In my explorations of creating presentations of late, I have had the pertinacity to lean more into the physiological, psychological and philosophical aspects of life as sources of inspiration for my magical presentations. In the same fashion that Gospel magic proselytizes a moral message or biblical teaching, I like to take the same Mondus Operandi and apply my presentational influences in the same fashion that gospel magic does.

One such point of presentation that I'm trying to construct a narrative around is the duality of the Lawful, the Moral and the Ethical. While more often then not, these three things are often aligned, I'm trying to create a presentation where the ambiguity of circumstance could potentially create a conflicting dynamic between the those three concepts.

I would be interested in anyone's ideas on how I could do that.

Magically


Aus

You could start by understanding the actual definitions of these words, and their actual modern day implementations. They are errantly used interchangeably.

Blank face and double blanks come to mind in working out methods behind your narrative.
As a therapist there is a wide divide between what one can do versus what one should or should not do. I have worked with
5 year olds to folks in a maximum security prison.
Are ethics in the mind of the beholder? Side note the thinking of a criminal are similar to adolescents.
It's only wrong if I get caught.
Questions are an interesting way to start performing.
Harris
Substance Abuse Counselor Emeritus
Artist and Harmonica Whisperer

Yes that may be true, but there are distinguishable differences.

Ethics and morals relate to “right” and “wrong” conduct. While they are sometimes used interchangeably, they are different: ethics refer to rules provided by an external source, e.g., codes of conduct in workplaces or principles in religions. Morals refer to an individual's own principles regarding right and wrong.

A magic related example would be the some what controversial aspect of Penn and Tellers expose of the cups and balls using clear cups. The ethics of the magicians code would dictate that they should have not exposed the trick, but their moralistic endeavors as skeptics in exposing the arcane seems to put them at odds with the code. So to me ethics and morals are not always mutually exclusive.


Morals and Law differ because the law demands an absolute subjection to its rules and commands. Law has enforcing authority derived from the state. It is heteronymous (being imposed upon men upon the outer life of men). Law regulates men’s relations with others and with society.

I think these differences are worth exploring, as a premise to a presentation.

Magically


Aus

So after going through my library looking for a trick that would best suit the narrative I decided upon the free will principle modelled on Wayne Dobsons TNT. The presentation will be based on the trolley dilemma.

A runaway train is heading down the track towards five workers and you have no way of warning them, however as the controller you have a lever that you can push that will change the track to another, but the problem is there is a worker on that track too. As a third option you could push a very large man off a bridge and his bulk would stop the train but he would die as a result. The third option is to do nothing and let the train hit the five workers.

After laying out the options and presenting three cards showing a fat man, a single worker and five workers, the cards are mixed face down behind the spectators back and placed face down on the table. A prediction is presented which will read "You will push the big man and save the five workers and the single man" which revealed correct after the actions of the spectator has been made.

From here you can talk about the ethical philosophy of utilitarianism being that the ethical choice is what generates the greatest good for the greatest number of people. But in actioning that choice you have become unlawful in the eye of the law by murdering the fat man. We could also discuss deontological Morality by Discussing theories that place special emphasis on the relationship between duty and the morality of human actions.

So As a closing thought I would pose the closing question to the audience, are our moral decisions simply about outcomes or in what manner we choose to achieve them?


Magically


Aus

Although I’ve heard that dilemma many times, I’ve never heard it in the context of a magic trick before. This is a great way to get people thinking about different issues morally and ethically in a more interactive way. I am catholic, and I believe that the moral state of an action depends on three things:
1. Obviously, the action itself. Some actions are just intrinsically evil or wrong
2. The context of the action
3. The intent of the action
If your intent is to kill the fat man or single worker for no reason other than to kill them, or maybe you know them and hate them, then the action would be morally wrong. However, whether or not the justices system judges this the same, if you killed one of them to save the 5 lives, then your action would not be sinful, but it would be your moral duty.
Also, the context of killing them. In this case, to save lives, do you need to kill one of them, in this case, yes.
That is my insight. Thanks for bringing about these deep thoughts to consider.
With regards,
AlxRosekoski