Morality and Free Will

The first prisoner is moral and exercised free will

  • Yes he is moral; Yes he exercised free will

    Votes: 3 15.8%

  • Yes he is moral; No he did not exercise free will

    Votes: 2 10.5%

  • No he is not moral; Yes he exercised free will

    Votes: 7 36.8%

  • No he is not moral; No he did not exercise free will

    Votes: 2 10.5%

  • Some other option (explain)

    Votes: 5 26.3%
  • Total voters
    19
I fail to see how someone directly causing the death of an innocent bystander is justified or moral.

Yes, he would have died otherwise, and yes, it wasn't his fault, it sucks, etc, etc. But how can it be justified or moral, since someone ends up dying in either case? Self preservation does not discount murder/manslaughter - he took the other prisoner's cap because he knew that he would be killed for not having a cap. He chose, via the hand of the Nazi guards, to kill that other prisoner.

I think we might give the person dispensation given the situation, but he would certainly be guilty of a number of actions our society deems as immoral and criminal.
 
Last edited:
river-wind said:
I fail to see how someone directly causing the death of an innocent bystander is justified or moral.
Click to expand...

Anyone can justify anything by using the "right" perspective.

Terrorists justify blowing up innocent little Israeli children because ....they'll grow up to be soldiers in the Israeli army! See? It's easy, ain't it?

Oh, sure, you'll make a post trying to show that it's not justified, but isn't that just YOUR morality versus someone else's morality? Who's right?

Baron Max
 
river-wind said:
I fail to see how someone directly causing the death of an innocent bystander is justified or moral.

Yes, he would have died otherwise, and yes, it wasn't his fault, it sucks, etc, etc. But how can it be justified or moral, since someone ends up dying in either case? Self preservation does not discount murder/manslaughter - he took the other prisoner's cap because he knew that he would be killed for not having a cap. He chose, via the hand of the Nazi guards, to kill that other prisoner.

I think we might give the person dispensation given the situation, but he would certainly be guilty of a number of actions our society deems as immoral and criminal.
Click to expand...

He is in a concentration camp, so he is not really in our society.

Self preservation is justified. Self sacrifice isn't, it's retarded. It's a sign of being a broken organism.
 
Roman said:
He is in a concentration camp, so he is not really in our society.

Self preservation is justified. Self sacrifice isn't, it's retarded. It's a sign of being a broken organism.
Click to expand...


So firemen, police, armed forces, etc - anyone who puts thier lives out there on a daily basis, is retarded?
 
river-wind said:
So firemen, police, armed forces, etc - anyone who puts thier lives out there on a daily basis, is retarded?
Click to expand...

Yup. They've been tricked. Mostly.

Notice that those people that join tend to be either a) pretty dumb b) pretty dumb c) young & rash.
 
TimeTraveler said:
It's always moral to save your own life.
Click to expand...

Sez who? Oh, you from the moral authority.

Again guys, there is no universal morality, thus these questions can be answered by each of us own moral standards. TT think it is OK to save his own little life even if it is at a price of 100 other humans. Most of us would think otherwise...

I am not sure how freewill comes to the picture, since it is not necesserily related.
 
The moral failure rests not in taking from another to save one's life, but to allow one to be a slave to the Nazis. The only virtuous thing is to rebel, even without hopes of victory. When faced with such situations, the only thing one can do is attack with no regard for anything but the attack itself. Even if your actions should result in nothing but a dog's death amongst rotting corpses in some pit, or gunned down without a second thought, one would have done the right thing.

There is no honour, no goodness, and no life in cowardice. There is nothing but weakness, filth, and evil. Moreover, the end result is the same even if one does not fight: Death. The difference is in the morality of it. The Jews of the 1930's and 40's are the most wretched generation of any race which has ever lived. They deserved to die because they did not fight.

The words of Yamamoto Tsunetomo come to mind:

The Way of the Samurai is found in death. When it comes to either/or, there is only the quick choice of death. It is not particularly difficult. Be determined and advance. To say that dying without reaching one's aim is to die a dog's death is the frivolous way of sophisticates. When pressed with the choice of life or death, it is not necessary to gain one's aim. 
We all want to live. And in large part we make our logic according to what we like. But not having attained our aim and continuing to live is cowardice. This is a thin dangerous line. To die without gaining one's aim is a dog's death and fanaticism. But there is no shame in this. This is the substance of the Way of the Samurai. If by setting one's heart right every morning and evening, one is able to live as though his body were already dead, he gains freedom in the Way. His whole life will be without blame, and he will succeed in his calling.
 
when the guard saw him at roll call tomorrow would he not then kill the prisoner hatless or not? all he did was cause another death.
 
i voted that it was moral however it was not exercising free will, morality is the instinct that tells a species to survive, but i doubt he wante dto take the cap, he just needed it.
 
