Is it ethical to press the button?

[saviourmachine]

A reason to kill

We are not the only killers on earth. Many animals do kill.

We also have the choice not to, yet we believe we are more important, and more deserving because we can do things like read and write. Point is, they kill without the conscious thought of doing so, I've never seen any animal kill something unless in defense or for food or for an actual reason.
We don't have to destroy the rain forest and the habitat of thousands of lives, but we do!

Animal behaviour
Did you ever mind to read something about the actual behaviour of chimps? Or the behaviour of animals in zoos?

What reason would be enough?
What 'reason' do you expect to find behind 'killing'? Would cannibalism be okay, if it's for food? Is reclaiming territory reason enough? Did you ever read the pensées of Pascal?

Can anything be stupider than that a man has the right to kill me because he lives on the other side of a river and his ruler has a quarrel with mine, though I have not quarrelled with him?

If the man doesn't have responsabilities towards a leader, this turns out to be even more awkward.

Animals don't choose
What do you know about the choosing behaviour of animals versus mankind? Does a dog choose to come if you call him? Can he obey or disobey?

Reason doesn't justify killing
A reason to kill. : Reason doesn't justify killing. It's an inheritance of the past in which we needed to kill to live. At some time this wouldn't be necessary anymore (I hope so). Even religious rules wouldn't be 'reason' enough to kill. Even god would be denied to kill.

I don't accept your implicit statement, that 'reasoning' would be enough to justify killing mankind.

 

[KaneOris]

Gerben, value doesn't come from humans, if it does, i don't value you.

 

[gerben]

Gerben, value doesn't come from humans, if it does, i don't value you.

Can you explain where you think that value does come from?

I think it is a human judgement, we simply think/feel that certain things have value and others do not, in a similar way as we do like the taste of some foods and not those of others.


Here are two qoutes from Nietzsche that, I think, fit:

"There is a human being who has turned out badly, who does not have enough spirit to be able to enjoy it [life] but just enough education to realize this; he is bored, disgusted, and despises himself...what do you suppose he finds necessary, absolutely necessary, to give himself in his own eyes the appearance of superiority over more spiritual people and to attain the pleasure of an accomplished revenge at least in his imagination? Always morality; you can bet on that. Always big moral words. Always the rub-a-dub of justice, wisdom, holiness, virtue. "

"Whoever despises himself still respects himself as one who despises."

 

[Dovekie]

Personally, I'd rather not be the one who decides the Fate of all the ife on Earth.

 

[KaneOris]

Did anyone not listen when i said I am not depressed and i got this out of a pyscology book?

 

[KaneOris]

Btw, congrads to those who stereotyped me as depressed for saying i would press the button, you contribute to racism, sexism, hate against religious groups etc.

 

[Per]

I wonder what proportion of the public would press the red button. In a decade or two this will be an issue of humanitys survival, since the scientific tools to eridicate humanity will have become cheap enough for a group of few to kill the entire human race.

What am I talking about? Biological weapons, and more specifically engineered viruses.
If the group of bio-engineers want to survive the virus, then they'd engineer a vaccine for only them to take. Thus they will be alone in the whole world after the killer virus or viruses have done their job.

I wonder if humanity can overcome this threat.

 

[russ_watters]

Btw, congrads to those who stereotyped me as depressed for saying i would press the button, you contribute to racism, sexism, hate against religious groups etc.

What does your psychology book say about people who would press the button? And why are you taking psychology at all if you don't think its possible to tell things like that about people?

Though I can't really speak to what a psychologist would say about your personality (several other issues come to mind), hating mankind, as you clearly do, is the definition of a http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=misanthrope. Being that you are a member of mankind and you would make an even worse stereotype judgement than you accuse others of (you would judge the entire human race collectively, no just a single person or group), your position is clearly contradictory.

 

[saviourmachine]

Id press the button without thinking twice

IMHO you've to justify this statement. Whatever people think of you. You're not merily quoting a psychology book; you decided to press. I think this needs at least considering the counter arguments.

