Is One Life Worth Less Than Ten Million? The Ethics of a Life-Saving Button

[drag]

Greetings !

Originally posted by Zantra
Let's say it was indeed genocide. That instead of 10 million, it was 6.5 billion, and only you and that loved one(hopefully the opposite sex to continue the human species) would be left? How easy would that choice be then? Now you're talking about the fate of the human race vs the love of a woman(or man). Kinda seems like they're going to have to go right? Or is your love of that person so strong that your emotions would take over and you'd bite off your nose to spite your face?

Hmm... I suppose that in this case I would probably choose mankind.
However, I can't quite say whether I want to choose mankind more due
to some survival instinct or due to, in my personal case at
least, basic interest and fascination - I wan'na see how
mankind develops and what new things it can do. I suppose
that if I knew and had access to many intellegent alien races
out there of which mankind would not appear to be the
smartest and most advanced (certainly not a hard thing... )
then perhaps I would choose differently.

Originally posted by Zantra
What bothers me is the simple fact that it's presented as a difficult choice intentionally, and that it's a no win situation. I don't believe in those.

The enitial situation is difficult for those who share
some common beliefs and preferences not just to ANY person.
Of course, it is also purely hypothetical because "no negative
results" requires that nobody ever knows or even suspects
that you're the one responsible and that there's no chance
anyone would ever find out - and that's kin'na hard to do
and thus assure you that it'll be so.

Originally posted by pace
Do you think it's horrible to kill chickens ?

Horrible to whom ? Horrible - is just my personal
emotion when I view a situation, nothing more.
To answer the question - no, I have no problem with that.
Unless these are the last chickens left in which case
I would certainly not like to destroy natural variety
and totally exterminate a spicies.

Originally posted by pace
And you think it's okey to kill humans ?

When it is in my interest, because these particuilar
humans oppose what I'd like to see as my moral principles
or survival of me and people I know or other types of interests,
in that case the answer is certainly - yes.

Anyway, is there a fundumnetal difference ?
Why ? And what is it ?

Originally posted by pace
You think it's okey that someone would kill you now ?

No, I want to live(forever ).

Live long and prosper.

 

[Zantra]

I'd have to question someone would actually consider the extinction of the human race over some piece of A**(pardon the expression) That means they aren't considering the ramifications fully of genocide.

 

[Bubonic Plague]

Bubonic, by which I corrected you that they DO leave an impact on you, this is indirectly before you make that decision. The poll was an 'after' thing. You just can't get away with that we all affect each other in this planet through societies either in some direct or indirect manner.

Corrected me? Or tried to change one of the parameters of the original question? The answer which i had given applies only to the question that mitch bass set. It does not apply to your question which has a different factor, a factor which states that the death of the 10000000 will affect me.

I agree we are free to give an answer, but still I think we should be careful on what we say.

I'm glad that you know that we are free to give an answer. But what are you implying by saying that "we should be careful on what we say"? I'm sorry that you find my preference of friendships over unknown lives offensive. But at least i didn't come in guns blazing with insult-tipped ammunitions.

What if that button you would save to kill 10 million life was you.

You aren't making any sense here.

It's a matter on morals as Zantra says, how much you are willing to preserver and grow live. But killing 10 millions isn't exatcly that, be it humans or even chickens.

There seems to be a problem with the definition of life itself. Chickens are made up of millions, probably billions of cells. We know that each single cell is alive. So by killing a chicken. Are we killing a life? Or are we killing lives?

 

[pace]

Originally posted by drag
Greetings !

Hardly so, there are almost 6 and a half billion people
on the planet. It is much more so when you kill one out of a few
dozen lepards still left alive.

This is also completely uncounted for. Those few who dies in a society of 6 billion would like to die as little those in a few group. Why should being less life mean that they care more ? Numbers don't mean a thing, a man cares as little for dying even if he's in a city of 10 million, or in a little village in a forest.

For example, Nazi Germany made a different type of distinction -
human beings belonging to the arian race and all other
creatures human or not who are inferior and thus must serve
them or die. What about males killing while competing for females -
a widely accepted custom until the past few centuries.

I kinda thought we had decided what the nazi's did in these cases was bad. D'uh!

I do think that our living in packs and many other related
evolutionary social instincts exist, but I do not think that respect/sanctity of ANY human life is our natural inborn
instinct, rather an acquired social one. Even today many
societies exist where killing of some types of human
beings is glorified and encouraged. Many animals kill
the offspring of other males including some of our closest
relatives - the chimpanzees.

Yes, but do they kill 10 million people in a matter of pushing a button? It's just unnessecary, and again your examples are outta hand. Because what they do in your cases is because of a system which is again designed to work the best for their system of life in their clan.

So, what is it really that bothers you about this choice ?
Is it mostly an evolutionary instinct ? Is it mostly a social one ?
Are there, perhaps, other social and evolutionary factors
involved like a sense of fairness or numeric scale comparisson ?

Live long and prosper.

It's just the most simple and basic form of ethics in existence, a common work for life.

 

[pace]

Originally posted by Bubonic Plague

I'm sorry that you find my preference of friendships over unknown lives offensive. But at least i didn't come in guns blazing with insult-tipped ammunitions.

Of course I get pissed off, you contribute and spread no respect for life.

