REGISTER TO REMOVE ADS |
What he was saying is that only an insane person would kill FOR NO REASON. Thus, contradicting your whole "many people" spiel. He never once said that murder is ONLY committed by the insane, only that ONLY the insane commit it without reason.Many people kill for many reasons, many of whom are sound of mind and body. Yet it is thoughtlessness that is so often the bane of others. Do not be so quick to judge murder and death as the subjects only the mentally impared are skilled in.
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
teacher said:In 1842, a ship struck an iceberg and more than 30 survivors were crowded into a lifeboat intended to hold 7. As a storm threatened, it became obvious that the lifeboat would have to be lightened if anyone were to survive.
The captain reasoned that the right thing to do in this situation was to force some individuals to go over the side and drown. Such an action, he reasoned, was not unjust to those thrown overboard, for they would have drowned anyway. If he did nothing, however, he would be responsible for the deaths of those whom he could have saved.
Some people opposed the captain's decision. They claimed that if nothing were done and everyone died as a result, no one would be responsible for these deaths. On the other hand, if the captain attempted to save some, he could do so only by killing others and their deaths would be his responsibility; this would be worse than doing nothing and letting all die.
The captain rejected this reasoning. Since the only possibility for rescue required great efforts of rowing, the captain decided that the weakest would have to be sacrificed. In this situation it would be absurd, he thought, to decide by drawing lots who should be thrown overboard. As it turned out, after days of hard rowing, the survivors were rescued and the captain was tried for his action.
1) If you had been on the jury, how would you have decided?
2) What are your reasons for this decision?
3) What ethical model did you use to arrive at the decision? Explain.
4) How would you respond to another jury member's decision that was not in agreement with yours? (no personal attacks!) Justify your response.
Is sacraficing our own lives to save the 100,000 an option.
... that's not the point.Bah. Can *you* remember what was I disagreeing about?
I acknowledge the advantage it would prove to those who read my posts...Phoenix said:Surely you recognize the very real and proven advantage summarization would bring you, no?
Quite right!; however, tell me what value Santa Claus has for you now.Phoenix said:I disagree. I had a very real connection to Santa Claus back when I was short and stupid.
I'll attempt to address this further on.Phoenix said:The value only appears when the friend acknowledges the person and forms the connection. Without that connection, if the person doesn't value himself, who is there to value him?
The actual money itself? Precisely the same as it was when there were still humans and a thriving economy--it has not changed in any way. However, without humans, there is no longer that "determined value" which we, as individuals, assume through connection. In that aspect, your point stands.Phoenix said:What is the value of 100,000 dollars if all humans are dead?
Allow me to attempt an analogy, as wonderful my history is with such devices. What, to my opinion, is simply another method of observing the question of value, both as it arguably "is" and as we determine it, is in comparing it to the scientific concept of energy.Phoenix said:Then why doesn't the same apply to the person himself?
It doesn't. Existence does; actually, existence "is" to my argument. The mention of recognition was only to forestall a potential existential problem--that of determining existence before value. I was attempting to spare you the discussion on that subject.Phoenix said:Why does recognition automatically confer value?
Actually, I would like to start on the group of people I mentioned earlier, that of suicidal individuals. I think it reasonable to say that, in certain cases, they do not value their lives at all, and thereby see no reason to consciously attempt to preserve them; in certain cases, they make conscious efforts to end them. The question I really meant to impose by this example was this--why do they have to make a conscious effort? Entropy is easier than enthalpy; shouldn't the individual simply have the ability to "stop living", to fall apart at will? To an extent this can happen--people can "waste away" even without a physical malady. However, it isn't the natural course as we can see it; the living do not have to constantly be on guard against the possibility that they will simply stop living, that their very structure will cease to be in the form that it is. It is not even an issue of determination, simply one of existence.Phoenix said:It does, actually. It proves me wrong, and makes my ideas hypothetical thought experiments. If all humans value their lives at least a bit, then they have value.
How about vegetables, though? Dead people? Imaginary beings?
Ah yes, that mysterious drive of all drives.Phoenix said:Survival instinct, most like.
This is a fair enough rationale, but it does necessitate a belief in an afterlife such as you describe (obviously). Would you have a response to any of those, the one or any of the 100,000, who do not share you faith in this regard? "Trust me"?KrytenKoro said:If I am allowed to use my personal beliefs to answer this question, then no action on my part is necessary in the situation given. The only action I can think of needing to perform is in performing dialogue with any individuals of either side (the 100,000, or the 1) in the case that said individuals reject goodness and glorify evil. There is no need for me to save anyone's mortal life - merely to do all I can to make sure they receive immortal life by embracing good.
There was no specified moral principle for the given problem, and so even the preservation of lives is open to question, as you address below. However, you state that, given the problem and not working off of a belief in the afterlife, you would go for the net lives saved, correct?KrytenKoro said:If I am only allowed to use the givens of the problem to solve the situation, then the age of the 1 does not matter - all that matters is the net lives saved, whether or not they die 10 seconds later, or 100 years.
If I save the child, then there is a net lives saved of -99,999.
If I kill the child, then there is a net lives saved of 99,999.
99,999 > -99,999, so I choose the second option, and kill the kid with any means available.
One can "reject" that line simply be determining their course of action by a coin toss. Needs outweigh nothing; action and reaction is what is discussed here.KrytenKoro said:Every time I have seen someone "reject" this line, they actually embrace it in their answer to the question: assuming the "importance" of the individual to be killed, etc.
The line is not "the LIVES of the many", it is "the NEEDS of the many" Thus, using this assumption of morality, you would kill 100,000 hobos to save one politician, if the many needed that one politician more than they needed the 100,000 hobos.