 

[gerben]

Did anyone not listen when i said I am not depressed and i got this out of a pyscology book?

I was not assuming you are depressed. I guess you thought that I might think that because of the Nietzsche quotes, so I will explain a bit.

The first quote gives a nice reason for the psychology behind such extreme points as you take, namely one would defend such a view in order to:

"...give himself in his own eyes the appearance of superiority... and to attain the pleasure of an accomplished revenge at least in his imagination..."

The second quote states that even one that despises himself (in your case not only yourself but "we", all of us humans) may not do so because he is in some depressed pessimistic state, but simply because he can feel respect for himself by fighting for the (self declared) good cause, or against the (self declared) evil.

 

[False Prophet]

Personally, I'd rather not be the one who decides the Fate of all the ife on Earth.

Not all life, just humans. If it's all life I'd never hit the button.

Also I think there's only one outcome from the button, destruction of all humans. If you reverse time so people never existed, there would have been nobody to push the button in the first place (like that classic time travel paradox).

The right thing to do in terms of morals can only be subjective. If I try to justify pushing the button by saying it will save lots of endangered species, I have only justified the action if you are convinced that that is a good enough reason. If you don't believe other species are as important as humans, then I can't justify it. Of course the person at the button doesn't need to justify anything, it's their choice alone.

 

[KaneOris]

Ohk gerben, i can see where you are coming from, although I am just really worked up because a lot of people just made a lot of assumptions on what and who i was.
False prophet has got it spot on.
Btw, the psycology book, has nothing on the actual answers themselves, rather on why people say they won't press the button.
The chapter is about the human race as a whole, a singular body, and when confronted by questions like these many people can't see enough reasoning to press the button. Wether can see that it would benefit the world or not, they still don't wish to press the button.
I thought you guys would have heard of this question before, as its fairly widely used in personality tests and philisophical dicussion so i didnt even know if anyone would talk about it

 

[saviourmachine]

I don't expect that this topic was only meant to observe human reactions.

Reason

The chapter is about the human race as a whole, a singular body, and when confronted by questions like these many people can't see enough reasoning to press the button.

If I should use reasoning to come to the conclusion that you had to be killed, would you mind what kind of arguments I would use? Of course not, what matters is that some propositions in my mental world doesn't justify the destruction of your entire world (body, mind and so on). Albeit that you have an infinite amount of rational arguments to destroy the world, I invalidate them by an appeal on emotion.

Selective standards
Besides, I'm still awaiting an intellectual basis for it. Moral nihilists point out the invalidity of moral concepts, killing animals by human is as 'immoral' as a destroying meteorite. Moreover, you seem to have some selective sort of empathy. You do even mention the bacteria that are killed by human. But, there are lots of bacteria that did kill human too. If it's immoral in one way, it's also immoral the other way around. If human don't deserve to inhabit earth, bacteria do not neither. Even plants asphyxiate other plants.

Who has to choose?
Can we - human - decide for ourselves that we don't deserve to inhabit earth? Especially in the case that you're not convinced about the specific value of humanity.

What is wasting?
Would the next specie that will evolve some kind of rationality, come to the conclusion that we wasted much time and therefore natural resources by annihilating ourselves, in stead of trying to overcome the problems coupled to the evolutionary survival-of-the-fittest method?
Should we add this last murder to our list?

"I'm called 'Exception'"
Apparently the ones that would push the button, see themselves as the exception to the rule. Because of you is the sum of 'high moral actions' a little bit higher. If that's not the case, suicide would be the right action. What's the reason for keeping this just as a hypothetical option?

Assumptions

im just really worked up because a lot of people just made a lot of assumptions on what and who i was.

I didn't think that you was depressed, but I thought that you intellectually came to the conclusion that you would press the button if it was in your reach. If you want to discuss, use arguments, tell how you feel about it, don't complain about people that don't.

 

[False Prophet]

Albeit that you have an infinite amount of rational arguments to destroy the world, I invalidate them by an appeal on emotion.

