Moral dilemma: Two men, two women and a chicken

The purpose of this collegium is to establish a group for those interested in ancient philosophy and a place where philosophical discussion and study may take place. Join at: http://romanrepublic.org/civitas/joint_ ... sophiae/42

Moderators: Gaius Flavius Aetius, Marca Marcia, Aula Flavia Philippa, Paullus Aemilius Gallus

Re: Moral dilemma: Two men, two women and a chicken

Postby Gaius Florius Lupus » Sun Jul 02, 2017 9:09 am

I am with Catulus. This is simply the most reasonable solution and, as he has shown nicely, it proves that virtue results from reason.
Actually you convinced me that this is the only valid option. Claiming a bigger share for having caught the chicken would still violate the initial agreement. I change my choice from D and E as possible option depending on the circumstances to D as the only option under any circumstances.

Philo, not sharing equally, but giving more to the needy creates a precedent. Next time the pregnant woman or whoever is more needy would feel entitled to the bigger share.
Still your point is not totally wrong. Building a reputation for generosity is a benefit. This would be another example how reason creates virtue. I did not think about this before. However you would only be able to give the pregnant woman from your own share. Reducing the share of others would break the agreement and be an attempt to force your generosity on others. This could also create conflict. Then you have to weigh the benefit of building your reputation against the suffering by your hunger.

Horatia, if it would be unknown that the one woman was pregnant, the fact could not be subject to consideration. Bowever it was considered in the options, therefore you can conclude from the provided information that it was known.
And whatever the reason for the vegetarianism of one person may be, it is not agreeable for the group. Forcing this view on the others creates conflict and violence. Faith should never be the basis of rules. Because conflict with those who do not share this faith is oredetermined.
User avatar
Gaius Florius Lupus
 
Posts: 550
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2016 11:33 am
Location: Africa Magna

Re: Moral dilemma: Two men, two women and a chicken

Postby Gaius Curtius Philo » Sun Jul 02, 2017 8:41 pm

People have been doing charities since time immemoral, only now a days do people feel entitled to such charity. I do not believe an act of giving generates presumption of right, unless a culture specifically creates that presumption. If I am the hunter and I caught the meat, I do whatever i please with the power that grants me. If after a while she starts to whine, for example, citing past charities on my part I can simply tell her to piss off. My helping her would be conditioned to her situation as a pregnant woman and as soon as that condition changed the reason of being ceases.

Regarding having to give from my share, now you are being contradictory amice. You specifically said that I had to option of dividing the chicken (thus all of it) among all members according to their needs, not that in this scenario Id have to divide my personal share seperately. Those are two very different situations. In the first, which was proposed, you give me the right to determine how I allocate the resource captured. In the second you only limit my power to my share. Those are two completely different situations.
"Ignis aurum probat" - Seneca
C. Curtius L. f. Vot. Philo Aurelianus
User avatar
Gaius Curtius Philo
 
Posts: 1591
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2016 3:56 pm
Location: Praia Grande, São Paulo, Brazil

Re: Moral dilemma: Two men, two women and a chicken

Postby Mania Aurelia Apollonia » Mon Jul 03, 2017 3:15 am

I say follow the chicken, for two reasons.

1. There could be eggs, but there could also be more chickens.

2. You follow the chicken and find out what it eats to survive. Perhaps something edible to humans.
Know thyself - Γνῶθι σεαυτόν - Nosce te ipsum
User avatar
Mania Aurelia Apollonia
Apollinis Sacerdos
Apollinis Sacerdos
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2017 5:21 am
Location: Eria

Re: Moral dilemma: Two men, two women and a chicken

Postby Gaius Florius Lupus » Mon Jul 03, 2017 9:12 am

Indeed Philo, it would be a totally different situation. But you said, that it is not the socialist option that you want to choose, but just showing generosity in order to win the friendship of the pregnant woman.
If you force others to reduce their share too, it would be socialism. This would certainly get you into conflict with two other members, the other woman and the stronger man. Therefore this option is not reasonable. It violates the initial agreement and tries to impose an ideology, which is not agreeable by others who do not share the same belief.
Only if you share only your own part, then it becomes generosity. It would be a new option, something between option D and G, that I had not thought of.

Aurelia, if you release the chicken after already having it caught, then there would be a high probability that it escapes.
And to stay in the scenario, let us assume, you followed the chicken for half an hour, it led you nowhere and is just picking the ground from time to time. What are you going to do then? Catch it again, leaving it alone?
User avatar
Gaius Florius Lupus
 
Posts: 550
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2016 11:33 am
Location: Africa Magna

Re: Moral dilemma: Two men, two women and a chicken

Postby Gaius Curtius Philo » Mon Jul 03, 2017 8:01 pm

Now I understand your reasoning. It is best that we make clear the agreement then. Because we have been speaking of it without putting it into clear terms. I believe, from the options you set, that the agreement would be that: The individual who catches the animal must either I) divide it equally among their peers; II) divide it in accordance to their needs; or III) divide it equally but have the larger share. Because those are the only legal options you presented (the other ones depending on furtivity and secrecy).

In that scenario, you present us already with a socialist scenario, in which the means of production are controlled by the central community. When the hunter catches his chicken, the chicken is presumed not to be his, but of the community. Him catching it only gives him the right to choose between one of the three options stated in the allocation of this resource. In that sense, no matter what legal option is chosen, all of them will be socialist options because the initial premise is that the individual has no right to private property.
"Ignis aurum probat" - Seneca
C. Curtius L. f. Vot. Philo Aurelianus
User avatar
Gaius Curtius Philo
 
Posts: 1591
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2016 3:56 pm
Location: Praia Grande, São Paulo, Brazil

Re: Moral dilemma: Two men, two women and a chicken

Postby Gaius Florius Lupus » Tue Jul 04, 2017 9:19 am

It iis the typical scenario from a movie. Four people are stranded on an island.
I never realized that it is socialist in nature. In extreme situations people tend to cooperate, because it increases their chances of survival. It is hard to imagine that each one goes his way after being stranded.
But perhaps I should have mentioned it at the beginning.
"They decide to spread out to look for food for the group and share it together."
User avatar
Gaius Florius Lupus
 
Posts: 550
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2016 11:33 am
Location: Africa Magna

Re: Moral dilemma: Two men, two women and a chicken

Postby Gaius Curtius Philo » Tue Jul 04, 2017 2:26 pm

I see. And is there any perspective of rescue then? The resulting best move would depend most of all on the nature of their predicament. If they are stranded close to land or in a high traffic area more short term planning is needed. But if they are in a place in which they have no perspective of being rescued, an entirely different approach is needed. In the first case, where they only need to survive for a while, equal partition seems the fairest bet. Simply and easy, as well as good for keeping morale. But if it is the second, they'd have to define clear rules of property to account to their new reality. Being two couples (presumably) makes that very easy to do, but still necessary if they are to stay civilized and even human.
"Ignis aurum probat" - Seneca
C. Curtius L. f. Vot. Philo Aurelianus
User avatar
Gaius Curtius Philo
 
Posts: 1591
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2016 3:56 pm
Location: Praia Grande, São Paulo, Brazil

Previous

Return to Collegium Philosophicum

cron