- #36
Bubonic Plague
- 95
- 0
You aren't making any sense again.
So what's the point of putting up this little snippet?
That's right. I'm trying to build up my life. Which is why i chose my friend over the other 10000000.
Is One Life Worth Less Than Ten Million? The Ethics of a Life-Saving Button
- Thread starter mitch bass
- Start date
In summary, the conversation discusses a hypothetical scenario in which a button can be pressed to save the life of a loved one but would cause the death of ten million strangers. The conversation delves into the moral implications of this scenario and debates whether it is right or wrong to press the button. Various opinions are shared, including the idea that disabling the system or embracing individuality may be a better solution. The conversation also references quotes and philosophical concepts related to this dilemma. Ultimately, the conversation highlights the complexity and difficulty of making such a decision.
You aren't making any sense again.
So what's the point of putting up this little snippet?
That's right. I'm trying to build up my life. Which is why i chose my friend over the other 10000000.
- #37
pace
- 240
- 1
Build up life, and build up your life is a wast difference. Don't twist my words.
- #38
pace
- 240
- 1
And I don't think that poll spread much ethical quality either.
- #39
Bubonic Plague
- 95
- 0
So this is what you meant. Well, for starters, i have done none of that. Instead i am trying(extremely hard) to convey my stand: That i value lives of my friends over lives of strangers. Which is why i will press the button to save my friend and kill the 10000000 people. It is as simple as that. But while you preach about the need for respect for life, you obviously have no respect for the preferences of others. You show that immediately by labelling my act a mass murder just because you cannot agree with my "would-be" actions.
And what is that difference?
- #40
pace
- 240
- 1
Good to hear you're trying hard here. Not meaning by any ironic way.
Well so you don't agree that killing 10 millions of people makes you a mass murderer ?
The difference is you, and some external thing. And you can hardly get more of a difference. The difference of something subjective and external is one of the biggest gap terms in philosophy.
- #41
Bubonic Plague
- 95
- 0
Yes, it does make me a mass murderer. But when i pointed out your labelling of me as a mass murderer as a sign of your disrespect for my preference, i was talking about your choice of words and tone of it betraying your thoughts on my preference, i am not shirking my role as a mass murderer.
Your explanation is too vague.
- #42
drag
Science Advisor
- 1,105
- 1
Greetings !
the term - genocide, which, as far as I know, means irradicating
a certain species to the point of extinction. I appologize if
my interpretation of the word is somehow innaccurate. Anyway,
if it is innaccurate and you just mean irradication of individuals
of a specific group without risk of extinction then I do
not see the problem here.
shamefully, humans too.
What's 10 million ? 1 out of almost 650 in the "clan" ?
Not a lot in such terms.
As for my examples - no. They are not designed to work the best
in such ways. This is the best behaviour for that particular
make and it is the best behaviour for evolution but not the
best behavior for the clan. Making an analogy of our situation -
if one has the power to kill 10 million with a single button
push to save a single person then it is potentialy likely
that this person and hence also the one he saves are geneticly
supperior and this could actually be a good evolutionary choice.
Also, with no connection to genetics - the modern world
is overpopulated and if there were 10 million people less
then mankind would benefit in general material terms.
(These are just examples that are designed to couter the
claim that the killing of 10 million people is neccessarily bad
for mankind as a whole, not the reasons for an individual's
answer to the original question, of course.)
people not to mention other life-forms.
Ethics ? Who said there's such a thing and why should one
accept it ? Ethics is designed to preserve society by telling an individual how s/he should act in it to preserve him/herself.
If the terms of the question are that there will be no
(at least external as I understood it) negative effects then
why should a person care about ethics ?
Live long and prosper.
Perhaps there was some misunderstanding, I was referring to
the term - genocide, which, as far as I know, means irradicating
a certain species to the point of extinction. I appologize if
my interpretation of the word is somehow innaccurate. Anyway,
if it is innaccurate and you just mean irradication of individuals
of a specific group without risk of extinction then I do
not see the problem here.
We did. But, they thought otherwise and they were afterall,
shamefully, humans too.
You just said above that numbers are not important.
What's 10 million ? 1 out of almost 650 in the "clan" ?
Not a lot in such terms.