Emotion is irrelevant! Remember for my argument I can be just as emotional for the species that have been lost thanks to humans alone. Also, the button won't "destroy the world", only people. This illustrates your perspective, shared by 99.9% of humanity (who wouldn't hit the button) that humans are the world. Since we are innovative, can manipulate our environment with that fancy grasping thumb, and are smarter than every other animal in the world put together, the Earth belongs to us. My belief is that it belongs to a beautifully diverse spectrum of life, including plants that smother other plants for survival purposes, owls swooping in on mice for a meal, and people eating chickens, cattle, eggs or dogs. None of this is wrong, it's for survival. It's the proficient ability to destroy entire species that is the truly unique characteristic of mankind.

Don't look down on bacteria either, they are pioneers of life on Earth. They don't kill ALL humans. Neither do grizzly bears.

Can we - human - decide for ourselves that we don't deserve to inhabit earth? Especially in the case that you're not convinced about the specific value of humanity.

Of course we can! That's the question. It's up to one person only. It's like abortion; many see it as wrong, many see it as okay, but it's up to one person in the end. Justification on an ethical level is only for convincing, which isn't needed in the button room.

And for one more subjective argument, there's the threat of global destruction thanks to man, which in my opinion is far more immoral than pressing the red button or the destroying meteorite.

 

[hypnagogue]

My belief is that it belongs to a beautifully diverse spectrum of life, including plants that smother other plants for survival purposes, owls swooping in on mice for a meal, and people eating chickens, cattle, eggs or dogs. None of this is wrong, it's for survival. It's the proficient ability to destroy entire species that is the truly unique characteristic of mankind.

Mankind is also the only species that cares whether or not another species is destroyed. (If this were not true, there would be no conservation efforts, nor would you have created this post.) Here is a question to consider: In what sense is killing the last of a species worse than killing the first?

The only answer that seems coherent to me is that destroying an entire species is worse than killing many but leaving the species intact because, in killing off the whole species, we lose another piece of the beautiful diversity of nature. This is certainly a respectable argument, and one that I would agree with, but let's put it in its place: it's based entirely on human subjective values. From the animals' standpoint, they don't know or care that their species might be dying; they care about their immediate life and perhaps their immediate family or social group. Certainly the individual animals that belong to plentiful species and are killed don't suffer any less for knowing that their legacy will be passed on. So we humans are the ones who suffer the more for the killing of a species, not members of the species itself. If this is right, it would seem that using this as a motivation for saying that humans should be exterminated is more a matter of human self-loathing than a matter of consideration for the life on the planet.

 

[False Prophet]

Mankind is also the only species that cares whether or not another species is destroyed.

You mean that in all of nature, no other species would "care" if a species were whiped out? Would flowers "care" if there were no bees? Have you seen through the eyes of any creature other than homo-sapien? Can you realistically and visually understand the millipede experience? How about a starfish. Do you assume certain values apply only to humans? How many species do you suppose would "care" if humans were whiped out? I'm not sure of the context of "care" you intended, but I imagine it's subjective.

(If this were not true, there would be no conservation efforts, nor would you have created this post.)

So if chimpanzees suddenly agreed with us that the California condor is an endangered species and should be protected, we will automatically throw the whole endangered species list into the bonfire, and build a massive tourist shopping mall in the middle of Yellowstone National Park?

Here is a question to consider: In what sense is killing the last of a species worse than killing the first?

Because it erradicates an entire species forever. My answer took about 1.5 seconds to come to mind. Why don't you ask yourself: In what sense is pressing the red button worse than going on a killing spree and killing 39 people? (hint: it's the same question).

The only answer that seems coherent to me is that destroying an entire species is worse than killing many but leaving the species intact because, in killing off the whole species, we lose another piece of the beautiful diversity of nature.

