Episode 8: Would You Eat Your Cat?

For the 8th rendition of the comrade contrary files i am going to look at ethical conundrums. This is a HUGE topic so I will stretch it out over a few posts. For this post I will specifically look at ethical impasses.

Would you eat your cat?
Is it always ok to look at your own photos?
Is it better to be a sexist or a misanthrope?
Are we morally obliged to end the world?
Are we really sorry Hitler existed?
Should we sacrifice one to save five?

Humanity likes to think that all moral questions are black and white. That there is the obvious right and the obvious wrong to choose between. Many people would be discouraged to find out that this is not the case and not all of those people would be fundamentalist Christians or people of the like. These people would be even more discouraged when they are faced with moral questions that have no answer at all.

People like to be right and to have the 'moral high ground', people will disagree about whether euthanasia is morally acceptable and there is a reasonably clean cut argument for both sides. There are however ethical conundrums where it is foggy about where we even begin to commence thinking about these issues and the more we examine their various moral complexities the more confused we become.

Welcome to the world of eating pets, runaway trains and demagogues who want to end the world.

Would you eat your cat?
"Betty Slocombe's cat was killed in a tragic accident with an out of control lawnmower. She had heard that cat meat was jolly tasty, so she cut up her cat, cooked it, and ate it for dinner. To date, she has never regretted her culinary experiment and she claims not to have suffered any harm as a result of cooking and eating Fopsy."

http://www.philosophyexperiments.com/

Is it better to be a sexist or a misanthrope?
"Harold Carpenter and Lou Bishop are neighbours in sun-kissed Erinsford, a town nestled on the Humberside Rivera. Harold, unfortunately, does not share the sunny disposition of his home town. He's a misanthrope. He dislikes people - a lot. He doesn't have friends, and he views his acquaintances with barely concealed contempt. Harold is very much an equal opportunity misanthrope - he dislikes men, women, straights, gays, blacks, whites and one-legged people with an equal intensity. To his credit, he is aware that his misanthropy is a problem, so he keeps to himself as much as possible. Nevertheless, he is certainly a negative force in the world, subtracting from rather than adding to the sum total of human happiness.

Lou Bishop is a different Kettle of fish altogether. He likes most people a lot. He considers even his neighbours to be good friends, and treats nearly everybody he meets with consideration and kindness. However, he is an unreconstructed male chauvinist. He believe that men are intellectually superior to women, and thinks that the 'fairer sex' are really only suited to be homemakers. He cannot cope with 'modern women' at all: as far as he is concerned, women should be kept as far away as possible from manly pursuits such as money making and playing golf. Lou is aware that society frowns upon his sexism, so he tries to avoid modern women as much as he can. Nevertheless, in his dealings with them, he is definitely a negative force in the world, subtracting from rather than adding to the sum of human happiness.

FURTHER FACTS ABOUT HAROLD AND LOU:
1. Harold treats 'modern' women worse than Lou treats them. Not because he's a sexist - he isn't - just because he doesn't like other people.
2. Lou treats everybody better than Harold treats anybody.
3. Harold does not discriminate whereas Lou does. Harold would employ a woman to do a job if she was the best candidate. Lou would not."

Would you eat your cat?, Jeremy Stangroom

There are 2 conundrums for you to mull over at your leisure. As this was a very heavy handed post I leave you with a more light-hearted question.

"You are in Berlin, 1933. Somehow, you find yourself in a position where you can effortlessly steal Hitler's wallet. This theft will not affect Hitler's rise to power, the nature of WW2, or the Holocaust. There is no important identification in the wallet, but the act will cost Hitler forty Reichsmarks and completely ruin his evening. You do not need the money. The odds that you will be caught committing this act are less than 2 percent. Are you ethically obligated to steal Hitler's wallet?"

From here: http://i.imgur.com/KM74P.jpg