The Value of Human Life (a poll for BigSooner)

[hmkpoker]

Think of the person you love most in your life. It could be your mum, your pa, your girlfriend, your son...heck, it could even be you.

Got someone in mind? Good.

That person has a terminal illness that will cause him/her to die a horrible, horrible death over the next year. There is a cure. It is 100% effective, and remarkably cheap. All you have to do to get it is to press a button, which will enable a death ray in space to vaporize ten random starving African children. You will never have met these children otherwise, and no one will ever connect you to the killing.

What'll it be?

[henrikrh]

YES!!! the results of the poll made me laugh out loud!

[hmkpoker]

It's really sad how far I'm willing to go to prove people's stupidity to them /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[fuego527]

he isnt stupid

he just cares more about people than most

[BigSoonerFan]

[ QUOTE ]
It's really sad how far I'm willing to go to prove people's stupidity to them /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Stupid? Doubtful. Naive? Maybe. If this is an accurate representation of people's feelings, then it certainly illustrates the moral decline that seems to be accelerating of late. I've always said that man's biggest deficiency is selfishness and this certainly reflects that.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's really sad how far I'm willing to go to prove people's stupidity to them /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Stupid? Doubtful. Naive? Maybe. If this is an accurate representation of people's feelings, then it certainly illustrates the moral decline that seems to be accelerating of late. I've always said that man's biggest deficiency is selfishness and this certainly reflects that.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it simply suggests that there is more to the value of human life than quantity.

[Aytumious]

I'd say the results so far have been exactly what you'd expect.

[BigSoonerFan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's really sad how far I'm willing to go to prove people's stupidity to them /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Stupid? Doubtful. Naive? Maybe. If this is an accurate representation of people's feelings, then it certainly illustrates the moral decline that seems to be accelerating of late. I've always said that man's biggest deficiency is selfishness and this certainly reflects that.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it simply suggests that there is more to the value of human life than quantity.

[/ QUOTE ]

It has nothing to do with quantity. It has to do with killing innocent people, which I thought most people would think is wrong. It doesn't matter if it is one child or ten million children.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's really sad how far I'm willing to go to prove people's stupidity to them /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Stupid? Doubtful. Naive? Maybe. If this is an accurate representation of people's feelings, then it certainly illustrates the moral decline that seems to be accelerating of late. I've always said that man's biggest deficiency is selfishness and this certainly reflects that.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it simply suggests that there is more to the value of human life than quantity.

[/ QUOTE ]

It has nothing to do with quantity. It has to do with killing innocent people, which I thought most people would think is wrong. It doesn't matter if it is one child or ten million children.

[/ QUOTE ]

So a random innocent child's life is worth more to you than the most important person in your life?

[J. Stew]

Ah cmon people, death is a part of life. In one situation you are killing, in the other, you are letting what is natural happen. The fact that 85% would rather kill than accept the difficulties of life is why people suck and why nobody is really happy.

[henrikrh]

How can we be certain that killing a loved one instead of 10 starving kids is the greater good? We can't, not no way, no how. Now that the moral aspect is gone because we can't predict the outcome of our actions in a holistic sense all I ahve left to go on is what serves me best. Therefore, warm up the death-ray.

[BigSoonerFan]

[ QUOTE ]
So a random innocent child's life is worth more to you than the most important person in your life?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course not, and that has nothing to do with it. Do you know what the definition of murder is? Do you even think that murder is morally wrong?

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course not, and that has nothing to do with it. Do you know what the definition of murder is? Do you even think that murder is morally wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

Gun to my brother's head, and a way to take it away that involves no negative consequence to me or anyone I care about...morality doesn't seem to matter much here, does it?

I've proposed a tough choice. Assuming that you must choose, what life(s) is more valuable to you? The answer shocks you, and various forms of the question will eventually prove that the value of life is relative and depends on many factors.

And you, on at least five occasions, have avoided answering the question.

What if instead the death ray killed 10 vibrant young Americans with bright futures (the key phrase being bright futures)?

And to answer the original question, I could not kill the 10 African children. Can you imagine that on your conscience? I'm an atheist and I couldn't live with myself after that. Sad as life can be we have to play the hand we are dealt. Even if I can ease the suffering it would only be a temporary solution. Come on man, don't you watch movies? You just don't [censored] with fate! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Malachii]

Pretty sure 85% qualifies as a "vast majority."