Absolutily! I thought I made this point of view "coherent" before. Other life forms have an intrinsic value that does not require a human perspective to be appreciated by nature. If you die right now, with $20.00 in your pocket, does that twenty dollar bill suddenly become worthless, just because you can't spend it? Of course when I hit the button I will no longer have my emotional, human point of view. I will answer for it when I meet my makers. I will have this very same discussion with them (hopefully they're in a good mood). But while I weigh the decision of whether or not to hit that button, my subjective opinion definitely applies. So does yours if you're at the button.

This is certainly a respectable argument, and one that I would agree with, but let's put it in its place: it's based entirely on human subjective values.

Yours isn't?

From the animals' standpoint, they don't know or care that their species might be dying; they care about their immediate life and perhaps their immediate family or social group. Certainly the individual animals that belong to plentiful species and are killed don't suffer any less for knowing that their legacy will be passed on.

Since when do you, as a homo-sapien, know the "animals' standpoint"?

So we humans are the ones who suffer the more for the killing of a species, not members of the species itself.

This is not my point, rather I claim the oppositte, that for the most part, humans DON'T CARE about the killing of another species. The species itself is what is really affected. If the button is pressed, the humans CAN'T CARE. But the species, and others that depend on that species, can care.

If this is right, it would seem that using this as a motivation for saying that humans should be exterminated is more a matter of human self-loathing than a matter of consideration for the life on the planet.

I hope you know by now, my motivation is nothing but consideration for life on the planet (besides humans). It's not self loathing, or even loathing of humanity. I press the button for the sake of countless other species, who's combined value is far beyond my own. In fact I respect myself more for this viewpoint.

Biodiversity has a value completely independent from human perspective, more than you might think. According to David Tilman, from the department of Ecology, evolution and behavior, University of Minnesota, "In broad summary, these reviews show that, on average, greater diversity leads to greater productivity in plant communities, greater nutrient retention in ecosystems and greater ecosystem stability." read the article (it's interesting) here: http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v405/n6783/full/405208a0_fs.html Because different species depend on one another for survival, biodiversity is essential to the maintenance of ecosystems, which is a fact far beyond my subjective opinions.
If you don't agree that biodiversity is important, try to imagine a world with only two species: wolves and rabbits. After ten years in this scenario, how many species do you suppose remain? I would figure that after the wolves ate all the rabbits, they would starve to death, leaving zero. The bottom line in my opinion regarding biodiversity is that every species has a "role" in its ecosystem, none of which are less or more important than any other species, despite what we may subjectivly assume.

 

[saviourmachine]

Emotion - empathy

Emotion is irrelevant! Remember for my argument I can be just as emotional for the species that have been lost thanks to humans alone.

Yes, so you agree with me that you are using an emotional argument just triggered by a (subjective) feeling: empathy for some?
I think that emotion is relevant by the way. But for the case of others - like you - I mainly used a kind of 'rational' arguments. You can focus on them if you 'want to' .

I am the world

Also, the button won't "destroy the world", only people. This illustrates your perspective

You didn't read good enough, it's worse . I defined 'world' as 'mind & body'. The world that is me. The world ceases to exist, when I'd be destroyed. I relate moral actions to how they affect me, so you can imagine that pressing the button is one of the most immoral actions thinkable in my moral system.

Mankind = earth

[cynical] Since we are innovative, can manipulate our environment with that fancy grasping thumb, and are smarter than every other animal in the world put together, the Earth belongs to us.

No, it's not. It belongs to the species that survive. Besides, in which are we different from 'earth'? You seem to look at it as 'we' against 'them' and favouring 'them'. I see myself as a legitimate part of our earth.

Evil = destroying entire species

None of this is wrong, it's for survival. It's the proficient ability to destroy entire species that is the truly unique characteristic of mankind.

You define 'wrong' as destroying entire species. Remind me, what was your suggestion? Mankind isn't one? So, you seem to want to take revenge. Our unique characteristic is that we destroy entire species? So this didn't happen until we entered the stage? What about dino's, and all expired species before we even existed? There is nothing new under the sun in regard to this.

