Philosophize this

[The13thMan]

Alrighty, i like to talk about phiolosophy every now and then with my friend. He's really into it, and i'm arrogant, so we can get into some pretty good arguments every once in a while. It's fun. I figured i'd ask ya guys a question, see what you guys would answer.

Ok, here's the question: If you had the oppotunity to cure all of the world's diseases and hunger, would you do it? Now here's the kicker, you have to sacrafice one person in order to do it. One person's life, taken by you, to save billions. What would you do?

Personally.....i'm not a 100% sure what i'd do. But i'm leaning towards the saving the billions for the one.

It's all about, do the ends justify the means, i believe they do.

[Guest j]

I would do it, because as a convicted murderer (I didn't do it) , I've spilt blood before (especially in Bosnia back in '93 when I killed two people and served 10 years in a Sarajevo jail) However, the person would have to be someone who's suffering, to put them out of their misery.

[ManjoumeThunder]

[COLOR=Blue]Hmm somewhat interesting question. Well you know it really just boils down to an old saying "The needs of the many outweight the few". If you have to sacrafice one life to cure all diseases and hunger (as outrageous as that idea is) why not? But then you have to pose another question....if you cure all diseases and hunger you kinda upset the balance of life a little. People need to die, it's part of life and its what helps keep the planet from becoming overpopulated. If you don't have people dying from diseases and hunger, then you pose more problems such as food shortages and overcrowding which can lead to other health and unrelated issues.

So in trying to help out what is a big problem in this world you may end up creating even more problems and upsetting the balance of nature. I know that sounds pretty harsh but the truth in many cases hurt. Btw....if we're only sacraficing one person for this project I nominate my ex-girlfriend.....>.> can't think of a more deserving person. [/COLOR]

[Retribution]

[size=1]If I could remove all the suffering, genocide, injustice, and unrest with the death of one, my answer would be 'Of course.' I honestly can't see what the counter-argument would be. Everyone always tries to say "People need to die," or "If there's peace, we'll all become drones."

I think people who say "People need to die" honestly should hop off their high horse. They're speaking from a pedestal -- they think they understand how things work, but have never experienced the suffering, death, and sorrow of the world first hand. No one who says this was in a concentration camp at one time. No one who says this was in Rwanda or Kosovo. The people who say this are at home, living their stable American routine where the most death you come across daily is roadkill.

People don't need to die, but there must be human conflict. Without conflict, there is no reason to strive to improve, so we ultimately end up dying. However, if we continue conflict (sports, for example), people will continue to improve. All that world peace means is that [I]people would discuss their problems[/I], rather than pick up a gun. This is why we wouldn't become drones in a world with peace -- there would still be conflict, but no mass-civilian-death war.

I also think issues like overcrowding and food shortages aren't a problem in this scenario -- the solution is [quite obviously] a hypothetical and 'magical' one. We all know it's impossible to make a euphoria, but it's supposing there could be one.

And my God, jørn-hva Teiler -- who'd you kill?[/size]

[Redemption]

[color=blue][size=1]Hmmm.... that's a tough question.

I'm not entirely sure what I'd do. To sacrafice one person to save possible billions, there are arguements for both sides.

On the side that yes, I would sacrafice one person to save billions. That means saving billions of people and letting them live their lives to the possible fullest. They wouldn't have to suffer what those diseases and hunger do to the body and the mind.

However, on the other side of the arguement, what about the person you sacraficed? If they volunteered to be that person and it was what they wanted, then that may be reasonable. But, if they were forced, it would be almost as if you murdered them (I know that's strong words, but I couldn't think of anything else to describe it).

And as ManjoumeThunder said, it would put the world out of balance. There are reasons for diseases and hunger. Unfortunately. They are ways to control our population - ways of nature. It's like taking out a link in the food chain.[/color][/size]

[Drix D'Zanth]

This question really doesn't have a lot of philosophical value at all. I was hoping for something that wasn't so easy to asnwer. This really doesn't give much for a very unique argument.

The answer is: Yes, I would save the billions.
I would give my own life to save billions.

[Boba Fett]

[QUOTE=Drix D'Zanth]The answer is: Yes, I would save the billions.
I would give my own life to save billions.[/QUOTE]

[color=green]Would you sacrifice your significant other? A sibling? Your mother?[/color]

[NekoSama101]

i'd just kill myself. that way, all my pain from living is over and so is everyone else's. twisted logic, i know. but that's just how i think.

[The13thMan]

Drix D'Zanth, what about that person that dies? What if it was someone you loved? It will surely be someone that has people that love that person. What if that person were you? And don't be so selfish about it, maybe you have no problem with letting yourself die for the sake of others, but what about anybody that loves you? Are you willing to put them through that hell of losing a loved one?
And yes, this does hold philosophical value, but if you don't like it, then you can pose another philosophical question, i really don't mind.

Reiku, yep it is murder. I said that the person's life would be taken by whoever answered the question, so yes, it is indeed murder. Murder on your soul. Some believe you go to hell for such a deed, so your own personal beliefs will affect your answer.

Retribution, you made me smile when you said, "I also think issues like overcrowding and food shortages aren't a problem in this scenario -- the solution is [quite obviously] a hypothetical and 'magical' one. We all know it's impossible to make a euphoria, but it's supposing there could be one." It's exactly what i meant. I don't particularly like it when people go outside of the boundaries of my question and make it overly complex. I mean, i can understand them doing it, they're only being realistic, i just don't like it.