We all try to build up life. It's as instinctive as when we born and raise a child. We can't say that because someone kills, it's okay to just kill more. The morals doesn't compute.

 

[Bubonic Plague]

Of course I get pissed off, you contribute and spree no respect for life.

You aren't making any sense again.

We can't say that because someone kills, it's okay to just kill more. The morals doesn't compute.

So what's the point of putting up this little snippet?

We all try to build up life. It's as instinctive as when we born and raise a child.

That's right. I'm trying to build up my life. Which is why i chose my friend over the other 10000000.

 

[pace]

Originally posted by Bubonic Plague


That's right. I'm trying to build up my life. Which is why i chose my friend over the other 10000000.

Build up life, and build up your life is a wast difference. Don't twist my words.

 

[pace]

Originally posted by pace
Of course I get pissed off, you contribute and spread no respect for life.

And I don't think that poll spread much ethical quality either.

 

[Bubonic Plague]

Of course I get pissed off, you contribute and spread no respect for life.

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.

Build up life, and build up your life is a wast difference.

And what is that difference?

 

[pace]

Originally posted by Bubonic Plague
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:

Good to hear you're trying hard here. Not meaning by any ironic way.

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.

Well so you don't agree that killing 10 millions of people makes you a mass murderer ?

And what is that difference?

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.

 

[Bubonic Plague]

Well so you don't agree that killing 10 millions of people makes you a mass murderer ?

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.

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.

Your explanation is too vague.

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Originally posted by pace
This is also completely uncounted for. Those few who dies in a society of 6 billion would like to die as little those in a few group. Why should being less life mean that they care more ? Numbers don't mean a thing, a man cares as little for dying even if he's in a city of 10 million, or in a little village in a forest.

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.

Originally posted by pace
I kinda thought we had decided what the nazi's did in these cases was bad. D'uh!

We did. But, they thought otherwise and they were afterall,
shamefully, humans too.

Originally posted by pace
Yes, but do they kill 10 million people in a matter of pushing a button? It's just unnessecary, and again your examples are outta hand. Because what they do in your cases is because of a system which is again designed to work the best for their system of life in their clan.

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.)

Originally posted by pace
It's just the most simple and basic form of ethics in existence, a common work for life.

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.

 

[pace]

Originally posted by drag


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.

This got nothing to do with balance of life, it's simply killing a lot of precious humans.

We did. But, they thought otherwise and they were afterall,
shamefully, humans too.

And humans are able to do the most vicious, evil things.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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?

 

[Bubonic Plague]

And humans are able to do the most vicious, evil things.

Define evil.

This got nothing to do with balance of life

What balance of life? Who defines it?

Ethics as I understand it, is how you should live, concerning everything.

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.

 

[Iacchus32]

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?

 

[pace]

Originally posted by Bubonic Plague
Define evil.

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.

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.

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 ?

 

[pace]

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.

 

[pace]

Originally posted by Zantra


What bothers me is the simple fact that it's presented as a difficult choice intentionally, and that it's a no win situation. I don't believe in those.

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.

 

[Bubonic Plague]

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.

I'm not asking you to name a form of evil. I'm asking you to give me the meaning of evil.

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.

Look at this:

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.

Somehow, this doesn't seem like an attempt to suggest what his belief on ethics is.

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 ?

Good? Good to who? Good to society? Good to criminals? Good to the working class? Good to students?

than me trying to explain my oppinion what ethics is

You aren't explaining your opinion on what ethics is. You are slamming me with your ethics.

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.

Back up your statement with proof.

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.

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?

And you cannot properly answer an absurd question. So maybe this is why we are arguing so hard, because of confusion.

Absurd to you maybe.

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Ethics? But where do ethics come from?

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.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by pace
" 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'. "

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.

 

[Phobos]

If someone else pressed that button, wouldn't you consider them evil? (or at least horribly wrong)

 

[drag]

Originally posted by Phobos
If someone else pressed that button, wouldn't you consider
them evil? (or at least horribly wrong)

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.

 

[pace]

Originally posted by drag
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.

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.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by pace
...kills this loved one of yours to save your own life ? And again this would have no 'negative' effect...

That is a contradiction.

 

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by RageSk8
"When may someone favor members of one's family, or one's community, over other randomly chosen human beings?" Anybody who thinks that there are well-grounded theoretical answers to this sort of question - algorithms for solving moral dilemmas of this sort - is still, in his heart, a theologian or metaphysician.

Richard Rorty, "Contingency, irony, and solidarity"

Excellent quote, RageSk8.

Originally posted by Zantra
...Anyhow, there's a large difference between killing chickens and killing humans.

Well, that’s what all the chickens keep trying to tell me, but I want to hear the human side too.

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Assimilate or be assimilated ... Isn't that part of the process of evolution?

And how can life be "precious" without a sense of purpose? Hey, maybe the Nazi's were right?

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).

 

[pace]

Originally posted by drag
That is a contradiction.

Why?

Originally posted by drag
Ethics is designed to preserve society by telling an individual how s/he should act in it to preserve him/herself.

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.

 

[pace]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
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).

You don't have to worry about any negative effects on you, it states this in the original poll questionarrie after all.

 

[pace]

Delete please.

 

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by pace
You don't have to worry about any negative effects on you, it states this in the original poll questionarrie after all.

Yes, I understood this, which is why I stated;

As the question was presented I would press the button.