Boss Posted March 2, 2016 Posted March 2, 2016 I was watching Stefan video on abortion I thought of this question while watching it. Lets say you adopted or had a baby. You are walking on the sidewalk with the baby in a stroller and the baby gets hit by a drunk driver. The driver and baby ends up in the hospital side by side. The baby is losing blood and needs a blood transfusion or the baby will die. Only the drivers blood matches the baby's blood type. Would you say its moral to force the driver to give blood to save the baby's life? I think taking the drivers blood is not immoral as the driver put the baby's life in that situation and its moral to save the innocent life from attackers. The abortion hostage situation. The couple is responsible for putting a life inside the woman. The life requires blood/resources from the mother to continue to live. It is immoral to end a life due to someones faults. I think abortion due to ones faults is immoral. Its not clear in the video so I am questioning Stefan position.
dsayers Posted March 2, 2016 Posted March 2, 2016 Would you say its moral to force the driver to give blood to save the baby's life? You're using opposing language here. If it's moral, it's not force, and vice versa. Also, the way you tell the story seems as if it's deliberately manipulative. For starters, the identity of one of the actors as a baby isn't useful to the consideration being asked. Also, the scenario where a hospital would have no access to a particular blood type is fantastically improbable. It's as if you're attempting to steer the consideration rather than genuinely seeking an answer to an ethical problem.
Kevin Beal Posted March 2, 2016 Posted March 2, 2016 Lets say you adopted or had a baby. You are walking on the sidewalk with the baby in a stroller and the baby gets hit by a drunk driver. The driver and baby ends up in the hospital side by side. The baby is losing blood and needs a blood transfusion or the baby will die. Only the drivers blood matches the baby's blood type. Would you say its moral to force the driver to give blood to save the baby's life? Forcing the guy to give his blood would be immoral, yes. These kinds of flagpole moral questions are more productively evaluated using the YAD principle. If you don't help the baby, then You're A Dick. It need not be any more complicated than that. You can be a dick, but not technically acting immorally. The difference being that immoral actions are ones that justify the use of force in order to prevent or remedy (e.x. shooting an assailant, or taking back stolen items). The reason you want to separate these things is because of what is justified by victims of immoral or dickish behavior. Treating dickish behavior as if it were immoral behavior means acting immorally, because you are the one who's actually initiating force, not the dick. This all assumes we're actually talking about his refusal to give his blood as the act we're evaluating. How is this analogous to abortion?
AncapFTW Posted March 2, 2016 Posted March 2, 2016 I was watching Stefan video on abortion I thought of this question while watching it. Lets say you adopted or had a baby. You are walking on the sidewalk with the baby in a stroller and the baby gets hit by a drunk driver. The driver and baby ends up in the hospital side by side. The baby is losing blood and needs a blood transfusion or the baby will die. Only the drivers blood matches the baby's blood type. Would you say its moral to force the driver to give blood to save the baby's life? The drunk driver is responsible for the child's situation, so it's more of a self defense thing than not, so I'd say yes, you can take his blood without his permission. He's responsible for the injuries, so you are taking something from him to repay his victim, and to mitigate the problems caused by his actions. Still, it's a wildly outrageous scenario which I doubt would ever happen in real life. I think a more likely case would be a group of people breaking into your house, you hit one guy over the head with a baseball bat, then use his unconscious body as a human shield while using his gun to chase off his accomplices. In both cases the person aggressed against you, and you forced something on them to mitigate the results of that aggression. How does this tie into abortion, though?
Jot Posted March 2, 2016 Posted March 2, 2016 Forcing the guy to give his blood would be immoral, yes. These kinds of flagpole moral questions are more productively evaluated using the YAD principle. If you don't help the baby, then You're A Dick. It need not be any more complicated than that. You can be a dick, but not technically acting immorally. The difference being that immoral actions are ones that justify the use of force in order to prevent or remedy (e.x. shooting an assailant, or taking back stolen items). The reason you want to separate these things is because of what is justified by victims of immoral or dickish behavior. Treating dickish behavior as if it were immoral behavior means acting immorally, because you are the one who's actually initiating force, not the dick. This all assumes we're actually talking about his refusal to give his blood as the act we're evaluating. How is this analogous to abortion? Why can't being forced to give blood to the baby be considered a remedy?