So anyways, when thinking about this question, think of this too: what if that one person we had to sacrafice was someone you truly loved and cared for? Think about that one person. Also, you do not get to choose the person.

[NekoSama101]

That does make me think. If it was someone I loved then I would still do it. You have to think, what about the other person? What about who they love? If it meant that I could save everyone who loves and is loved, then i'd have no porblem doing it.

[Sephiroth]

[QUOTE=The13thMan]
Ok, here's the question: If you had the oppotunity to cure all of the world's diseases and hunger, would you do it? Now here's the kicker, you have to sacrafice one person in order to do it. One person's life, taken by you, to save billions. What would you do?
[/QUOTE]
[COLOR=DarkRed]
[FONT=Times New Roman]Sound's like a storyline to a future anime, lol

In any case as was said, the end justifies the means, if one life had to be sacrificed to cure the world of disease, then I would to it, the question would be more interesting if it was "Would you sacrifice your life" instead :o[/FONT][/COLOR]

[Derald]

[QUOTE=Retribution][size=1]...I think people who say "People need to die" honestly should hop off their high horse. They're speaking from a pedestal -- they think they understand how things work, but have never experienced the suffering, death, and sorrow of the world first hand. No one who says this was in a concentration camp at one time. No one who says this was in Rwanda or Kosovo. The people who say this are at home, living their stable American routine where the most death you come across daily is roadkill.

People don't need to die...[/size][/QUOTE]

[FONT=Lucida Console][SIZE=1][COLOR=DarkGreen]True, most people who say this do, in fact, live a somewhat fruitful life. However, please do not over-generalize this statement, as people do need to die.

My justification is this:
Let's say you have a room that only supports 3 people. If you wanted to add one more person you would have to either 1) take one person out or 2) make it so the room can support more people. Now, seeing that the latter of the two options is not very likely, as far as the earth is concerned, you would have to take out someone to make room for another - it's common logic. The earth only has so many resources, and if the human population exceeds the resource output then there might as well have been no humans to begin with.

Diseases out in the world mutate to get around our medical advances in order to get their job done - population control. Natural didasters have their duties - population control. As we continue to procreate at a ridiculous rate, these things have to become more efficient at what they do, thus all these serious illnesses that were unheard of centuries ago, thus the growth in fierceness of natural disasters.

Ultimately, if I would have to die to prove my point, why not? It would be more noble than a slow, suffering extinciton of humans due to overpopulation.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[Retribution]

[quote name='Derald']...Let's say you have a room that only supports 3 people. If you wanted to add one more person you would have to either 1) take one person out or 2) make it so the room can support more people. Now, seeing that the latter of the two options is not very likely, as far as the earth is concerned, you would have to take out someone to make room for another - it's common logic. The earth only has so many resources, and if the human population exceeds the resource output then there might as well have been no humans to begin with.[/quote]
[size=1]See, the thing about calling HIV/AIDS, war, and starvation "population control" is that it isn't. Humans still reproduce at such an exponential rate, the Black Plague or the Civil War or WWI/II didn't slow down the rate of human reproduction. I was watching a time line -- all of these events only slightly decreased the exponential curve, which picked back up its slope in a matter of five or so years. The analogy doesn't work, as removing, say one person, from a room that's overcrowded by fifty, it won't do anything.

Think about how many people are born -- it's a mind-boggling number. It's also much higher than those who die daily, which also has a staggering statistic (especially to the preventable things).

[QUOTE]Diseases out in the world mutate to get around our medical advances in order to get their job done - population control.[/QUOTE]

Think about what you just said. How many did SARS kill in China? Now how many people are still [i]living[/i] in China. Did that disease do anything except make a few people miserable? Did it make China any more liveable or supportable than before? The simple answer is no. Hell, look at the Black Plague -- the same thing goes. The world still continued to grow, despite the fact that one group of people were dying. The world didn't become any more supportable due to that epidemic either.

[QUOTE]Natural didasters have their duties - population control. As we continue to procreate at a ridiculous rate, these things have to become more efficient at what they do, thus all these serious illnesses that were unheard of centuries ago, thus the growth in fierceness of natural disasters[/quote]
I think I should laugh at this statement, that the natural disasters are increasing in fierceness solely because humans are becoming more and more efficient. Perhaps our impact on the environment has something to do with the natural disasters, but not because we invented the computer. Unless you're one of those "God destroyed New Orleans because they were sinner" types who believes that God's doing these things in direct response to human action.

And my point still stands that even after the horrific tsunami in the Pacific Islands, the world didn't become any more supportable than before. The only thing that became of it was alot of sadness and suffering.

I'm also guessing that a world peace would only mean that humans would be able to 'magically' prevent every disease and strain in addition to ceasing war. I don't think it would including humans controlling the weather.

[quote]Ultimately, if I would have to die to prove my point, why not? It would be more noble than a slow, suffering extinciton of humans due to overpopulation.[/QUOTE]

Honestly, Derald, pull your head out of the sand. It would be noble to end the suffering of those on Earth, not to prove a point. That sort of mentality is equivalent to the maturity of a five-year-old.