As for my examples - no. They are not designed to work the best
in such ways. This is the best behaviour for that particular
make and it is the best behaviour for evolution but not the
best behavior for the clan. Making an analogy of our situation -
if one has the power to kill 10 million with a single button
push to save a single person then it is potentialy likely
that this person and hence also the one he saves are geneticly
supperior and this could actually be a good evolutionary choice.
Also, with no connection to genetics - the modern world
is overpopulated and if there were 10 million people less
then mankind would benefit in general material terms.
(These are just examples that are designed to couter the
claim that the killing of 10 million people is neccessarily bad
for mankind as a whole, not the reasons for an individual's
answer to the original question, of course.)
Simple and basic form ? To whom ? To you, maybe, not all
people not to mention other life-forms.
Ethics ? Who said there's such a thing and why should one
accept it ? Ethics is designed to preserve society by telling an individual how s/he should act in it to preserve him/herself.
If the terms of the question are that there will be no
(at least external as I understood it) negative effects then
why should a person care about ethics ?
Live long and prosper.
- #43
pace
- 240
- 1
This got nothing to do with balance of life, it's simply killing a lot of precious humans.
And humans are able to do the most vicious, evil things.
That is numbers compared to your ideology, not numbers in itself. Again, a man cares as little for dying no matter where he lives.
And what do you know who is good or bad, you might be killing completely the wrong persons, you're not everknowing.
Why ? Could be that they just found this button somewhere. The poll says nothing about this. As well it says nothing about if the people who dies should die, that it somehow makes the best for existence. You are making up assumptions to simply back up killing 10 million lives for your owns sake.
Either you have no ethics, you don't care about anyone else around you, or you do have some form of ethics. Here you clearly show some form. But you say that remove some life form is okay for the rest of people in earth, but again it mean EVERYTHING for those who die.
You are an human youself and know how much you want to live.
Again I think there is one here who confuse himself with a God. But maybe what you do is simply to take advantage of a sudden change(a theory of evolution) to help yourself.
So do you believe in ethics or not ? Is ethics in your oppinion about how you should act in order to stay alive for yourself ?
Ethics as I understand it, is how you should live, concerning everything.
To build up life, which means of course that you should not kill, is one of the most basic form of ethics, I'm pretty sure you could ask anyone about that.
------
What about if those 10 millions of people affected by your button press was tortured until they got old to save your loved one, would you still press the button ?
You are doomed to end up in situations in real life where you will be certain your actions won't hit back on you. Do you always act on your own benefit everytime this happens?
Last edited:
- #44
Bubonic Plague
- 95
- 0
Define evil.
What balance of life? Who defines it?
The keyword here is "should". I, and i believe drag too, are sick and tired of hearing your constant warcry for ethics and morals. You can advise me/us to take it up, i/we will either politely accept or reject your advice. But when you start to attack me/us while waving ethics as your banner, that is when i/we get extremely annoyed.
- #45
Iacchus32
- 2,315
- 1
Ethics? But where do ethics come from? If it's merely a matter of understanding the evolutionary process, then it's all about the survival of the fittest, and we really should relish the idea of doing the other guy in! 
What are the need for morals, if in fact what we're doing is what comes natural?
What are the need for morals, if in fact what we're doing is what comes natural?
- #46
pace
- 240
- 1
Sure, I can try name one. Instrumental evil, where you do harm on other, or many, because of pleasure to yourself. The term comes was precised by Immanuel Kant, one of the most famous and respected philsophers.
Yes, I believe the keyword is should too.
But dear Plague, if you would read what Drag wrote he suggested what his belief on ethics was. I was merely responding on what I thought was my defenition. And the definition between us seems pretty large, since his ethics only involve himself.
And I think it's much much more provoking to hear that you would like to kill millons of people, which might include me, simply because of one life meaning something to you, than me trying to explain my oppinion what ethics is, will ever be.
----
But isn't ethics also something that leads something to good too ? Would you agree with me there ?
That 'Ethics is something we should do because it leads to something good' . Whether it's only 'you', or 'everyone', do you agre with this definition ?
Last edited:
- #47
pace
- 240
- 1
The evolution ideas isn't something that has broken grounds in philosophy, it's barely mentioned there.
And I don't think Ethics is just an human thing, but I think it is for every species on this planet. They all go through periods where they must think what they should do, either if they are alone or with someone else.
