 'I let a hundred kids die’ – the latter out of context would inherently elicit less flak). For example heres another scenario where I have the choice to press a button to kill 100 kids or to choice to let 100 kids die, I have no idea how they will be killed (so as to remove any inhibitions I would have about the method) so is it still the same? Pressing a button or doing nothing? I'd probably choose the latter, because after all if doing nothing is in itself doing something then not playing chess would be a hobby. I don't know, this is what I personally believe, or have come to a conclusion on but please do feel free to correct me where you feel a correction would be needed.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
If you play chess passively, without a self provoked initiation ie. without fully conscious appreciation of playing or playing without spontaneity or following pre-conceived procedures, I would state that in this case the playing of chess would not classify as a hobby. Conversely the inverse is true; actively choosing not to play chess involves a decision and inherent rationalization (this is opposed to passively not playing chess, which would cover most instances of not playing chess in everyday situations) and I would stipulate that in that scenario you would be morally responsible for not playing chess. While this could in no way constitute the hobby you refer to in your conclusion, this instance if accurate (and I believe it is!) would contradict your final statement, ergo the morally superior route would be to allow the greater benefit to survive; willfully not acting when it is possible to do so is inherently an action within itself.
Although my personal disagreement with your conclusions, I think your ideas are interesting and arguments well structured. My only criticism (my disagreement above is an opinion on moral ideals, not a strict criticism of your essay) would be a general lack of evidence and external support to backup your opinions (and I do realize this is difficult for such an essay).
On a lighter note iRead, iEnjoyed it and iMac.
Post a Comment