And thinking about it, the whole scenario of sacrifice of one for the rest of humanity is exactly the same as Christianity. Interesting, most interesting.[/size]

[Fasteriskhead]

As one of those other "arrogant" people who like to "talk about philosophy every now and then" (although most of the time when I talk about it, frankly I do nothing more than butcher it), I'm probably obligated to weigh in on this. I will restate the situation as follows: "I am given the opportunity wherein, if I sacrifice the life of one person, I receive a cure which will immeasurably improve the lives of all other humans alive. Do I perform this action or not?" (I restate it this way to avoid the above entanglements re: population issues, etc.. And no, I'm NOT going to weigh in on that topic)

So let's start from Kant and work our way back from there. Now, first off, Kant cares not a whit for what the final "results" of any particular moral action is going to be - remember, he's working off of Hume's assertion that causality (one thing causing another to happen) is not tied down to necessity, hence we can never guarantee that the "results" of our actions are going to follow from our intentions (and, by the way, "guaranteeing" the positive result in the scenario above already tilts it out of Kant's favor). Thus, for Kant, the only "good" thing is a [I]will[/I] that, guided by reason, wills a moral action. An action is "moral" only if it is [I]categorical[/I]. For Kant, this means three things: 1) that the action, when universalized and applied to all possible situations, is not self-contradicting (i.e. if I want to cheat at cards, I have to imagine a world where EVERYONE cheats at cards: I cannot then morally cheat at cards, because having [I]everyone[/I] cheat at cards all the time would make playing a card game impossible), 2) that the action does not use another rational being (i.e. a human) as a means for a particular end, and 3) that, in acting, I recognize that am actually willing my action to become a universal law in a "kingdom of ends," that is, of rational beings.

Now, guaranteeing the result is cheating a little, but let's look at the possible actions in this situation. Can I kill someone to better the world and still act categorically? No. Not only would killing be a violation of the second statement up there, but universalized it is incoherent: if EVERYONE decided to kill someone else in order to make a better world, there would be no one left to enjoy it, and Kant doesn't allow for little exceptions here and there. On the other hand, let's say I will the maxim whereby I ignore a cure for whatever given ills are in the world in order to save someone's life. This is a tougher one than the previous. For the moment, let's universalize the action: what would happen if everyone was given the same choice, and everyone decided in favor of not killing over getting the cure? Well, hunger and disease etc. would still remain, which is kind of crappy, but no one would have gotten killed (unlike in the previous action) and the result doesn't seem self-contradictory. So that choice would be acceptable. Refusing a certain given beneficial thing for myself, someone else, or everyone, would be [I]unfortunate[/I], but would not in itself constitute an immoral action. On the other hand, you could sharpen the situation and say, for example, that not killing the guy blows up the earth - this kind of thing gives Kantians fits, and got constant use being trotted out by Sartre and others. I won't touch on that kind of thing here.

Incidentally, most of the other social contract philosophers before and after Kant (Locke, Rawls etc.) would probably agree with the above conclusion, albeit for different reasons. They tend to say that every individual person has these things called "inalienable rights" that cannot morally be shunted aside for any reason, no matter how good (I won't go into these folks with too much more depth, although they deserve it). Most folks seem to think this is a bunch of idealistic nonsense, despite it being written into a number of somewhat important government documents which I will not name.

Now, Mill on the other hand seems to be the "default" position for morality among most folks nowadays: he's the big man of utilitarianism (and, more widely, moral consequentialism), and famously declared: "Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness." Now, from a Kantian perspective this is incoherent: if I try to bomb a school, fail, and somehow accidentally end up solving the Congo refugee problem in the process, my action is still moral because of its result. Utilitarians don't really see a problem with this, though (can you tell I'm not a big fan of this position?). Anyways, from this perspective the problem's a no-brainer: off the guy, improve the world. Nothing more to it.

I could go into this more deeply (anyone want to hear about what Moore might think?), but I've probably already bored everyone to tears. Frankly, this kind of controlled sitation used for ethical questions isn't my thing, as I find them rather artificial and prone to the ignorance of their own ground. Why, we may ask, are we even having this dilemma? What makes either choice seem good or more good, bad or more bad? What is the ethical [I]status[/I] of this person I may or may not kill, and this cure I may or may not take? How does this creature whose wellbeing I am responsible for [I]approach[/I] me so that I can find myself in an ethical situation in the first place? This isn't the right place for working that kind of thing out - but I hope I've at least placed some light on the situation and opened it up to more discussion.

[Starwind]

I suppose it's a question more of what you value more: Those you love or the well being of strangers. That's basically it. If it's someone important to you, the decision to kill them off for all these people you don't know is much harder. It maybe selfish of me to say, but I chose the lives of my family over the lives of strangers. My family and friends are the lives that matter to me, and that's the way it stands. I know alot of people here are all for the sacrificing a few to save the greater, but that doesn't float with me if I have to choose from those that I love.

If it's not then that's another story entirly, but that's not the point I'm trying to get at here. In the face of the ones I love and the lives of people I've never met, nor will probably ever meet, I chose my family and I wouldn't give up one of them, even my annoying little brother. Anyone who tells you they would throw away the life of one of there family to do so is either full of crap, or more cold-hearted then I.

Family and those you love should take presidence in your life. I'm not saying disregard others, obviously as a society we have to look out for each other. But, if I had to chose between some stranger and lets say my mother, I chose my mother in an instant. There wouldn't even be a question. I know this might upset some of our more liberal members here, but like I said, only a heart far colder then my own would chose strangers over loved ones. That's just the breaks on this one I guess. At least to me anyway.