[AlphaWice]

This is a shaky argument, because you dont bring iteration into the picture. This is sort of like prisoners dillema. Play prisoner's dillema once, and everyone opts to "tattle." Play an iterated-version of prisoners dillema, and suddenly everyone is alot nicer.

The key is control. If you are the only one choosing, of course you should choose "death ray." But the choices become nicer when more people than yourself have the power.

[BigSoonerFan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Of course not, and that has nothing to do with it. Do you know what the definition of murder is? Do you even think that murder is morally wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

Gun to my brother's head, and a way to take it away that involves no negative consequence to me or anyone I care about...morality doesn't seem to matter much here, does it?


[/ QUOTE ]

Certainly it does. You're committing murder.

[ QUOTE ]
I've proposed a tough choice. Assuming that you must choose, what life(s) is more valuable to you? The answer shocks you, and various forms of the question will eventually prove that the value of life is relative and depends on many factors.

And you, on at least five occasions, have avoided answering the question.

[/ QUOTE ]

No avoidance here. I've stated five times that if you can't figure out the answer from my posts, then you must be mentally challenged. Is there some kind of followup trap question you want to pose?

[BigSoonerFan]

[ QUOTE ]
Pretty sure 85% qualifies as a "vast majority."

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, pretty sad.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Certainly it does. You're committing murder.

[/ QUOTE ]

Irrelevant. Choose yes, someone dies. Choose no, someone dies. Which is the lesser of two evils?

[ QUOTE ]
No avoidance here. I've stated five times that if you can't figure out the answer from my posts, then you must be mentally challenged. Is there some kind of followup trap question you want to pose?

[/ QUOTE ]

Make that six. Considering what an idiot I've already made of you, you're in no position to call me mentally challenged /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[hmkpoker]

I'd go after you too, were it not for the fact that your icon does an important service to this community ^_^

[NLSoldier]

IMO, killing the african kids is for the greater good. if they live they are going to reproduce and the result will be more starving african kids who live miserable lives.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Pretty sure 85% qualifies as a "vast majority."

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, pretty sad.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is it sad? Do you not value your most treasured love one more than 10 unknown kids from Africa who will probably starve anyway?

I suppose you'd make the decision to allow your child to die a horrible death? Or are you one of those sob artists who just likes to wax poetically about morality?

[sweetjazz]

What about a simpler moral question? Suppose that the 10 people you most care about all have a terminal illness. (Yes, you have that effect on people.) And you can save them all by firing a death ray from space that will kill merely one starving African child.

I think it is clear that the greater good is to save your beloved friends and family. Even so, it is not at all clear to me that is morally correct to kill the African child. We don't, as a society, go around killing people anytime we think it will be, so to speak, +EV for society.

I am not saying that I would blame people for saving the people (or person) they care about in either scenario and it certainly seems like saving your loved one(s) is what most people would opt for. So if the poll is merely asking "what would you do?" then I think the overwhelmingly chosen answer is obvious. If the question asked is "what should you do?" then I think the answer should change.

EDIT: The key distinction to be made is that our choice is between allowing a natural process to continue in which, sadly, a beloved person will die or taking an action which will result in the willful killing of ten people (who we happen to know have a poor quality of life and to whom we have no emotional attachment, and we also happen to know we will suffer no punishment for our action). It seems to me that the ethical principle of not killing innocent people is more fundamental, and therefore takes precedence, over trying to produce the greatest good in society. You can dress the situation up so that just about anyone would, because we are humans and not moral robots, do the morally wrong thing, but that does not make it right.

I strongly suspect that, were the scenario a real one, I would end up using the death ray in the hypothetical situation outlined, even though I am fairly certain that it is clearly wrong to do so.

[Malachii]

Good post Alpha.

in regards to the reason given of people finding things morally wrong with "murdering" 10 children, it is also considered murder if you let to your most beloved son/brother/sister/mother/father die. letting someone die when u have the full power to stop it is just the same as killing them yourself.

so basically changing the wording but asking the same question would you rather kill your most beloved friend/family member or 10 random starving children in some far off country who you have never met/nor will meet.

also in response to
"I could not kill the 10 African children. Can you imagine that on your conscience? I'm an atheist and I couldn't live with myself after that." -above
can u imagine the thoughts of letting a loved one die on your head?- if you can, which is unbelievable, you need to check into a psyc ward, nuff said

-another note- i would hate to be part of your family or one of your freinds if you wouldn't save my life for 10 random people you never met, nor will ever come in contact with!