---
Also one of the books I'm reading, by a professor in philosophy in Bergen, is 'Philosophy of Evil'. He defines more forms of evil, 'Arendt and the stupid evil', and 'Idealistic Evil' where you always blame another one for being the evil one.
He don't think we need any hellish idea of evil because there are examples enough on this planet. So he wouldn't like to not using the word evil.
He also would like to see the demonic idea of evil go away, where you do evil simply because of evil's sake, whether it's you or someone else.
Of course, this is all his ideas.
Here's a few lines, from his Last Words, in it I liked (He is not christian btw, and so aren't I, even though I mention all my 'God' things) :
" The evil is not primarely a theoretical problem, but a practical problem.
Though uncountable theoretic blindtracks shuts down the elementaric insight: Evil doesn't primarely belongs to theology, in nature or societysciences, barely in philosophy, but in a concrete moral and politic area. We cannot understand and fight evil as long as we realize it as something abstract and unfamiliar.
In theology, closer: theodiée, one try and save the imagianation of a God, an allmighty God, but this rescue try happens almost without exception on the expense on the acnowledgement of the reality of evil, easily with that everything is "really" good, or is transformed to something good, in a divine perspective - and this is to explain away the reality of evil. We shall not reconcile with the evil, but try doing something about it. It's partly why I mean all theodicées are of the evil, because they in height can contribute to such an reconcilement.
The real question isn't "What is the evil?" but "How do we do evil?"
The answer is that we does it because of several reasons. A human can have several different motifs for doing evil. But it doesn't do evil 'because' it's evil, and this form of evil, the demonic evil, should turned down as a myth. Meanwhile it's the demonic evil who often represents the nature of evil. The problem with looking at demonic evil as the essential evil is that then the evil becomes unfamiliar/unknown for us - it's really not how we realize ourself anyhow. The problem with the focus on the demonic evil is not theoretic, but practical, because it shuts out our own insight in what potential each and one of us has for doing evil.
Sometimes, we do the evil, well known that we are doing evil, because doing so helps us subjectivly. The instrumentally evil has understood what is evil and good, but choose to put away the good because of consideration of self. This instrumental evil is only a part of the evil actions we do though. We also have idealistic and stupidity evil, were a actor either is motivated by an conviction of objectiv good, or doesn't reflect upon good or evil at all. Nobody is beyond evil.
We have all done evil in the mentioned categories, even if we haven't acnowlidged these actions as evil. The most of us has done evil in small terms, but each one of us could have done it in big terms. The evil isn't just 'the others', but also 'us' .
The human kinds biggest problem isn't that much an overflow of agression as it is an lack of reflection. This lack leads us to join in the most insane abuses on the next guy/girl. The egoism lies the reasons for far less murders and abuses than the unreflected, nonsubjectivly devotion to an 'higher' cause. And the indifference demands even more victims - not the least to people that isn't close to us. The indifference doesn't just show in acts of violence and so on, but equal terms into the fact that 1.2 billion people lives in utter poordom, and that millions of people dies of hunger each year.
The evil isn't a superior problem, but uncounted concrete problems - situations where we are put to the test as free, reflected and acting entities. I started this book by stating it's easier to do evil than good.
The final question is really just what we choose to 'do'. "
There has also been written ten thousands of books on the term 'evil' from the 60'ies to 90'ies.
And I don't think Ethics is just an human thing, but I think it is for every species on this planet. They all go through periods where they must think what they should do, either if they are alone or with someone else.
---
Also one of the books I'm reading, by a professor in philosophy in Bergen, is 'Philosophy of Evil'. He defines more forms of evil, 'Arendt and the stupid evil', and 'Idealistic Evil' where you always blame another one for being the evil one.
He don't think we need any hellish idea of evil because there are examples enough on this planet. So he wouldn't like to not using the word evil.
He also would like to see the demonic idea of evil go away, where you do evil simply because of evil's sake, whether it's you or someone else.
Of course, this is all his ideas.
Here's a few lines, from his Last Words, in it I liked (He is not christian btw, and so aren't I, even though I mention all my 'God' things) :
" The evil is not primarely a theoretical problem, but a practical problem.