[Retribution]

[size=1]Yeah, sure, we're cheating by coming up with a hypothetical situation to something that otherwise would be impossible. This means that we're going to have to make up a 'magical' solution to the problems plaguing the world in order to make the situation 'happen.' Without this magical solution to the problems, there would be no way for it to 'happen,' and therefore no debate to be had.
[quote name='Fasteriskhead]Frankly, this kind of controlled sitation used for ethical questions isn't my thing, as I find them rather artificial and prone to the ignorance of their own ground. Why, we may ask, are we even having this dilemma? What makes either choice seem good or more good, bad or more bad? What is the ethical [I]status[/I] of this person I may or may not kill, and this cure I may or may not take? How does this creature whose wellbeing I am responsible for [I]approach[/I'] me so that I can find myself in an ethical situation in the first place? This isn't the right place for working that kind of thing out - but I hope I've at least placed some light on the situation and opened it up to more discussion.[/quote]
I honestly thing you're overanalyzing the whole situation. Just because a hypothetical scenario is controlled doesn't mean it can't have ethical dilemmas.

You come upon a train track that splits into two by the use of a track-switch. Down one track you see ten old people tied to the track, and down the other path of the track is one newborn baby. The train is coming within the next ten seconds -- you have to choose one to save and one to kill by divering the train down the other path. What do you do? (Note: Through inaction, one of the two parties would die)

This is a [i]heavily[/i] controlled situation, and yet, it still has huge ethical relevance. What is the worth of a life is the question this situation poses. Why are we having this dilemma? Because it's 'happening,' and no other reason. What makes either choice good or bad or better than the other? Your values. What is the ethical 'status' of the person you might kill? Does it matter? You tell me.

[quote name='Starwind']Family and those you love should take presidence in your life. I'm not saying disregard others, obviously as a society we have to look out for each other. But, if I had to chose between some stranger and lets say my mother, I chose my mother in an instant. There wouldn't even be a question. I know this might upset some of our more liberal members here, but like I said, only a heart far colder then my own would chose strangers over loved ones. That's just the breaks on this one I guess. At least to me anyway.[/quote]
The question isn't save a few strangers at the expense of a loved one. The question is would you sacrifice a human (whoever they are is undisclosed) for the solution to all human problems worldwide? It would be a magical quick-fix sort of thing, I'm assuming. I would hope the answer would be yes.[/size]

[Derald]

[quote name='Retribution][size=1']See, the thing about calling HIV/AIDS, war, and starvation "population control" is that it isn't. Humans still reproduce at such an exponential rate, the Black Plague or the Civil War or WWI/II didn't slow down the rate of human reproduction. I was watching a time line -- all of these events only slightly decreased the exponential curve, which picked back up its slope in a matter of five or so years. The analogy doesn't work, as removing, say one person, from a room that's overcrowded by fifty, it won't do anything.[/quote]

[FONT=Lucida Console][SIZE=1][COLOR=DarkGreen]You're helping my point - by keeping the population at a fixed amount you can gradually add to the room for more people. Call me evil and insensitive if you want.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[quote name='Retribution']Think about how many people are born -- it's a mind-boggling number. It's also much higher than those who die daily, which also has a staggering statistic (especially to the preventable things).[/quote]

[FONT=Lucida Console][SIZE=1][COLOR=DarkGreen]Once again, you are repeating yourself from earlier. Now, how do you control that curve? By taking an oversized chunk of the population out to reduce that exponent.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[quote name='Retribution]Think about what you just said. How many did SARS kill in China? Now how many people are still [i]living[/i'] in China. Did that disease do anything except make a few people miserable? Did it make China any more liveable or supportable than before? The simple answer is no. Hell, look at the Black Plague -- the same thing goes. The world still continued to grow, despite the fact that one group of people were dying. The world didn't become any more supportable due to that epidemic either.[/quote]

[FONT=Lucida Console][SIZE=1][COLOR=DarkGreen]Correct. We need something more grave.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[quote name='Retribution']I think I should laugh at this statement, that the natural disasters are increasing in fierceness solely because humans are becoming more and more efficient. Perhaps our impact on the environment has something to do with the natural disasters, but not because we invented the computer. Unless you're one of those "God destroyed New Orleans because they were sinner" types who believes that God's doing these things in direct response to human action.[/quote]

[FONT=Lucida Console][SIZE=1][COLOR=DarkGreen]Hmm, simply because I see something in the Gaia Theory I receive ridicule....[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[quote name='Retribution']And my point still stands that even after the horrific tsunami in the Pacific Islands, the world didn't become any more supportable than before. The only thing that became of it was alot of sadness and suffering.[/quote]

[FONT=Lucida Console][SIZE=1][COLOR=DarkGreen]Precisely- it was not on a grand enough scale. It only killed up through the thousands. We need something in the upper millions, and possibly even billions. As for your remarks on "sadness" and "suffering", they are irrelevant to this situation. As the people gradually repopulate they'll forget about the event and move on with their lives.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[quote name='Retribution']I'm also guessing that a world peace would only mean that humans would be able to 'magically' prevent every disease and strain in addition to ceasing war. I don't think it would including humans controlling the weather[/quote]

[FONT=Lucida Console][SIZE=1][COLOR=DarkGreen]I'm actually working on a science project to control tornadoes and other atmospheric phenomena, but that's besides the point. When did I start talking about "world peace"? There can never be peace, nor will there ever be a stop to diseases.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[quote name='Retribution']Honestly, Derald, pull your head out of the sand. It would be noble to end the suffering of those on Earth, not to prove a point. That sort of mentality is equivalent to the maturity of a five-year-old.[/quote]

[FONT=Lucida Console][SIZE=1][COLOR=DarkGreen]You call me a child? So be it. After all, it is said that children tend to speak the truth. Anyways, you seem to have interpreted what I said incorrectly. When I said "to prove a point", I meant die alongside those to be killed in population control. A little more grim, isn't it?[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[quote name='Retribution']And thinking about it, the whole scenario of sacrifice of one for the rest of humanity is exactly the same as Christianity. Interesting, most interesting.[/size][/quote]

[FONT=Lucida Console][SIZE=1][COLOR=DarkGreen]Since when did I bring morals into this? Isn't a Jedi not to let their emotions cloud what must be done? (Seeing how you used that last line.) I'm speaking of cutting the population down to one third, and keeping it there for a while, regardless of human sentiment. Right. Wrong. It's all point of view, and morals are just there to provide comfort to those who don't accept the realities of life.

