Just to make sure we are on the same page...I did not mean to imply that one person would make a decision for another to sacrifice. I meant that I a person, me for instance, would do something immoral to protect the group. That would seem to be more noble, since I would be the only one to suffer and others would benefit without breaking any moral code themselves. So is it better to let a group suffer, rather than to do a wrong.MadArchitect wrote:Because so long as you're only talking about your own suffering or benefit, your choice is still a voluntary matter. But once you start making decisions for other people, then you draw in a slew of complications to the basic dynamic of whether or not it's better to suffer. For one thing, if you're deciding something on their behalf, their moral culpability is questionable, to say the least.misterpessimistic wrote:... and then when I rephrased the question to not benefit the individual, but a group, you even admitted it changed the dynamic. Why?
Say I had a chance to murder Hitler and this would have prevented millions from being annihilated. Would people say that I should not have done that because it was immoral or wrong to kill another human being?
Mr. P.