Though uncountable theoretic blindtracks shuts down the elementaric insight: Evil doesn't primarely belongs to theology, in nature or societysciences, barely in philosophy, but in a concrete moral and politic area. We cannot understand and fight evil as long as we realize it as something abstract and unfamiliar.
In theology, closer: theodiée, one try and save the imagianation of a God, an allmighty God, but this rescue try happens almost without exception on the expense on the acnowledgement of the reality of evil, easily with that everything is "really" good, or is transformed to something good, in a divine perspective - and this is to explain away the reality of evil. We shall not reconcile with the evil, but try doing something about it. It's partly why I mean all theodicées are of the evil, because they in height can contribute to such an reconcilement.
The real question isn't "What is the evil?" but "How do we do evil?"
The answer is that we does it because of several reasons. A human can have several different motifs for doing evil. But it doesn't do evil 'because' it's evil, and this form of evil, the demonic evil, should turned down as a myth. Meanwhile it's the demonic evil who often represents the nature of evil. The problem with looking at demonic evil as the essential evil is that then the evil becomes unfamiliar/unknown for us - it's really not how we realize ourself anyhow. The problem with the focus on the demonic evil is not theoretic, but practical, because it shuts out our own insight in what potential each and one of us has for doing evil.
Sometimes, we do the evil, well known that we are doing evil, because doing so helps us subjectivly. The instrumentally evil has understood what is evil and good, but choose to put away the good because of consideration of self. This instrumental evil is only a part of the evil actions we do though. We also have idealistic and stupidity evil, were a actor either is motivated by an conviction of objectiv good, or doesn't reflect upon good or evil at all. Nobody is beyond evil.
We have all done evil in the mentioned categories, even if we haven't acnowlidged these actions as evil. The most of us has done evil in small terms, but each one of us could have done it in big terms. The evil isn't just 'the others', but also 'us' .
The human kinds biggest problem isn't that much an overflow of agression as it is an lack of reflection. This lack leads us to join in the most insane abuses on the next guy/girl. The egoism lies the reasons for far less murders and abuses than the unreflected, nonsubjectivly devotion to an 'higher' cause. And the indifference demands even more victims - not the least to people that isn't close to us. The indifference doesn't just show in acts of violence and so on, but equal terms into the fact that 1.2 billion people lives in utter poordom, and that millions of people dies of hunger each year.
The evil isn't a superior problem, but uncounted concrete problems - situations where we are put to the test as free, reflected and acting entities. I started this book by stating it's easier to do evil than good.
The final question is really just what we choose to 'do'. "
There has also been written ten thousands of books on the term 'evil' from the 60'ies to 90'ies.
Last edited:
- #48
pace
- 240
- 1
To eleborate this one:
The whole poll question sucks!
Explanation: It says you have to choose between pushing the button or not, with knowing that 10 million people die.
Then it says that this choise will have no negative effect to you.
But it will. The poll question is absurd because you know you will kill 10 million people, and this is a negative effect, both of rationalistic counsciousness, and affectly. The biggest error of the poll question is that it lures on us the false idea(Ethic) that we have no counsciousness of our actions. Whether it's negative or positive, it's negative in this issue. So anyway, I wasn't the one who started pushing on ethics.
And you cannot properly answer an absurd question. So maybe this is why we are arguing so hard, because of confusion.
But as a guy once said: It's better to know you did a mistake than wander in confusion.
And mindly stuff is often as heartbreaking as physical stuff. It produces insanity, it makes you kill people because you knew someone kill your own son, etc.
Last edited:
- #49
Bubonic Plague
- 95
- 0
I'm not asking you to name a form of evil. I'm asking you to give me the meaning of evil.
Look at this:
Somehow, this doesn't seem like an attempt to suggest what his belief on ethics is.
Good? Good to who? Good to society? Good to criminals? Good to the working class? Good to students?
You aren't explaining your opinion on what ethics is. You are slamming me with your ethics.
Back up your statement with proof.
It will in reality. But here, we're dealing with the theoretical.
I believe everyone here who answered the question know that in real life, we have consciousness of our actions. We are not as stupid and naive as you think we are.
Why will killing 10 million people be a negative effect?
Absurd to you maybe.