(*takes a reflective pause*)

Now, sorry for losing my composure there, and I apologize if I offended you in any manner. What you just witnessed was the outlet of frustration I keep inside as I come across more disagreeable events in my life. Now, if it were the normal me speaking, I would most likely sacrifice myself for the benefit of others. However, the fact that I have said the above still remains, and I am obliged to say that sometimes I really do feel that way.

Later.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[Fasteriskhead]

Retribution -

You misunderstand me, I believe. By asking "Why are we even having this dilemma?" I mean the question quite literally. I'm [I]not[/I] asking the question rhetorically, that is, I'm not saying that this kind of issue is somehow worthless. I'm trying to ask: what [I]grounding[/I] is there that this dilemma is able to present itself [I]as[/I] a dilemma at all? Better: through [I]what[/I] are we as human beings inescapably [I]moral[/I] creatures?

My objection to the hypothetical dilemma of the topic is more one of emphasis than anything else. The emphasis, on both the topic's issue and the classic train track problem, is almost entirely on a choice between two positions that both seem at least somewhat immoral. And yes, it is conceivable that either situation, or any other such problem we could dream up, could actually happen, and so should be taken seriously. (as an aside: what [I]does[/I] seem frequently unfair about these dilemmas is what is usually a lack of any options other than answer A or answer B; they seem rigged, in other words, for the impossibility of avoiding an immoral choice, and thus in Kant's sense entirely dispense with human freedom. But I digress, as this is beside the point). But the problem is not with the impossibility of the situation as such, rather in how the issue is presented. Our posing the question in such a way, as a choice, is not [I]wrong[/I] in itself; however, as we "weigh our options" in whatever way, we tend, I think, to pay no attention whatsoever to [I]why this is a problem in the first place[/I]. In other words, we tend to ignore what [I]brings[/I] us into our being morally concerned in the first place as we focus on calculating out the right (or least-wrong) action for this one particular situation.

You say: "What makes either choice good or bad or better than the other? Your values." Yes! That's a fine answer. But, well, where do those [I]come[/I] from? The situation as a choice generally doesn't care how the math is set up beforehand, and (I think) doesn't emphasize any prior examination of it. It just wants an answer. So generally we just "plug and chug" using whatever method we like, without thinking once [I]why[/I] it is that this situation could or does matter to us in the slightest degree. [I]That[/I], for me, is the real mystery, and as we argue back and forth between whether killing old people or a baby is better we tend to cover that question over.

You say: "What is the ethical 'status' of the person you might kill? Does it matter?" Yes, nothing could matter more. Which is precisely the problem: in these kinds of dilemmas the "statuses" as such are usually taken as more or less set in stone, and there's generally no incentive to think the problem any further than weighing one status against another. When we only ask about who I would or wouldn't kill we ignore the elephant in the room, which is: "Why are we morally concerned [I]at all?[/I]" This covering over and ignoring is what I mostly object to, not anything essential in the questions themselves.

[Sui Generis]

[font=georgia][size=2][color=indigo]

Ok let me get this straight, this has gone from a question about saving the planet to population control? Wow, philosophers behold, no wonder nothing is solved. Banter leads to more banter.

While some people have put a lot of time in posting thier opinions, and analyzing every situation possible, I'd have to just get right down to the answer. The answer, when you think about it; is possibly the easiest answer to give in the world. In fact, I have more trouble ordering my food at Applebee's than I do answering this question.

Everyone has the moral objections of "murder is bad" as well as "What about the feelings of the family members of the deceased party (Whomever it may be)." However, these are only very near sided (although kind thoughts, but as I said near sided) opinions.


First off with the "murder is bad" concept. Now the deliberation goes that if you murder someone, your soul is tainted, and not only do you feel bad, but you get a one way ticket to hell. (or pick whatever eternal damnation you'd like) However, think about it. If you have the ability to, essentially, play God in the situation then you have two options. Have one murder on your soul, or have countless murders on your soul. Knowledge is power, and once you know that you can save the world, it becomes your responsiblity to do so. However, if you do not choose to do this because of a moral obligation you hold, you end up defying this obligation by letting countless others die.

So really this whole "murder is bad" concept only strengthens your reasoning for killing this one person, because then you've done the lesser of two evils, and thats what everyone wants. (By the way this doesn't matter who the person is.)


Now on to this other, hopefully romantic, concept of the party's surviving members. So..what? First off; I'd take the liberty or letting the party's surviving family and friends know that; the person I murdered had just saved countless lives. (So woah..suddenly the person's a hero...kinda like Jesus no?) Continuing on; this may sound cruel as hell, but so what if 30 people are sad? So what if 400 people are sad? Have you ever thought of the number of people that are affected by the diseases you will be curing. The sheer volume of deaths equates (exponentially) into the number affected and the pain felt.

So again its the exact same as "murder is bad." You pick the lesser of two evls, by being the murderer of one person, and limiting the suffering to that one persons family/friends; instead of the suffering of easily over 1 million people.