Mankind's gen-manipulation future

Don't look down on bacteria either, they are pioneers of life on Earth. They don't kill ALL humans. Neither do grizzly bears.

We don't kill all bacteria. We are even - maybe in the near future - able to create new species. If you relate 'good' and 'evil' to natural diversity, these scientists must have the highest moral standards imaginable.

Mankind possessing the scepter

[can we decide for ourselves to destroy ourselves?] Of course we can! ... Justification on an ethical level is only for convincing, which isn't needed in the button room.

Can you as a member of the 'evil' human specie (willing to do 'evil') discern what is 'good' and 'evil'? You're suggesting that we are 'evil' in relation with bla-bla (other species). Next to that you're suggesting a penalty: 'destroying the human specie'. And finally you think that it's okay to execute that ourselves. I plead for an independent judge between us and bla-bla. I wouldn't give the scepter to mankind if it as evil as you describes it.

Global destruction or expansion

And for one more subjective argument, there's the threat of global destruction thanks to man, which in my opinion is far more immoral than pressing the red button or the destroying meteorite.

There is also the possibility that earthly species swarm out over the universe thanks to mankind. I don't know how you see that, but it's possible to see that as something 'good' or something 'evil': a spreading disease, or a developing flower.

 

[False Prophet]

Yes, so you agree with me that you are using an emotional argument just triggered by a (subjective) feeling: empathy for some?
I think that emotion is relevant by the way. But for the case of others - like you - I mainly used a kind of 'rational' arguments. You can focus on them if you 'want to'

Absolutely! Now I do believe emotion may be relevant, it did bias me. I guess I "flip-flopped".

I defined 'world' as 'mind & body'. The world that is me. The world ceases to exist, when I'd be destroyed. I relate moral actions to how they affect me, so you can imagine that pressing the button is one of the most immoral actions thinkable in my moral system.

For my perspective I'm considering an objective world that exists whether or not we do. Whether anything really exists outside perception is an old philisophical debate and the thread at PF is interesting (but confusing). I meant the real world, not anyone's particular personal world. I know it's immoral for you, that's not right or wrong, we just have different values. Honestly I can't say I'm right OR wrong, just that I believe it's the right thing to do.

No, it's not. It belongs to the species that survive. Besides, in which are we different from 'earth'? You seem to look at it as 'we' against 'them' and favouring 'them'. I see myself as a legitimate part of our earth.

I never thought of it as a competition, but I suppose that's true, and I do favor "them". The Earth does belong to those species that survive, I just don't think that other creatures should be denied their stake because humans go outside their boundaries to claim ownership through unethical means.

You define 'wrong' as destroying entire species. Remind me, what was your suggestion? Mankind isn't one? So, you seem to want to take revenge.

I don't recall ever saying mankind is not a species, If I said that I need to give up this discussion and go back to first grade. My suggestion is that mankind is a species not playing by the rules. It's not revenge, but prevention.

Our unique characteristic is that we destroy entire species? So this didn't happen until we entered the stage? What about dino's, and all expired species before we even existed? There is nothing new under the sun in regard to this.

First of all, the past is irrelavent. If you want to prevent a murder from occurring, you probably won't give up just because other murders have happened all through history. Nonetheless, humans are a unique SPECIES based on our erradication proficiency. There is a difference between the innanimate meteorite that may have killed the dinosaurs, and humans. That is I don't have the chance to stop the impending meteoroid (if I could, I would) but I do have a chance to stop humanity thanks to the red button.

We don't kill all bacteria. We are even - maybe in the near future - able to create new species. If you relate 'good' and 'evil' to natural diversity, these scientists must have the highest moral standards imaginable.

I didn't know that. Do you have any references, (not that I don't believe you, I am just intrigued by this idea.) Chances are the scientist's agenda is to benefit mankind, not the ecosystem. Perhaps we should leave species creation up to God, or nature/evolution (whatever you believe). Maybe we'll screw up and accidentally invent a bacteria that makes everything sick and die.