- #50
drag
Science Advisor
- 1,105
- 1
Greetings !
on it. The common emotional perspective shared by humans,
not by choice but rather by custom and tradition, is that
ethics is all about humans and human behaviour towards each
other. My personal view of ethics is different, it is
about respect for ALL FORMS of life and the Universe in
general. There is no absolutely right or wrong perspective here,
that is just the way I like to view things.
As for the choice presented in this thread this does not
deal with my ethics directly as you can see, since my ethics
says little about it. What it does concern is my personal
intrest when pressing or not pressing the button.
Without the ethics part in the way I would rather choose
that which would potentially benifit and prevent harm to me
and my friend. If that bothers you or makes you see me as a
crazy maniac, well, that's your right and I respect your opinion.
Live long and prosper.
It comes out of one's knowledge and emotional perspective
on it. The common emotional perspective shared by humans,
not by choice but rather by custom and tradition, is that
ethics is all about humans and human behaviour towards each
other. My personal view of ethics is different, it is
about respect for ALL FORMS of life and the Universe in
general. There is no absolutely right or wrong perspective here,
that is just the way I like to view things.
As for the choice presented in this thread this does not
deal with my ethics directly as you can see, since my ethics
says little about it. What it does concern is my personal
intrest when pressing or not pressing the button.
Without the ethics part in the way I would rather choose
that which would potentially benifit and prevent harm to me
and my friend. If that bothers you or makes you see me as a
crazy maniac, well, that's your right and I respect your opinion.
Live long and prosper.
Last edited:
- #51
drag
Science Advisor
- 1,105
- 1
Hmm...
No offense. But, what the HELL is all that about ?!
I tried, but I didn't understand what he's talking about
or how this is related to anything.
Evil is just what we view as negative for us. The common
social perception of evil is born out of inborn evolutionary
preferences of mankind as well as willful preservation of
social order amongst humans. Period.
Live long and prosper.
- #52
Phobos
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 1,957
- 7
If someone else pressed that button, wouldn't you consider them evil? (or at least horribly wrong)
- #53
drag
Science Advisor
- 1,105
- 1
Only if it would kill me or someone I know or had some
other indirect measurable negative effect on me or people
I know or other creatures or things I care about.
Live long and prosper.
- #54
pace
- 240
- 1
What if you had a button who kills this loved one of yours to save your own life ? And again this would have no 'negative' effect on you.
- #55
drag
Science Advisor
- 1,105
- 1
That is a contradiction.
- #56
BoulderHead
Excellent quote, RageSk8.
Well, that’s what all the chickens keep trying to tell me, but I want to hear the human side too.
If they had won, they would have been.
Okay, I’ve only read the first two pages but so far I’m siding with drag and BP. The way I see this whole decision to kill thing is that everyone is doing it right now anyway (through support of their political leadership). It’s just one or two people removed, and hence easier to ignore, is all. Who feels bad about some stranger across the ocean being bombed or shot to death when they know they will likely never have to endure hearing about the horrible details or viewing the event.
People obviously are prejudiced when it comes to valuing their own life over the life of another. What’s so wrong then with valuing the life of a loved one over the life of some spector/s that you will never know?
As the question was presented I would press the button. If, on the other hand I were to be informed that those other people represented the rest of the population of human beings, I’d have to reconsider (I do have a desire to see the human race survive, after all).
- #57
pace
- 240
- 1
Why?
Surely here, following your most basic ethic on how you should live, why would you have any bad/sad feelings/conscience ?
You do everything to yourself. Doing anything for something external(- Not you. (What is you anyway? only your brain? Where's the wall?)) is absurd according to you.
Last edited:
- #58
pace
- 240
- 1
You don't have to worry about any negative effects on you, it states this in the original poll questionarrie after all.
- #59
pace
- 240
- 1
Delete please.
Last edited:
- #60
BoulderHead
Yes, I understood this, which is why I stated;
As the question was presented I would press the button.
- #61
drag
Science Advisor
- 1,105
- 1
If anybody did not read my previous posts, I too am saying
yes only with the conditions of the question in mind.
Live long and prosper.
- #62
pace
- 240
- 1
I don't understand you. Why do you consider it a contradiction ? Or would you still push that button ?
Last edited:
- #63
pace
- 240
- 1
And also Drag, wouldn't you also push the button if the conditions were that you would kill your whole family in order to save yourself ?
Even put your whole family, say your wife and two children on 2 and 8, through torture for the rest of their lives to save your own life ? Everything for yourself, and no claims about it, because that is perfect society.