Sure it sounds great and happy to worry about tideouse things like an individuals feelings, and such, but in the grand scale of things the point of existance is to exist. The human race exists simply to continue existing. (Otherwise there would be no need what so ever, even in the animal kingdom, for procreation.) If we stop our existance then we're only defying the purpose we were put here. Think about it in a relgious point of view if you want. Whomever, or whatever created you, took the time and effort (or not whatever) to create you.

Would they want you to simply die for th ehell of it, or would they rather you (and your brothers and sisters, and moms and dads etc...etc...etc...) to suvive. Creation is meant to continue, or else its a failed experiment, and we as human beings would become a failed experiment if I did not kill one human being.

So as I've obcviously stated, I feel sorry for whomever it is, but that person would be dead in about...20 seconds. Not gonna say my one action stops the extinction of the planet from say...martians or even over population, any of those aspects are outside the realm of this question, and this debate.

[/font][/color][/size]

[KatanaViolet]

Did you get this question from Swordfish??? :rolleyes:

But answering your question... sacrifice one to save millions....
That's a hard question. Because it hits your morals. I don't think I would ever be able to take another person's life, but if it could cure people of diseases... I mean, that would rid the world of so much strife...
But at the same time, I wouldn't be willing to sacrifice myself because of my strange attatchment to my less than satisfying life; or more or less, fear of death. So who would I be to sacrifice someone else who more than likely would really like to keep breathing?

And at the same time, regarding the "population control" comment that I glanced at, although it is true that disease and war and natural disasters keep up Darwin's theory that only the fittest survive... what would happen in a world where there was no disease?

Either way I see it as a catch 22.
I could probably spend the whole day thinking about it and still not be able to come up with any real conclusions.

[The13thMan]

Ok, Sui Generis, first off, why were you being so sarcastic? That?s not very nice, you really shouldn?t start your post off with something that could possibly offend the reader, it?s just asking for trouble.

By choosing to sacrifice one person, you yourself murders that person, but by not doing anything, you murder no one. Letting someone die and actually taking action to kill a person are two different things that you fail to realize. It?s not simple math here being that human population > 1 person. Every person has a right to life, and no one person has the right to take away that right.

It does matter who the person is, it matters a lot. It affects the answer completely. What if the question were, would you sacrifice the life of, oh let?s say, Hitler to end world hunger, cure all diseases, etc.? Most people?s answers would have changed.

Oh?.so we exist to exist?.so that?s the meaning of life! I never knew! C?mon man, don?t oversimplify our existence just to further your point. It?s not very nice. Though, you?re not the first one I?ve seen to act that way, a couple of the posts were somewhat cruel. It makes me sad that people can be so uncaring. But it?s understandable in the world that we live in today, oh well.

The question of overpopulation is irrelevant. And besides, we can always go and live on mars, or in the ocean! Haha.

And also, the whole deal with the one person being considered a hero doesn?t matter. If someone truly loved a person, that would not matter. The only thing the person would know is that the one he/she loved isn?t around anymore. That?s devastating for anybody. Have you ever experienced the feeling?

To Katana Violet: Haha, so you watched the movie too, eh? I did get the version of the question I used from Swordfish, but the essence of the question itself has been posed to me a number of times before, just in a different format. I believe the last time it was asked to me went like this: Let?s say there was a button in front of you that killed off 1/3 of the human population, would you press it? And by not pressing the button, the other 2/3 of the human population would cease to be.

To fasteriskhead: Ok, you obviously know a good deal about philosophy. I personally don?t know much about it, and would like it better if you went further into who those people are and their philosophies. Or maybe provide a link? And another thing, you never answered the question. What would you do?

I don?t particularly understand the question that you have: "Why are we morally concerned at all?" Can you not simply answer the question? Do you have to question your incentive to answer the question first? Or maybe I just don?t understand what you mean at all. ::shrug::

To Derald and Retribution: No need to fight you two. Try not to be so harsh, ok? Respect one another?s opinions. No reason to shoot them down. No reason to name call. Grow up and act mature.

Haha, this is hilarious. I?ve got a 7 page report in English due in two days, and here I am typing up this ridiculous response for a message board I rarely ever visit. I sure do love to procrastinate!

I feel like I meant to say more, but I had so much to say I know I had to have left something out, oh well.

[Sui Generis]

[COLOR=Indigo]To The13thMan:

Alright first off, yeah I re-read my first sentence and it came off a little sarcastic, sorry meant it to be a joke. Anyways yeah I'll apologize for that but thats all.

Alright so you say that no person has the right to take another person's life. However, you still haven't answered the fact that knowledge is power. By not acting, you are the one responsible for what happens next. Every single person is responsible for their actions; as you would be. Whether that action was killing one person, or knowingly let desease continue on and killing more people. So every person has the right to live? Then why not save the over all majority? I still don't see how your "objections" grant you any ground to do anything but kill one person.

Again you state that every person has the right to live, but you over react and allow this one person that "right" to live, and the consequence of that is (lets just underestimate) 100 people lose the "right" to live. How do you justify saving one person and letting 100 people die?

My comment about it not mattering who was directed towards the fact that you have chosen the lesser of two evils. I never said you won't feel pain, and I'm not being insensitive. (I'll get to that later)

No where in my post did I say the meaning to life is to exist. I'm just saying we exist to exist. By saying I'm over-simplifying that would be like saying that I'm oversimplfying everything by saying "I inhale to breathe." Its a simple fact, we live to live. We try to survive. Its common knowledge, no one wants to die, and you agree with that in your own posts! How am I even over-simplifying anything?