[sweetjazz]

[ QUOTE ]
letting someone die when u have the full power to stop it is just the same as killing them yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since you have the full power to take in one of the starving children in Africa (or one right near your hometown) and provide her/him adequate nutrition to prevent starvation but you aren't doing so, you must consider yourself a murderer.

To equivocate between voluntarily sending a death ray that kills ten people who otherwise would not have been killed at that time and not interceding to stop someone from dying from a terminal illness because there is no morally acceptable way to do so is absurd. Perhaps you can come up with an argument that it is ethically permissable to save your loved one in this hypothetical scenario, but suggesting that it is murder to not do so shows a gross misunderstanding of the term.

[BigSoonerFan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Certainly it does. You're committing murder.

[/ QUOTE ]

Irrelevant. Choose yes, someone dies. Choose no, someone dies. Which is the lesser of two evils?

[/ QUOTE ]

It isn't irrelevant. It's still called murder.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No avoidance here. I've stated five times that if you can't figure out the answer from my posts, then you must be mentally challenged. Is there some kind of followup trap question you want to pose?

[/ QUOTE ]

Make that six. Considering what an idiot I've already made of you, you're in no position to call me mentally challenged /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

lol, sure you have.

[fuego527]

You honestly believe you made him look like an idiot?

BSF's point is rather simple, no matter what the consequence, murder is still wrong in the moral sense.

Your point is also pretty simple, that YOU (and many others as you speculated and have now demonstrated) would not take into account the moral implications as you would rather save your loved one.

These are both valid points, although yours is just a question of what a specific individual would do in a given situation and isn't general enough to be an interesting topic.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
BSF's point is rather simple, no matter what the consequence, murder is still wrong in the moral sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

You do realize that if I don't act and save the one I love, I'm effectively murdering her, right?

[mr_whomp]

HMKpoker, theres two ways to go here. Utilitarian, (the greatest good); or deontology (outcome matters less than the morality of the action itself).

Actually 4 ways to go...

Utilitarian
deontology
virtue-based (should do whatever a person i look up to as a role model would do)
divine belief (should do whatever god says to do)

so your answer to this question depends on which of these you use to frame your ethical/moral belief system. I think also that a utilitarian (greater good) could go both ways on the issue.

[BigSoonerFan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
BSF's point is rather simple, no matter what the consequence, murder is still wrong in the moral sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

You do realize that if I don't act and save the one I love, I'm effectively murdering her, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you aren't. You need to work on your reasoning skills.

[BigSoonerFan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
BSF's point is rather simple, no matter what the consequence, murder is still wrong in the moral sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

You do realize that if I don't act and save the one I love, I'm effectively murdering her, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

The funny thing is that I bet you (and those that think like you) don't like anyone infringing on your rights. You probably don't like it when people say you should help others, etc, yet when it comes down to it, you'll infringe (most dramatically) on the rights of ten people if it serves your purpose.

The fact that the children were "starving" is what swayed my decision (death ray). I looked at it as if I were preventing 11 people from dying a horrible death. 10 by starvation, and 1 by some disease. If the 10 children were perfectly healthy, then I probably wouldn't have done it. I would instead do just about anything to get the cure to the disease without killing 10 innocent kids in the process. If that was in no way possible, then I might recommend that my loved one overdose on sleeping pills (or some such painless way to die).

Killing the children painlessly (or near painlessly) if they are starving would not be immoral. If the question was "Save one healthy, happy African child or save 10 loved ones who have been transported to a desert island with no hope of survival", I'd have chosen to save the child.

[hmkpoker]

Yeah, I'd probably help my loved one with the euthanasia...except, I'd lie and just slip her a few sleeping pills and a bunch of placebos...then while she's out, BOOM! DEATH RAY! DEATH RAY! DEATH RAY!

I might just use the death ray indescriminately, god that would be fun. It's fun just to say it! DEATH RAY! DEATH RAY! DEATH RAY! DEATH RAY! DEATH RAY! DEATH RAY! DEATH RAY! DEATH RAY!

[hmkpoker]

And thus we open the can of worms that Sklansky opened a few months ago, with a series of uncomfortable questions structured as "would you rather save this, or this?" And eventually we'll boil it down to the fact that the value of human life is variable and relative. I assume that most people here have figured that out by now.