Even if this made you get bad feelings, I don't think you would want to tell your family you would do this choice, would you ? So you could only live with them by lying.
But isn't this absurd ? Put others into the button dilemma. You're saying that they also should do everything in order to preserver him/herself to preserver society. So they would push the button and possibly kill you. But that wasn't what you wanted. You wanted a rule that was good for you. You're naming a rule that would only work if you were the only thing who existed.
Thinking shortly, if everyone whould live by themself, wouldn't everyone end up by themself ? That's not actually preservering of society.
Put in a perfect everlasting society where everybody follows what you say we should: Everyone is always doing what is good for themself.
Everyone would kill another if they would steal their lolipop, because the lolipop is good for themself. Sure, some would think longer, but as society gets less and less existent intelligent fails. Also we know how stupid us people can be sometimes.
Couldn't really raise up any children either. Everytime they asked you for some guidance or food, you would only give everything to yourself.
Society would simply be non-existent.
Why? Because society is doing something for others.
Another thing is that I simply don't believe you do everything in order to preserver yourself. You cannot refrain from doing something for external things, either creatures or items, simply because you are not alone in this world, and you will never be. Your certainty that something exist around you is aboutly equal to yourself. But at the same time I believe you cannot do anything for pure external reasons. i.e. I don't believe you can do anything simply because you ONLY want to help someone. You always do something for yourself, whether it's small or large. It reminds me of one of the buddhist rules; that the thought of total individuality is an illusion. There's no wall that separate you from the rest of existence.
Another thing is that every thing existing lives in a society! Take grass, bunch of things together. Trees, they feed each other. Galaxies, which melt into each other. Noone is free from existence. Free to choose, but not totally free of cause.
It's the same with good and evil I think. Noone is simply good, nor evil. We all carry both, some are just badder or better.
If you rather changed your 'society' with 'him/herself' I would agree. But it would end with everyone by themself, and every time anyone met someone else things would be lethal. Forget children. And you would start cursing everything that got close to you. Everything that aint yourself! Curse existence? Why aint I God?!
What I feel you are doing right is that you look into yourself when looking for ethics. It would imply that you should THINK for yourself, and that I agree is a very good thing.
It reminds me of another very famous quote previously stated by famous moral philosophers like Confusious, Jesus, and Immanuel Kant:
" In everything, do to others what you would have them do to you. "
This clearly puts yourself in the chair. You only have to look within yourself to decide how one should live.
Maybe that was what you sought ?
You would also have millions of friendly people around you who would do everything they thought good against you. They wouldn't even push a 'kill 10 million people'( possibly killing you or people you know) 6 billion times if they found it
What's funny, is that if you blend social-darwinism(evolution) into some christian morals you will find empirical proof that the christian morals are right. Get it ?
Through all these years it was the societies with these ethics that were the best, they had the strongest social ethics to go by, a lot of religions was sorted out and now gone from memory. Talk about survive of the fittest eh?
Survival of the fittest. But what does fittest mean ? Should it be revolutionary ?
Should it only mean 'the strongest' ? But why not 'the most intelligent' ? Surely we are very intelligent, and we clearly rule the planet now. And why not 'good' ? Every species on this planet want to have it 'good'. Fittest means best. But isn't that pretty obvious, that everyone want to have the best of things to chose from ?
And thus, I don't know if I can say it enough times, historically the theory of Evolution has played a big part as against creationism!
Not in philosophy, ethics, or metaphysics!
Even put your whole family, say your wife and two children on 2 and 8, through torture for the rest of their lives to save your own life ? Everything for yourself, and no claims about it, because that is perfect society.
Even if this made you get bad feelings, I don't think you would want to tell your family you would do this choice, would you ? So you could only live with them by lying.
But isn't this absurd ? Put others into the button dilemma. You're saying that they also should do everything in order to preserver him/herself to preserver society. So they would push the button and possibly kill you. But that wasn't what you wanted. You wanted a rule that was good for you. You're naming a rule that would only work if you were the only thing who existed.
Thinking shortly, if everyone whould live by themself, wouldn't everyone end up by themself ? That's not actually preservering of society.
Put in a perfect everlasting society where everybody follows what you say we should: Everyone is always doing what is good for themself.