Kevin Beal Posted March 2, 2016 Posted March 2, 2016 Why can't being forced to give blood to the baby be considered a remedy? Because stealing is not an accident, but running into the baby – presumably – is an accident. If it's accidental, it's not immoral. Immoral acts are acts of intent. The person stealing his blood would be the initiator of force in this case. Criminally, this may be seen as part of just punishment. Manslaughter can be accidental killing, and it is still criminally prosecuted. I think any sane justice system would punish the guy somehow; I just don't think it is technically immoral in the strict sense of the word, because of the lack of intent involved. It doesn't necessarily absolve him of responsibility, though. In a free society, people would be agreeing to contracts where some ruling body would be taking the guy's blood, or whatever made the most sense. He agrees to submitting by such decisions as part of that contract. That way, it's not immoral to punish the guy when he hasn't willfully initiated violence – by stealing from him. That's how it would make most sense to me, anyway. Not every dispute can be solved with an observation of what is immoral, strictly speaking.
AncapFTW Posted March 2, 2016 Posted March 2, 2016 Because stealing is not an accident, but running into the baby – presumably – is an accident. If it's accidental, it's not immoral. Immoral acts are acts of intent. The person stealing his blood would be the initiator of force in this case. Criminally, this may be seen as part of just punishment. Manslaughter can be accidental killing, and it is still criminally prosecuted. I think any sane justice system would punish the guy somehow; I just don't think it is technically immoral in the strict sense of the word, because of the lack of intent involved. It doesn't necessarily absolve him of responsibility, though. In a free society, people would be agreeing to contracts where some ruling body would be taking the guy's blood, or whatever made the most sense. He agrees to submitting by such decisions as part of that contract. That way, it's not immoral to punish the guy when he hasn't willfully initiated violence – by stealing from him. That's how it would make most sense to me, anyway. Not every dispute can be solved with an observation of what is immoral, strictly speaking. Getting drunk was an act of intent. Driving was also an act of intent. Neither of those negate the fact that he harmed another person and is therefore responsible for the injury to that person. If I decided to fire a gun into a crowd, would I not be responsible for the deaths it caused? After all, hitting people without aiming is a random effect, aka an accident.
dsayers Posted March 2, 2016 Posted March 2, 2016 running into the baby – presumably – is an accident. If it's accidental, it's not immoral. Getting behind the wheel of a car in an unfit state to operate that car is not an accident. He created a debt to his victim. He is responsible for that debt. I don't know if this directly translates into being able to take his blood. Certainly not so much that he himself would die, but any amount could risk serious health side effects.
Kevin Beal Posted March 3, 2016 Posted March 3, 2016 Oh whoops. I seem to have not read that the driver was drunk. My mistake!
Boss Posted March 3, 2016 Author Posted March 3, 2016 Taking the drivers blood is not immoral as the driver put the baby's life in that situation and its moral to save the innocent life from attackers.The abortion hostage situation. The couple is responsible for putting a life inside the woman. The life requires blood/resources from the mother to continue to live. It is immoral to let the life end just from someones faults. I think abortion due to ones faults is immoral. Its not clear in the video so I am questioning Stefan position.
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted March 3, 2016 Posted March 3, 2016 Maybe. The driver has already initiated force so it might be self-defense (acting on the baby's behalf). Once he got in that car didn't he forgo the right not to have his blood taken in the event someone might die because of his actions? The driver's already refusing to provide proper restitution so forcing him would be justified. Some situations are so on the line it's impossible to know for sure. This doesn't affect the principles though.
Recommended Posts