Now here's a REAL question.

Is there a "best" or "better" method of judging the value of human life, so as to provide the most benefit to the most people?

[sweetjazz]

[ QUOTE ]
Killing the children painlessly (or near painlessly) if they are starving would not be immoral.

[/ QUOTE ]

And how do you decide this? Are you able to go around and distinguish between which people it is moral to kill and which it is immoral to kill? How do you accomplish this feat? At what point of hunger and food deprivation does it become moral to kill an individual? Extreme starvation? Beginning stages of starvation and no stable source for acquiring food in the future? One skipped meal?

Does the morality of killing the starving African children change if it is possible to communicate with them and ask them if they want to be killed? What if -- and I know this may come as a shocker -- they are still desparately clinging to a hope that their lot in life will improve? Even though that hope is completely unfounded, do you still find it morally acceptable to kill them?

And since there are innocent people who can be killed without it being immoral, how do we know that gamblers and poker players are not among that group? Or Americans (as Osama bin Laden might suggest)? Or people who are depressed and seem unhappy? Or people who have cancer and are going to die pretty soon anyway? (Actually, we are all going to die fairly soon, from a geological perspective.)

As is probably clear by now, I find your quoted statement quite controversial, and I am amazed that you could simply state it is as a fact without providing any argument that suggested your claim is true.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
The funny thing is that I bet you (and those that think like you) don't like anyone infringing on your rights. You probably don't like it when people say you should help others, etc, yet when it comes down to it, you'll infringe (most dramatically) on the rights of ten people if it serves your purpose.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm starting to believe that you're incapable of arguing anything without resorting to ad hominem attacks based on ill-informed notions, and pompous moral right.

You'll probably also be surprised to know that there are people in my life that I would take a fatal bullet for.

[ QUOTE ]
If the question was "Save one healthy, happy African child or save 10 loved ones who have been transported to a desert island with no hope of survival", I'd have chosen to save the child.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I know what you meant, but you sure worded it ambiguously. You mean you'd save the child by killing your loved ones that were going to suffer & die soon anyway.

[ QUOTE ]
Is there a "best" or "better" method of judging the value of human life, so as to provide the most benefit to the most people?

[/ QUOTE ]

There are probably "better" methods... but no "best", as the value judgements will be subjective.

I think this is the main problem with Utilitarianism (from what I know of it). How can you measure utility? Happiness? Pretty hard to do... especially when we aren't even very good at knowing what makes us happy.

[BigSoonerFan]

[ QUOTE ]
You'll probably also be surprised to know that there are people in my life that I would take a fatal bullet for.

[/ QUOTE ]

That doesn't surprise me. It would surprise me if you went out of your way to help others. Would you rescue someone from a burning building if there were <u>any</u> risk at all?

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You'll probably also be surprised to know that there are people in my life that I would take a fatal bullet for.

[/ QUOTE ]
That doesn't surprise me. It would surprise me if you went out of your way to help others.

[/ QUOTE ]

wow.

WOW.

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You'll probably also be surprised to know that there are people in my life that I would take a fatal bullet for.

[/ QUOTE ]

That doesn't surprise me. It would surprise me if you went out of your way to help others.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you think this of all the 86% of the people who voted for the DEATH RAY or just hmkpoker?

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
Is there a "best" or "better" method of judging the value of human life, so as to provide the most benefit to the most people?


[/ QUOTE ]

Looks like we are treading on Nazi reasoning here. You can't justify murder - period. I am an Atheist and I would have to vote with the minority. I can not justify taking someone else's life even if it means letting someone I love die. And the person that I loved would not want me to do it either. Anyone that says I am therefore committing murder myself is delusional.

[hmkpoker]

BigSooner is pretty amazing. If you just let him go for a while, he'll top himself.

[ QUOTE ]
I can not justify taking someone else's life even if it means letting someone I love die.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can justify taking someone else's life... even if no loved one's are involved: self-defense, euthanasia.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
BSF's point is rather simple, no matter what the consequence, murder is still wrong in the moral sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

You do realize that if I don't act and save the one I love, I'm effectively murdering her, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you aren't. You need to work on your reasoning skills.

[/ QUOTE ]



Awwwwh, what a cute attempt.