Everyone would kill another if they would steal their lolipop, because the lolipop is good for themself. Sure, some would think longer, but as society gets less and less existent intelligent fails. Also we know how stupid us people can be sometimes.
Couldn't really raise up any children either. Everytime they asked you for some guidance or food, you would only give everything to yourself.
Society would simply be non-existent.
Why? Because society is doing something for others.
Another thing is that I simply don't believe you do everything in order to preserver yourself. You cannot refrain from doing something for external things, either creatures or items, simply because you are not alone in this world, and you will never be. Your certainty that something exist around you is aboutly equal to yourself. But at the same time I believe you cannot do anything for pure external reasons. i.e. I don't believe you can do anything simply because you ONLY want to help someone. You always do something for yourself, whether it's small or large. It reminds me of one of the buddhist rules; that the thought of total individuality is an illusion. There's no wall that separate you from the rest of existence.
Another thing is that every thing existing lives in a society! Take grass, bunch of things together. Trees, they feed each other. Galaxies, which melt into each other. Noone is free from existence. Free to choose, but not totally free of cause.
It's the same with good and evil I think. Noone is simply good, nor evil. We all carry both, some are just badder or better.
If you rather changed your 'society' with 'him/herself' I would agree. But it would end with everyone by themself, and every time anyone met someone else things would be lethal. Forget children. And you would start cursing everything that got close to you. Everything that aint yourself! Curse existence? Why aint I God?!
What I feel you are doing right is that you look into yourself when looking for ethics. It would imply that you should THINK for yourself, and that I agree is a very good thing.
It reminds me of another very famous quote previously stated by famous moral philosophers like Confusious, Jesus, and Immanuel Kant:
" In everything, do to others what you would have them do to you. "
This clearly puts yourself in the chair. You only have to look within yourself to decide how one should live.
Maybe that was what you sought ?
You would also have millions of friendly people around you who would do everything they thought good against you. They wouldn't even push a 'kill 10 million people'( possibly killing you or people you know) 6 billion times if they found it
What's funny, is that if you blend social-darwinism(evolution) into some christian morals you will find empirical proof that the christian morals are right. Get it ?
Through all these years it was the societies with these ethics that were the best, they had the strongest social ethics to go by, a lot of religions was sorted out and now gone from memory. Talk about survive of the fittest eh?
Survival of the fittest. But what does fittest mean ? Should it be revolutionary ?
Should it only mean 'the strongest' ? But why not 'the most intelligent' ? Surely we are very intelligent, and we clearly rule the planet now. And why not 'good' ? Every species on this planet want to have it 'good'. Fittest means best. But isn't that pretty obvious, that everyone want to have the best of things to chose from ?
And thus, I don't know if I can say it enough times, historically the theory of Evolution has played a big part as against creationism!
Not in philosophy, ethics, or metaphysics!
Last edited:
- #64
drag
Science Advisor
- 1,105
- 1
Greetings pace !
including all the rest of your message, I didn't talk
about these things at all and I do not agree with
many of them either.
about. Society is built up of individuals and each
individual cares about certain things. Most of these
are ussualy about that person and things and people
close to him, abviously. A society is a compromise between
one's total independence and control of one's life and one's
need to co-exist with other people.
Most things are eventually the result of compromise/balance -
physical objects are compromises between opposing
and different physical laws, our behaviour is a compromise
of our ideas. When you take situations like the one
mentioned in this thread you bring the compromise that
is called society to an extreme. As you do this you actually
put a magnifying glass above the perspective of a single person.
I do not need to care for myself a lot to make the positive
choice here. The question is not how much I care for myself,
it is rather how much I care for 10^6 people PROVIDED THAT
there is NO negative(external) result on me(which in the real
world is a totally impossible situation which is why this is a
purely theoretical question).
Like I said, I do not hold the egoistic view that human beings
are special and worth more than other species. Since 10^6
people is just a very small part of mankind I would prefer
people that are more personally important to me to live.
I, personally, would also care more for other people
that are close to me than for myself if the choices were
a lot more critical to me.
Again, since this is a totally theoretical question I would
say yes. But, in the real world there is always a third choice,
always a way to change the rules and defeat the situation
even if it is extremely unlikely. And, in reality it would
not be possible to escape negative external results for certain
nor to avoid the context of the situation.