Can you as a member of the 'evil' human specie (willing to do 'evil') discern what is 'good' and 'evil'? You're suggesting that we are 'evil' in relation with bla-bla (other species). Next to that you're suggesting a penalty: 'destroying the human specie'. And finally you think that it's okay to execute that ourselves. I plead for an independent judge between us and bla-bla. I wouldn't give the scepter to mankind if it as evil as you describes it.

I don't recall using the word "evil" but if that's what you would use to describe my illustrations of humanities wrongdoings that is fine. I reserve the word for some humans (Bin-Laden, Hitler, Bill Gates, etc.) But the whole point of the question is that one person does indeed have this sceptor. The question is not whether or not humanity should have this power, but what would you do IF you had this power. Furthermore, I never intended pushing the button as a "penalty" at all. It's for the benefit of Earth.

There is also the possibility that earthly species swarm out over the universe thanks to mankind. I don't know how you see that, but it's possible to see that as something 'good' or something 'evil': a spreading disease, or a developing flower.

A spreading disease. After we have completely conquered the Earth and migrated to other planets, do you honestly believe we would not exploit whatever other life forms, recources, etc. for human gain? Would human nature magically change? Also consider with humanity out of the picture, other species can have a chance to develop, perhaps intelligent, who may one day explore (hopefully not conquer) the stars.

 

[saviourmachine]

I do favor "them"

I do favor myself.

I do not see myself nor my mates as a disease. I don't think destroying one specie more (ourself) is okay. I don't think we know enough to know what is 'good', what is for the benefit of earth, of 'our' solar planet, or 'our' universe. I don't know of any rules, we've to make them ourselves IMHO (like you do ). I don't want to discuss to discuss, and I see your point, but disagree. In the case you say that it's more rational or ethical I object, 'cause of just as big argumental system I built on the other side of this questioning river. Have fun in life, and I hope that you'll never get the opportunity...

 

[False Prophet]

If I ever get the opportunity, LORD HAVE MERCY!

God is at the button. He could press it if he wants to. He very well just may. According to the old testiment he has no qualms in quashing humanity. Regardless of the button, humans have got to change their ways. Like you said, humans don't know enough about what is good for the environment or the universe. But we sure know what's good for our own benefit, and so what's good for the Earth and other species is just not considered nearly as seriously.

Clearly we are arguing in circles here, neither of us can make a successful emotional appeal to someone with completely different values!

You too have fun in life, this was a very interesting discussion!

 

[Preator Fenix]

I would react quickly to press the red button.

But at the last possible moment I would hold myself back. I would see the eyes of every gril I ever loved and made love to, I would see my father, my brothers who I care for very deeply, I would see my little two year cousin, his big brown eyes, I would see the faces of the countless millions of people who I have never been able to see, the happy and tragic lives all intertwined on this planet, I would remeber the endless nights I spent looking at the stars, or listeing to really good music, or read a good book, or of when I learned a thing or two about science of the intersting things I've read here on these forums, I would remeber the jokes the gaffy stoires the many youthfull wacky adventures, the times I cheated and lied and hurt others, the times I have been selfish, I would also remeber the nights I cried, the heartaches and the great losses, all those times of heaviness, then I would see my future self, in a slightly more rugged leather jacket then the one I use, with my white hair, looking at me intently knowingly forgiveningly, as my grandchildern came tuging at my legs, and lastly I would see the eyes of the woman that I love in this life, her prefect dark brown eyes and hold myself in wonder at how little I could even begin to describe to you how perfect they are, how impotent all my wisedom stands to the love I feel for her, and how very little I really know about this wondering thing called life...

And as I took my finger of the big Red button I tell myself;

surely if there is a man that can push this button,... it is not I,... walking quietlly and humbly from the great temple wishing I had never had to face such a choice.

 

[saviourmachine]

Preator Fenix! I am thinking about your post for 2, 3 days now. I wholeheartedly agree with you, with everything I am. Thank you, thank you!