Here, have a shiny toy to play with.

[BigSoonerFan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You'll probably also be surprised to know that there are people in my life that I would take a fatal bullet for.

[/ QUOTE ]

That doesn't surprise me. It would surprise me if you went out of your way to help others.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you think this of all the 86% of the people who voted for the DEATH RAY or just hmkpoker?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmpoker, from the responses he has made so far.

[BigSoonerFan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
BSF's point is rather simple, no matter what the consequence, murder is still wrong in the moral sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

You do realize that if I don't act and save the one I love, I'm effectively murdering her, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you aren't. You need to work on your reasoning skills.

[/ QUOTE ]



Awwwwh, what a cute attempt.

Here, have a shiny toy to play with.

[/ QUOTE ]

I certainly hope your poker playing is better than your wit.

[hmkpoker]

Attempting wit might be futile since I doubt you'd get it; hence why I've stopped arguing with you and have basically enjoyed using a parade of sarcastic insults, none of which you've had a good comeback for.

I could at this point compile a hilarious list of dumb things you've said thus far, but I'm lazy and no longer care for this game. Ta!

[sweetjazz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I can not justify taking someone else's life even if it means letting someone I love die.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can justify taking someone else's life... even if no loved one's are involved: self-defense, euthanasia.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough: I think good arguments can be made for killing someone in the two examples listed. Can you give a justification for killing someone who (1) hasn't infringed on your rights at all and (2) hasn't consented to your taking their life?

I don't think you have offered an example which refutes the previous poster's claim: that it is not moral to kill someone based solely on utilitarian calculations of what is best for society.

[sexypanda]

I haven't read most of the replies, but I think the conclusion we can draw from the results here is that everything, including morality, is subjective. I would choose to save my friend because losing my friend would be extremely hard for me. The fact of the matter is, I have absolutely no chance of ever meeting these african children, nor will they ever effect my life any significant way. The personal loss I'd feel with regards to my friend (especially knowing I had a chance to save him) far outways the knowledge that I caused the deaths of 10 annoynomous people.

[mrmazoo]

Ethics can not be reduced to truth.

You can't go from an "is" to an "ought."

You can't "prove" any moral precept using facts and logic. It all ultimately comes down to the values, beliefs, and sympathies of individuals.

I believe most people would rather save their dog than an anonymous child half-way around the world.

[sweetjazz]

[ QUOTE ]
I haven't read most of the replies, but I think the conclusion we can draw from the results here is that everything, including morality, is subjective.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a fantastic conclusion to draw!!! Good thing you didn't bother to read most of the replies, or you might not have come up with that amazing insight.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I haven't read most of the replies, but I think the conclusion we can draw from the results here is that everything, including morality, is subjective.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a fantastic conclusion to draw!!! Good thing you didn't bother to read most of the replies, or you might not have come up with that amazing insight.

[/ QUOTE ]

He didn't really need to, it's common sense.

[sweetjazz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I haven't read most of the replies, but I think the conclusion we can draw from the results here is that everything, including morality, is subjective.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a fantastic conclusion to draw!!! Good thing you didn't bother to read most of the replies, or you might not have come up with that amazing insight.

[/ QUOTE ]

He didn't really need to, it's common sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's common sense that "everything, including morality, is subjective"??

I am amazed at the claims that are made in this thread.

[sexypanda]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I can not justify taking someone else's life even if it means letting someone I love die.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can justify taking someone else's life... even if no loved one's are involved: self-defense, euthanasia.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough: I think good arguments can be made for killing someone in the two examples listed. Can you give a justification for killing someone who (1) hasn't infringed on your rights at all and (2) hasn't consented to your taking their life?

I don't think you have offered an example which refutes the previous poster's claim: that it is not moral to kill someone based solely on utilitarian calculations of what is best for society.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, defense of a friend is a perfectly justifiable defense for killing someone. That person would have neither infringed on your rights, nor consented to you taking their life. This can be said to be utilitarian because infringment on anyones rights is a harm to society and tears at the foundation of social laws. When someone infringes on anyone elses rights, they are a threat to the fabric of society, and thefore it is justifiable to stop them from doing so (appropriately according to the situation) for the good of society. If that person is trying to kill another, you are then justified in killing them.