Hope this'll clear up some of the misunderstandings.
Live long and prosper.
No, I wouldn't.
No.
I have no idea where you're getting this stuff from,
including all the rest of your message, I didn't talk
about these things at all and I do not agree with
many of them either.
Again, I think you totally misunderstood what I was talking
about. Society is built up of individuals and each
individual cares about certain things. Most of these
are ussualy about that person and things and people
close to him, abviously. A society is a compromise between
one's total independence and control of one's life and one's
need to co-exist with other people.
Most things are eventually the result of compromise/balance -
physical objects are compromises between opposing
and different physical laws, our behaviour is a compromise
of our ideas. When you take situations like the one
mentioned in this thread you bring the compromise that
is called society to an extreme. As you do this you actually
put a magnifying glass above the perspective of a single person.
I do not need to care for myself a lot to make the positive
choice here. The question is not how much I care for myself,
it is rather how much I care for 10^6 people PROVIDED THAT
there is NO negative(external) result on me(which in the real
world is a totally impossible situation which is why this is a
purely theoretical question).
Like I said, I do not hold the egoistic view that human beings
are special and worth more than other species. Since 10^6
people is just a very small part of mankind I would prefer
people that are more personally important to me to live.
I, personally, would also care more for other people
that are close to me than for myself if the choices were
a lot more critical to me.
Again, since this is a totally theoretical question I would
say yes. But, in the real world there is always a third choice,
always a way to change the rules and defeat the situation
even if it is extremely unlikely. And, in reality it would
not be possible to escape negative external results for certain
nor to avoid the context of the situation.
Hope this'll clear up some of the misunderstandings.
Live long and prosper.
- #65
bleh
sacrifice self
i would sacrifice myself insted of killing 10,000,000 people or the one person i loved, it seems like the most reasonable answer to me, if this is not possible and the only other possibilites are killng the 10,000,000 or the one person i loved the most i would have to kill the 1 person i love the most because killing all 10,000,000 people would take out so much potential for the future as to killing 1 person and if i couldn't live with the guilt of killing the one person i could always kill myself later totaling only 2 people dead insted of 10,000,000
bleh
i would sacrifice myself insted of killing 10,000,000 people or the one person i loved, it seems like the most reasonable answer to me, if this is not possible and the only other possibilites are killng the 10,000,000 or the one person i loved the most i would have to kill the 1 person i love the most because killing all 10,000,000 people would take out so much potential for the future as to killing 1 person and if i couldn't live with the guilt of killing the one person i could always kill myself later totaling only 2 people dead insted of 10,000,000
bleh
- #66
drag
Science Advisor
- 1,105
- 1
What do you mean ?
Live long and prosper.
- #67
bleh
if i die i can't kill anyone and if i have to kill the one i love the most, then i might not be abel to live with that and end up killing myself so only a total of 2 people end up dead
- #68
drag
Science Advisor
- 1,105
- 1
Greetings bleh !
I'm sorry, but I wasn't asking for a clarification for your
entire original message, just for the "potential" part
that I quoted in my request.
Live long and prosper.
I'm sorry, but I wasn't asking for a clarification for your
entire original message, just for the "potential" part
that I quoted in my request.
Live long and prosper.
- #69
pace
- 240
- 1
You do seem to have some 'sorrys' around there drag, so you seem to clearly have some form of ethics.
What is it that you would consider is a horrible/wrong/evil thing to do ?
What do you see as injustice ?
What is it that you would consider is a horrible/wrong/evil thing to do ?
What do you see as injustice ?
Last edited:
- #70
drag
Science Advisor
- 1,105
- 1
Courtosy is definately a virtue...
As for your questions, it's all relative and cicumpstance
dependent. I can't say I've any absolutes in this, as
far as I'm aware. (Maybe when it comes to cats... )
Live long and prosper.
As for your questions, it's all relative and cicumpstance
dependent. I can't say I've any absolutes in this, as
far as I'm aware. (Maybe when it comes to cats... )
Live long and prosper.
Similar threads
-
General Discussion
-
General Discussion
-
General Discussion
-
Programming and Computer Science
-
Electrical Engineering
-
General Discussion
-
Sci-Fi Writing and World Building
-
General Discussion
-
General Discussion