So in your entire post, you've pretty much labeled me as ignorant, and questioning what I've experienced as well as calling me cruel. However, it was an incredably ignorant thing to say that the family members won't care that the person was a hero. I understand that there will be pain, but it WOULD be easier for the famliy if he was a hero. Think about the American Army, during World War 1, people were sad when they got their letters, about their sons, however, the Army made it a point to say that the soldier had died heroically as an effort to ease the pain.

Second off, the person that was killed, deserves to be called a hero. There should be no question in this fact, because in effect that person cures a disease. Are you trying to say that Coretta Scott King didn't care that Martin Luther King died for his beliefs?

I'm not even sure what you were talking about with the whole overpopulation bit, I was just saying that as far as the question was considered, all outside possibilites shouldn't be considered. They arn't even involved, and I threw in Martians in there to show that we could go extinct from anything, it doesn't matter. I really dont' know why I have to explain that to you.


Ok; look. I'm not sure why you think I'm being uncaring. No where did I say that I would not feel bad for the person that dies, death is tragic, oh and check this out. To answer your question in the post. Yes I've experienced death. I've had my best friend die, my great-grandmother, my grandmother, my cousin, my step brother, and my grandpa die. I understand the pain of death, thats why I'd opt to kill one person.

Because I would then be limiting the amount of suffering world wide. (Yet again the same exact argument that you've yet to even address. Its the whole basis for my decision. You do the lesser of two evils, and lessen the suffering world wide.

So yet again; I'm wondering how I"m being insensitive (or anyone in this thread that doesn't agree with your point of view) when in effect we're the ones saving more lives, and solving the problems you've brought up on a much LARGER scale.

[b]
EDIT: But don't get me wrong I understand what you're saying; and I respect what you mean, I just personally think its right to save the most lives possible.[/COLOR][/b]

[Fasteriskhead]

13th -

First off, you should probably take back that bit about me "knowing a good deal about philosophy": at best I've only just put my foot into the pool. As for links, you can read more about Kant's moral philosophy [URL=http://www.iep.utm.edu/k/kantmeta.htm#H8]here[/URL], social contract stuff [URL=http://www.iep.utm.edu/s/soc-cont.htm]here[/URL] (you can probably skip down to Locke onward), and Mill's utilitarianism [URL=http://www.iep.utm.edu/m/milljs.htm#Utilitarianism]here[/URL]. You can probably hunt down all the original texts (the [I]Groundwork[/I], etc.) on your own if you want to, as most of them are online. They are [I]hard[/I], though (well, except for Mill, who would be easy even if most of us weren't already following him without knowing it).

I don't see why it is so important to answer the question with my own "preference," unless I am to be myself judged on which one I pick. Or are you counting up the votes here? In any case, I and a number of the other posters have layed out a number of possible arguments for either of the two solutions, some of which seem better argued than others; I'm sure I could come up with more on the spot, if I had to. Now, I do find a Kantian treatment (see my first post) most appealing, honestly, but that's only because it strikes me as the most coherent of the bunch. Frankly, we're never going to be forgiven for either given choice. So, what's the [I]right[/I] argument out of all of these possible solutions? Heck if I know. Some of the greatest thinkers in human history have spent their lives tackling just this kind of a problem, and yet it remains a problem. To me it seems presumptuous to think that I might determine the correct answer in a single message board post and sweep the whole issue away at once.

So, forgive me for thinking that it seems more interesting to step back from the piling up of arguments and counterarguments and move instead to [I]questioning[/I] the question rather than just answering. We might ask the dilemma: why are you such a problem for us at all? why, instead, can't we just take a best guess (like any other problem) and walk away? why do you seem to [I]matter[/I] so much? Answer: because we, as human beings, are fundamentally concerned with the moral. This prompts the question of why [I]that[/I] is, i.e. why we are moral rather than not. There have been a slew of quick answers to this, usually physicalist (morality is a useful evolutionary adaptation, etc.). Rather than take up one of these, though, I would instead try to clarify what "moral concern" is in the hopes at arriving at a more thorough answer... which means trying to describe it. In other words, the question to start with, for me, is how does it [I]feel [/I]to be given over to moral concern?

In lieu of the hypothetical dilemma in the first post on the thread, I would propose a situation and a question which is much simpler. I am walking down the city street at night, with no one else around. Looking into an alleyway by chance, I see a man lying there against the wall (arbitrarily let's say he appears to be in his early '30s, of medium build, wearing jeans and a sweatshirt) who appears to be injured. He's trembling and clutching at his thigh, where blood has stained his jeans blackish. The question is: as I see this person and the situation he's in, [I]how do I feel?[/I] I'm not asking what I should try to do (which should be obvious), I'm asking what it is that [I]prompts[/I] the obligation to help out in the first place. For surely I do not, for example, first think "oh, he's got an injured leg," then "I guess I would be in pain if I was injured like that," then "In that situation I would want to have that pain taken care of," then "I should probably help this guy out, as I myself would want to be helped." We have nothing resembling this train of thought - the injured man's body IMMEDIATELY, as soon as I see it, prompts me to help, before he can say a word or I can weight my options. So, how is this figure [I]presented[/I] to me in such a way that I feel a moral concern towards him? What is he, really, as he lies there? What does his body, as it slumps there, say to me? And lastly, how does it [I]feel[/I] to be, in that moment, prompted with the responsibility for the welfare of another being?