[sweetjazz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I can not justify taking someone else's life even if it means letting someone I love die.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can justify taking someone else's life... even if no loved one's are involved: self-defense, euthanasia.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough: I think good arguments can be made for killing someone in the two examples listed. Can you give a justification for killing someone who (1) hasn't infringed on your rights at all and (2) hasn't consented to your taking their life?

I don't think you have offered an example which refutes the previous poster's claim: that it is not moral to kill someone based solely on utilitarian calculations of what is best for society.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, defense of a friend is a perfectly justifiable defense for killing someone. That person would have neither infringed on your rights, nor consented to you taking their life. This can be said to be utilitarian because infringment on anyones rights is a harm to society and tears at the foundation of social laws. When someone infringes on anyone elses rights, they are a threat to the fabric of society, and thefore it is justifiable to stop them from doing so (appropriately according to the situation) for the good of society. If that person is trying to kill another, you are then justified in killing them.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a very good example. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Unfortunately, this principle does not provide a justification for killing the African children in the scenario of the OP. (Not that this is a criticism of what you wrote, but that is what I was trying to get at with my conditions. But I obviously left out the possibility you mention here.)

I should replace (1) with
(1') hasn't infringed on anyone else's rights to the point of requiring homocide to defend the victim's rights

[sexypanda]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I haven't read most of the replies, but I think the conclusion we can draw from the results here is that everything, including morality, is subjective.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a fantastic conclusion to draw!!! Good thing you didn't bother to read most of the replies, or you might not have come up with that amazing insight.

[/ QUOTE ]

He didn't really need to, it's common sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's common sense that "everything, including morality, is subjective"??

I am amazed at the claims that are made in this thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was basically just saying that individual morality is subjective, and it gives a good reasoning for the response of the vast majority. I think it's nearly impossible to objectively assess a situation that directly affects you. My life would be severely altered if my best friend died, where as it wouldn't be much different if 10 african children died. Also, the fact that I am given a conscious choice to save my friends life, knowing that I was able to stop his suffering and prolong his life but chose not to would weigh much more on my conscience than knowing I caused the death of 10 african children.

[sweetjazz]

I agree that it would be very difficult (maybe even "nearly impossible") to objectively assess the situation if we were actually in it. But that doesn't preclude the possibility that there is indeed an objective answer to the question at hand. It may not even be possible for mankind, given its current state of knowledge, to get a very accurate answer. But we also don't have to throw our hands up and say that everyone's opinion is equally valid.

Many people are mistaken in their understanding of basic laws of physics or certain poker concepts. That doesn't mean that the laws or concepts are any less valid or applicable. It just indicates that is very difficult for the average person to wrap their mind around them.

My contention is that the scenario outlined is somewhat similar. The right thing to do would be to refrain from using the death ray, even though it would be very difficult for most people to actually do so because they would allow their emotions and personal interests to trump their concern for making a morally correct decision. And given the stakes at hand and the fact that many people would make what I believe is the morally wrong decision, that indicates to me that it is possible (indeed appropriate) to be lenient toward the person even though they end up doing something wrong.

[sexypanda]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I can not justify taking someone else's life even if it means letting someone I love die.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can justify taking someone else's life... even if no loved one's are involved: self-defense, euthanasia.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough: I think good arguments can be made for killing someone in the two examples listed. Can you give a justification for killing someone who (1) hasn't infringed on your rights at all and (2) hasn't consented to your taking their life?

I don't think you have offered an example which refutes the previous poster's claim: that it is not moral to kill someone based solely on utilitarian calculations of what is best for society.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, defense of a friend is a perfectly justifiable defense for killing someone. That person would have neither infringed on your rights, nor consented to you taking their life. This can be said to be utilitarian because infringment on anyones rights is a harm to society and tears at the foundation of social laws. When someone infringes on anyone elses rights, they are a threat to the fabric of society, and thefore it is justifiable to stop them from doing so (appropriately according to the situation) for the good of society. If that person is trying to kill another, you are then justified in killing them.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a very good example. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Unfortunately, this principle does not provide a justification for killing the African children in the scenario of the OP. (Not that this is a criticism of what you wrote, but that is what I was trying to get at with my conditions. But I obviously left out the possibility you mention here.)

I should replace (1) with
(1') hasn't infringed on anyone else's rights to the point of requiring homocide to defend the victim's rights

[/ QUOTE ]

Haha you happen to be in luck. I'm a first year law student who happens to be studying for his crim final and is exactly on the "justification" section.

