Is it wrong to kill Aunt Bea?

[Holder of the Heel]

Well, is it?

Assume that the following scenario, extracted from a book called, "The Case for Animal Rights" by Tom Regan. Though warning, this thread has nothing to do with animal rights. More so human unto human ethical principles. Ethics being favorite limb of philosophy to dissect.

"Aunt Bea is old, inactive, a cranky, sour person, though not physically ill. She prefers to go on living. She is also rather rich. I could make a fortune if I could get my hands on her money, money which she intends to give me in any event, after she dies, but which she refuses to give me now. In order to avoid a huge tax bite, I plan to donate a handsome sum of my profits to a local children's hospital. Many, many children will benefit from my generosity, and much joy will be brought to their parents, relatives and friends. If I don't get the money rather soon, all these ambitions will come to naught. The once in a lifetime opportunity to make a real killing will be gone. Why, then, not kill my Aunt Bea? Oh, of course I might get caught. But I'm no fool and, besides, her doctor can be counted on to cooperate (he has an eye for the same investment and I happen to know a good deal about his shady past). The deed can be done ... professionally shall we say. There is very little chance of getting caught. And as for my conscience being guilt-ridden, I am a resourceful sort of fellow and will take more than sufficient comfort - as I lie on the beach at Acapulco - in contemplating the joys and health I have brought to so many others.

Suppose Aunt Bea is killed and the rest of the story comes out as told. Would I have done anything wrong? Anything immoral? One would have thought that I had. Not according to utilitarianism. Since what I have done has brought about the best balance between totalled satisfaction and frustration for all those affected by the outcome, my action is not wrong. Indeed, in killing Aunt Bea the physician and I did what duty required."

Now, as you can see, the scenario doesn't explain a whole lot of the situation in its entirety, simply isolating the two objects of desire and nothing more, which may be a problem to some readers and would be asking these questions. It describes that Aunt Bea is absolutely not going to be persuaded, it does not describe her with any friends to mourn over her loss if you kill her (you sick murderer, you!) which we can assume either/or depending on what you want to analyse and say. It doesn't describe the nature of the sick children and whether or not they really need it, or the nature of the doctor willing to cooperate. It also does not mention, as one wouldn't have any clue of knowing, how much your aunt's natural lifespan would be. Many, many other variables could probably be brought in, but I'll stop there.

The purpose of this thread is not only to discuss the fate of your dear Aunt Bea like the title suggests, but under what, if any, circumstances would you find it worthy to kill anyone, if you'd like to adventure out that far or tie it in with your Aunt Bea points.

Discuss.

 

[rvkevin]

I plan to donate a handsome sum of my profits to a local children's hospital. Many, many children will benefit from my generosity, and much joy will be brought to their parents, relatives and friends. If I don't get the money rather soon, all these ambitions will come to naught.

The quantity of benefit does not increase simply by taking the money now. The resources stay the same. Suppose you have the ability to treat one cancer patient, except if you do it right now, there is some cost associated with it. Some time down the road, there is no cost. The end result is the same, one person who had cancer has been treated. Why is it preferable to act now? The same quantity of benefit (without considering the cost of Aunt Bea's death) is achieved in both instances, except that it applies to two different parties in two different time periods. The time difference and who is benefited (since they are hypothetically fungible) is irrelevant with regards to utilitarianism so option B is preferable. I don't even see where the dilemma is.

 

[Dre89]

Well it says if he doesn't get the money soon, his ambitions for the children's hospital will come to naught, probably because of the tax.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

Yeah, what Dre. says. Also, there is the fact that with each passing day kids could be dying and lives that could have possibly been treated and saved end up dying instead. But again, what Dre. says is the primary point. It is either now you leave Aunt Bea alone.

 

[1048576]

Well where will the tax money go? Not knowing that, even by utilitarian guidelines the solution isn;'t clear. You also have to factor in that if he gets caught and it's decided that it's okay, lots of stupid/insane people will think their irrational murders are justified as well, which obviously carries a significant cost. It's hard to apply any moral philosophy, but I think utilitarianism especially tends to have people coming up with absurd analogies because they don't factor in all of the ripples.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

Well, the scenario says the it works under the assumption that it is somehow a 100% you cannot be caught, though that doesn't sound practical since that would be quite difficult (though not necessarily impossible) factoring in how old she is and two people being in on it (apparently the doctor having a good intuition on the subject of death, though that may be uncanny even for a normal doctor).

Though I do understand the problem with consequences, they are always going on assumptions that bringing A down to B will lead to the more pleasant C eventually. You could then say, "But what if it is a 100% likelihood of succeeding?" But how do you measure that? And what exactly are we measuring? Things like these, trivial imaginary line drawing tips me off that we are looking at it the wrong way, and tells me that ethical principles have nothing to do with that jumbled theoretical mess.

 

[Jim Morrison]

I think it all depends on if I actually liked Aunt Bea. Maybe I've had a whole history with Aunt Bea of her baking me cookies and giving me presents and always being good to me etc., I would let nature run its course and not interfere with her life. I think.

 

[1048576]

Well, the scenario says the it works under the assumption that it is somehow a 100% you cannot be caught, though that doesn't sound practical since that would be quite difficult (though not necessarily impossible) factoring in how old she is and two people being in on it (apparently the doctor having a good intuition on the subject of death, though that may be uncanny even for a normal doctor).