Quite true.KrytenKoro said:Of course, without being omniscient, it is impossible to know how important anyone is, as we don't live time backwards. Therefore, it is unreasonable to bring up the point at all, unless to illustrate that weighing the lives from a secular humanist view and comparing their ages, or similar qualifications, is unreasonable.
Ignoring, for the moment, my standing argument with Phoenix on a related subject, I will not be currently attempting to argue that any lives need or should (to my opinion the more relevant question) be saved; I also will not bring a specific stance against it at this point. I do, however, bring to you the same question I brought to Phoenix--if this is the judgment, upon what basis do humans consciously attempt to preserve life and upon what basis does life naturally attempt to preserve itself? Is there potentially an argument in the answer to either of the above questions?KrytenKoro said:I posit this: Using a secular, humanist approach, Why is saving any of the lives important? Death is inevitable, so preserving life reasoning is invalid. Entropy is inevitable, so greatest impact reasoning is invalid. Suffering is inevitable, and totally uncontrollable, so least suffering reasoning is invalid. Furthermore, in this system, the only non-relative morality is biological, or "survival of species" morality. Therefore, it doesn't matter how you kill the one, or what the one means to you.
I suggest that none of the lives are important under a purely secular view.
Under a spiritual view, I posit the same question. For religions that believe in an afterlife, or some form of an immortal soul, the mortal death is, again, unimportant, so there is no need to save anyone from earthly death.
If anyone can show why the lives even need to be saved, please do. Also, make sure to state what morality system you are using as an assumption.
The "resolution" to the scenario your teacher presents is essentially the same as that I described on the original problem--the issue must be addressed in order by what the captain can do, the ethics of the possible actions, and the responsibility of the likely results. The only complications are (a) we must also address the potential actions of those others in the lifeboat, (b) the ethics factor of the decision would possibly take on a more prominent role simply by numerical increase, and (c) responsibility is more complex with the unlikely potential of survival outside of the lifeboat.Geocillin said:I'd like to bring another situation into the mix if possible. It is "similar" to the first. My Psychology/Civics teacher presented it to us.
... that's not the point.
I acknowledge the advantage it would prove to those who read my posts...
Quite right!; however, tell me what value Santa Claus has for you now.
ball analogy
It doesn't. Existence does; actually, existence "is" to my argument. The mention of recognition was only to forestall a potential existential problem--that of determining existence before value. I was attempting to spare you the discussion on that subject.
Dead people: eh, here we come to a snag, at least to my model of the separation between existence based value and human determination of value. The thing is, existence is not limited to life; this becomes a bigger problem when one starts pondering the law of conservation of energy. I have thus far attempted to simplify the problem by effectively putting life on its own plain of existence--this isn't strictly in keeping to the actual principle of the matter however. The only answer, even temporary, I have is this--the dead person is not the person that he was in life, primarily by virtue of loss of brain activity; human determination does become mixed in with existence determination in that we determine existence in things as they are; we breathe in molecules of Julius Caesar every day, but don't think of it as such because, to our sensibilities, Julius Caesar no longer exists. These same sensibilities hold true for any dead person.
Imaginary beings: no value.
Why would I want either of these? I'm content with those discussion partners capable of reading more than five sentences at a time without getting lost, and we've already discussed the advantages of your own forgetfulness--but that was awhile ago.Phoenix said:Thus bringing more people to these discussions. And allowing my to remember them.
Answer the question, and then I'll get back to this point--what value does Santa Claus hold for you now?Phoenix said:Regardless, the connection existed.
That doesn't even count as summarization. That's cut and paste.Phoenix said:ball analogy
For our purposes, human interaction. This is how we determine value, no?Phoenix said:This interaction of the person, to what are you applying it to? Human interaction or the person simply interacting with anything on the world?
The being, the object, the existent. Consciousness is that which allows us to be aware of it. Simply enough, that item which we are determining the value of. That is the existence which is necessary, which is synonymous with value.Phoenix said:Existence of what? The consciousness?
Currently? No. The value has been transferred, and now lies in those capable of using or even just interacting with the results of what they did. Those men are dead--Caesar will conquer, Gandhi will teach, Einstein will postulate, and Darwin will challenge no more.Phoenix said:Ah, but can you say that Julius Caesar has no value? That Gandhi, Einstein or Darwin have no value?
Do they now? I didn't know you were the mystical sort.Phoenix said:What, are you kidding me? Imaginary beings move the world.
Why would I want either of these? I'm content with those discussion partners capable of reading more than five sentences at a time without getting lost, and we've already discussed the advantages of your own forgetfulness--but that was awhile ago.
Answer the question, and then I'll get back to this point--what value does Santa Claus hold for you now?
That doesn't even count as summarization. That's cut and paste.
For our purposes, human interaction. This is how we determine value, no?
The being, the object, the existent. Consciousness is that which allows us to be aware of it. Simply enough, that item which we are determining the value of. That is the existence which is necessary, which is synonymous with value.
Currently? No. The value has been transferred, and now lies in those capable of using or even just interacting with the results of what they did. Those men are dead--Caesar will conquer, Gandhi will teach, Einstein will postulate, and Darwin will challenge no more.
Do they now? I didn't know you were the mystical sort.
Probably - but you don't need to.This is a fair enough rationale, but it does necessitate a belief in an afterlife such as you describe (obviously). Would you have a response to any of those, the one or any of the 100,000, who do not share you faith in this regard? "Trust me"?
Also, just because the question begs to be asked, if I see a man whom I know to be a good, upright Christian in danger of drowning, should I attempt to help him?
Yes, but you already know my consideration of his existence.Which brings about the question: does God have value?