Prince_James said:
The moral failure rests not in taking from another to save one's life, but to allow one to be a slave to the Nazis. The only virtuous thing is to rebel, even without hopes of victory. When faced with such situations, the only thing one can do is attack with no regard for anything but the attack itself. Even if your actions should result in nothing but a dog's death amongst rotting corpses in some pit, or gunned down without a second thought, one would have done the right thing.

There is no honour, no goodness, and no life in cowardice. There is nothing but weakness, filth, and evil. Moreover, the end result is the same even if one does not fight: Death. The difference is in the morality of it. The Jews of the 1930's and 40's are the most wretched generation of any race which has ever lived. They deserved to die because they did not fight.

The words of Yamamoto Tsunetomo come to mind:

The Way of the Samurai is found in death. When it comes to either/or, there is only the quick choice of death. It is not particularly difficult. Be determined and advance. To say that dying without reaching one's aim is to die a dog's death is the frivolous way of sophisticates. When pressed with the choice of life or death, it is not necessary to gain one's aim. ?We all want to live. And in large part we make our logic according to what we like. But not having attained our aim and continuing to live is cowardice. This is a thin dangerous line. To die without gaining one's aim is a dog's death and fanaticism. But there is no shame in this. This is the substance of the Way of the Samurai. If by setting one's heart right every morning and evening, one is able to live as though his body were already dead, he gains freedom in the Way. His whole life will be without blame, and he will succeed in his calling.
Click to expand...

Haha, the Jews totally deserved what they got, that is, if the holocaust actually happened.
 
Roman:

He who does not fight for his life does not deserve it.

Also: No need to implicate me in Holocaust denial.
 
i haven't really read all the posts so far,.. but as i figured i was the only one to vote he was not moral nor did he really exercise free will, slim chance i would be repeating stuff. Is it moral to sentence the other prisoner to death? nope. Was it free will?.. as a human, rigged for self preservation,.. i think not( of course many would disagree with me) When one is placed in that position i guess the only way he might not be swayed by that basic instinct, would be the prevalence of something More in the person which would enable them to sacrifice themselves for another (the other prisoner did not harm him in anyway, so the "i'll harm you to keep you from hurting me" logic, doesn't quite fit). This reminds me of that shooting in an Amish school not long ago, forgive me i can't remember the details,.. when the captor was preparing to murder the class of little girls, one girl came forward and requested to be shot first, which he did.. then her sister did the same (she survived though i belive),.. The urge to to self preservation is not overcome by free will, but something much more...
 
Fight

Morality has been repeatedly misinterpreted, intentionally misused.....as a shelter/cloak for cowardice.....there cant be any universal morality..../....well there can be "individual" perspectives though......n may be reason n something called humanity /equality.........not to be confused with humans........when taken up as an issue turns out to be idealism as a way to escape to many........the same people who actually fake morality.......and as the nazist camp conditions may be thought to be.....its a foolishness to suggest or comment on how people "should" act on moral grounds ......might not it be possible that the prisoner actually acted on his natural more "animal" instincts .......no one talked about that.......no one said that this prisoner got raped ......no one talked about the psyche or mental condition of the subject.........what though "should" ve been done is a "must" is to fight or better be dead .......rather than be inhumanly subjugated, probably that would ve been the rightful manifestation of free will so as to say.
 
How did taking the other guys cap save his life?
Remaining alive, surely the guard would have taken his cap again as soon as he discovered this trickery? The guard wanted him dead NOT the innocent guy that took his place. So killing someone else shouldn't have made a difference other than to delay matters?


How was the prisoner treated by his fellow prisoners after what he did?

Did they find his actions justfied, moral?

I guess it depends rather on how popular he was compared to the dead guy.

Though I rather imagine he had a tough time, I wouldn't want a murderous self preserving sneak in my group.
 
Prince_James said:
Roman:

He who does not fight for his life does not deserve it.

Also: No need to implicate me in Holocaust denial.
Click to expand...

He who does not fight for his life does not get to keep it.

I don't believe issues of survival to be moral ones. Concerning solely your own life, it is merely a question of instrumentality. If you wish to live, then you will work to preserve it. If you wish not to live, then you will end it. And if your life is not as important as another purpose, then you will regard it with relative ambivalence.

In this case, then, our subject acted with free will but not morality. You can neither condemn nor applaud him merely for acting on the desire to live. The "good life" is etymologically (and logically) predicated upon life. If life itself comes into question, how can good be asserted? Without life, there is nothingness. And nothingness has no attributes, good or bad.
 
Why did he just mention to somebody that he got raped by a gay Nazi, and that the gay Nazi stole his hat?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top