Though I do understand the problem with consequences, they are always going on assumptions that bringing A down to B will lead to the more pleasant C eventually. You could then say, "But what if it is a 100% likelihood of succeeding?" But how do you measure that? And what exactly are we measuring? Things like these, trivial imaginary line drawing tips me off that we are looking at it the wrong way, and tells me that ethical principles have nothing to do with that jumbled theoretical mess.

Okay, but where will the tax money go? Here's where it gets a little fuzzy because now you have to think in terms of wealth, and not really money. Like the equivalent child care services can be provided if the existing money just circulates a bit faster, and if it's not within current means of production to do so, then all the extra money will do is cause inflation. So something is being substituted for the child care. Is that "something" better than child care? How are the children being helped? Who is being hurt by having resources diverted to caring for children? It's really hard to say. You try to make the problem disappear by throwing this extra wealth into a black hole, but when a govt. is robbed of tax dollars, and it goes into debt, that's really taking wealth from future generations. Do I think present children are more deserving of care than future children? Of course not; nobody does. So where is this wealth going that it carries so little benefit that it's worth robbing someone of their life to redistribute?

 

[Holder of the Heel]

Okay, but where will the tax money go? Here's where it gets a little fuzzy because now you have to think in terms of wealth, and not really money. Like the equivalent child care services can be provided if the existing money just circulates a bit faster, and if it's not within current means of production to do so, then all the extra money will do is cause inflation. So something is being substituted for the child care. Is that "something" better than child care? How are the children being helped? Who is being hurt by having resources diverted to caring for children? It's really hard to say. You try to make the problem disappear by throwing this extra wealth into a black hole, but when a govt. is robbed of tax dollars, and it goes into debt, that's really taking wealth from future generations. Do I think present children are more deserving of care than future children? Of course not; nobody does. So where is this wealth going that it carries so little benefit that it's worth robbing someone of their life to redistribute?

You see, you forgot that this is an extract from a book I have not written, so it is NOT me who tries to pretend it isn't there... because if you notice, it doesn't address what you are saying, therefore there obviously ISN'T an answer?

The situation simply implies in a very basic manner that without killing Aunt Bea and giving the money to the hospital within a short amount of time, there may be multiple/many young lives lost in the process that theoretically could either be saved or lessened in pain. You're looking to much into it, it asks a very basic question of how you would react to the information given.

 

[The Real Gamer]

This scenario is similar to the "Trolley Problem." http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=313362

Both scenarios involve potentially saving multiple lives at the cost of one.

 

[Orboknown]

The diffetence is here you are initiating the murder where as the trolley thread you are making the best of a bad situation.

 

[1048576]

No the difference is in this situation you don't know what's behind door number 2. It's like if I'm ordering at a restaurant and the server's like 'do you want the ham and cheese sandwich or the chef's special?' You need more information to know what the best decision is. Instead what you all are doing (utilitarians) is speculating well, the chef is prolly lazy and the govt. prolly spends money on stupid ****, so let's go with door number 1 and the ham sandwich.

As I'm trying very hard to explain, it's not save children vs. allow old woman to live. It's save children vs. allow old woman to live and do X (presumably helpful if we're spending money on it) thing. It depends on X.

 

[KrIsP!]

In this situation, the nephew is nothing more than greedy murderer who will be saving lives by taking others, not because he sees it as a good moral choice, but because it's tax evasion at it's finest. So when the question comes up if Aunt Bea should die simply to benefit all I'd have to say no. I know I would not kill her regardless of my relationship with her, simply put I believe she has her own right to do as she pleases with her money and remaining time in life. She is not harming anybody, and while others may benefit from her money, her time will come and if the nephew wishes to benefit himself and the sick children with what Aunt Bea leaves him he may do so. Until then I cannot agree with his scheme.

Of course if given the chance I would kill Hitler.

 

[Pachinkosam]

ok i think aunt whatever is still alive

case closed

 

[yani]

It's wrong to kill Aunt Bea. Considering there are plenty of people that inherit money + donate all the time, I don't believe his donation will have a great enough impact to justify taking someones life.

 

[GwJ]

Of course I wouldn't kill her. What in the OP could POSSIBLY justify murdering someone?

Achieving a positive outcome via negative motives and actions does not justify the outcome.

This scenario is similar to the "Trolley Problem." http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=313362

Both scenarios involve potentially saving multiple lives at the cost of one.

The difference is this one's murder.

 

[Mr. game and watch]

The question is "am I Selfish enough to end someone's life so mine can be a little more enjoyable."

If the answer is yes, I got bad news, you're probably a psychopathic murderer in the makes.

I never though something like this could be up for debate.

Killing a person for money is morally wrong, even if you give some money to the poor.
That's selfish giving, because the OP says its for tax reasons.

This sounds like a terribly immoral person.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

I was primarily interested in if people could try and find a way to make it morally justifiable, and no one here even attempted. I guess I should be proud of everyone here. XD It's true, it is very hard, even the person who created the situation couldn't find it justifiable, even though he said it was under the assumption that it'd save multiple lives from dying from sickness (like mentioned before, similar to the trolly problem, but with a slight twist).

The way the situation detailed somewhat makes it misleading. It makes it seem that you aren't saving mutiple lives with murder, so it doesn't seem like the trolly problem but with the added part that instead of choosing through an act to let one or multiple people die, but in this case kill one or let several others die. I think that is what the author's intention was.

Although I am curious to hear if people would kill for others to live, but I was indeed interested to hear if anyone thought about if killing one could possibly/probably let others live, which as I would have to concur, is a bit crazy. (And perhaps impossible to prove after the act was done that it did indeed make a difference in terms of net gain life).