This is not just empty words and "deep" pondering. No matter how many solutions to the first dilemma we can think of or how well we can justify our particular decision, I believe we are behaving with utter irresponsibility if we do not clearly think through what it is that [I]calls[/I] on us to make the choice (to either kill another or disenfranchise mankind) in the first place. It is upon this (whatever it is) that the weight of any decision we can make rests, and yet we so easily fall into the habit of giving this issue no thought at all and simply calculating out (to three decimels, even!) what we think the best answer is.

It is possible to think morality more deeply than than we have been.

[Retribution]

[size=1][QUOTE=Derald][FONT=Lucida Console][SIZE=1][COLOR=DarkGreen]You're helping my point - by keeping the population at a fixed amount you can gradually add to the room for more people. Call me evil and insensitive if you want.

Once again, you are repeating yourself from earlier. Now, how do you control that curve? By taking an oversized chunk of the population out to reduce that exponent.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/QUOTE]

I don't think I helped your point at all. I was saying that the Earth is already horridly overcrowded, to the point where removing 'one' person wouldn't make any difference at all. You're saying that removing that 'one' person would make things better for everyone else, when in reality, it would take the removal of half the room.

Or perhaps you [i]are[/i] saying remove half the room -- I have no idea. First you say that disease is a necessary evil, then you say we need a more grave disaster. I think you're looking at human life in terms of numbers, which is a very dangerous thing. I'm convinced you don't understand the value of a human life. Go watch Schindler's List -- you might get something out of it. No kidding.

[quote][FONT=Lucida Console][SIZE=1][COLOR=DarkGreen]Hmm, simply because I see something in the Gaia Theory I receive ridicule....[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/quote]
You recieve ridicule for believing in something that has zero scientific basis, and then stating it in debate as if it were. That'd be like me whipping out Jesus in a debate and flourishing his miracles as if they were scientific fact. Sorry if I sounded abrasive, but that's what I meant.

[quote][FONT=Lucida Console][SIZE=1][COLOR=DarkGreen]Precisely- it was not on a grand enough scale. It only killed up through the thousands. We need something in the upper millions, and possibly even billions. As for your remarks on "sadness" and "suffering", they are irrelevant to this situation. As the people gradually repopulate they'll forget about the event and move on with their lives.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/quote]
Truly sick. My thoughts on this are above.

[quote][FONT=Lucida Console][SIZE=1][COLOR=DarkGreen]I'm actually working on a science project to control tornadoes and other atmospheric phenomena, but that's besides the point. When did I start talking about "world peace"? There can never be peace, nor will there ever be a stop to diseases.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/quote]
Well, this [i]entire thread[/i] thread is devoted to world peace, so forgive me if I thought you were saying these things within that context. True, there can never be a stop to disease or a true world peace, but we're talking about [b]a magical solution that would make the world a euphoria[/b], not some pragmatic solution to things.

[quote][FONT=Lucida Console][SIZE=1][COLOR=DarkGreen]You call me a child? So be it. After all, it is said that children tend to speak the truth. Anyways, you seem to have interpreted what I said incorrectly. When I said "to prove a point", I meant die alongside those to be killed in population control. A little more grim, isn't it?[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/quote]
I call you a child because of the attitude of "They'll see they're wrong! I'll die to show them!" Not because you were speaking some truth that a child might. And yes, I probably did misinterpret your words, but at least you're willing to volunteer to be in the next extermination of humans to keep the rest of us alive that you seem oh-so-zealous about.

[quote]Since when did I bring morals into this? Isn't a Jedi not to let their emotions cloud what must be done? (Seeing how you used that last line.) I'm speaking of cutting the population down to one third, and keeping it there for a while, regardless of human sentiment. Right. Wrong. It's all point of view, and morals are just there to provide comfort to those who don't accept the realities of life.[/quote]
Actually, the "Interesting, most interesting" was a pot-shot at Gavin's speech. Hehe.

As for not bringing morals into this -- you're completely right. Your post has been completely devoid of any care for your fellow man. I'm also so ... shocked by your next statement, that morals are useless, as they only provide comfort to those who can't accept the realities of life ... I don't know how to respond.

I have morals, but I also accept the way things are. I mean, I'm not going to shoot my school up, as it would violate my morals -- I also see how that conflicts with my understanding of "how things are."

Now at this point, I'm not even kidding. Honestly, Derald, take a minute to think about everything you just said. Well, you probably have... I'm just so awestruck that someone would be so bluntly apathetic to their fellow man. Please don't take this the wrong way, but you sound more like a computer than a human. I think you understand what I'm trying to say.

I... just... wow.[/size]

[Derald]

[QUOTE=Retribution][size=1]Now at this point, I'm not even kidding. Honestly, Derald, take a minute to think about everything you just said. Well, you probably have... I'm just so awestruck that someone would be so bluntly apathetic to their fellow man. Please don't take this the wrong way, but you sound more like a computer than a human. I think you understand what I'm trying to say.

I... just... wow.[/size][/QUOTE]

[FONT=Lucida Console][SIZE=1][COLOR=Sienna]Didn't you read the final segment of my post? I was having an off day, and I just used this thread as a constructive outlet for anger, seeing as it was the first in line when I visited the lounge. I already stated that my normal self would selflessly help another, regardless of whether or not it would harm me.

Please, this is an online philosophy thread - don't take things so seriously.


Also, seeing as this was an insignificant call for attention, it was I who was surprised with you when you simply would not ignore my posts.

Later.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]