The law allows 2 types of general defenses for criminal conduct: justifications (ex. self defense) and excuses (ex. insanity). A justification defense is a claim that the person did the crime (ex. murder) but due to special circumstances, society doesn't deem it wrong. An excuse defense is a claim that the person did the crime but conditions show that the person was not responsible for his act so he should not be punished. Society still says that the act was wrong, but the actor was in a state where he should not be held responsible for the act.

An example of a justification for murder where noone's rights were infringed is if you killed someone you reasonably believed was going to kill you, but you ended up being wrong. Even though noone's rights were infringed, and you were never in any threat, you're act of killing is still considered justifiable. An example of this is if a police officer shoots someone aiming a watergun at him, under the impression that his life was in danger.

[sweetjazz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I can not justify taking someone else's life even if it means letting someone I love die.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can justify taking someone else's life... even if no loved one's are involved: self-defense, euthanasia.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough: I think good arguments can be made for killing someone in the two examples listed. Can you give a justification for killing someone who (1) hasn't infringed on your rights at all and (2) hasn't consented to your taking their life?

I don't think you have offered an example which refutes the previous poster's claim: that it is not moral to kill someone based solely on utilitarian calculations of what is best for society.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, defense of a friend is a perfectly justifiable defense for killing someone. That person would have neither infringed on your rights, nor consented to you taking their life. This can be said to be utilitarian because infringment on anyones rights is a harm to society and tears at the foundation of social laws. When someone infringes on anyone elses rights, they are a threat to the fabric of society, and thefore it is justifiable to stop them from doing so (appropriately according to the situation) for the good of society. If that person is trying to kill another, you are then justified in killing them.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a very good example. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Unfortunately, this principle does not provide a justification for killing the African children in the scenario of the OP. (Not that this is a criticism of what you wrote, but that is what I was trying to get at with my conditions. But I obviously left out the possibility you mention here.)

I should replace (1) with
(1') hasn't infringed on anyone else's rights to the point of requiring homocide to defend the victim's rights

[/ QUOTE ]

Haha you happen to be in luck. I'm a first year law student who happens to be studying for his crim final and is exactly on the "justification" section.

The law allows 2 types of general defenses for criminal conduct: justifications (ex. self defense) and excuses (ex. insanity). A justification defense is a claim that the person did the crime (ex. murder) but due to special circumstances, society doesn't deem it wrong. An excuse defense is a claim that the person did the crime but conditions show that the person was not responsible for his act so he should not be punished. Society still says that the act was wrong, but the actor was in a state where he should not be held responsible for the act.

An example of a justification for murder where noone's rights were infringed is if you killed someone you reasonably believed was going to kill you, but you ended up being wrong. Even though noone's rights were infringed, and you were never in any threat, you're act of killing is still considered justifiable. An example of this is if a police officer shoots someone aiming a watergun at him, under the impression that his life was in danger.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really really good stuff. So it looks like (1') is still not good enough, so I am going to try:
(1'') hasn't infringed on anyone else's rights to the point of believing that the steps leading to homocide were necessary to defend the victim's rights

Good luck on your exam. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[sexypanda]

Given the new number 1, I don't think anyone can bring up a justifiable defense, but given your caveat of "belief" you are bring in a subjective standard. You then have to put yourself in the person's shoes to see if the belief was reasonable. You have to understand the peron's background and indivudual circumstances. But what if the person was racist and percieved every black person as a threat to him. He then is subjectively justified in killing any black person, but then we have to bring in some sort of objective reasonablness in ("social norm"). I don't think morality is truly only subjective or objective, but I think it can be defined as a counterplay between both standards. If you strictly believe in just an objective standard though, you'll end up coming up with the "wrong" decision in some circumstances.

[BigSoonerFan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I haven't read most of the replies, but I think the conclusion we can draw from the results here is that everything, including morality, is subjective.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a fantastic conclusion to draw!!! Good thing you didn't bother to read most of the replies, or you might not have come up with that amazing insight.

[/ QUOTE ]

He didn't really need to, it's common sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

That the morality of murder is subjective? Sure.

[sweetjazz]

[ QUOTE ]
Given the new number 1, I don't think anyone can bring up a justifiable defense, but given your caveat of "belief" you are bring in a subjective standard. You then have to put yourself in the person's shoes to see if the belief was reasonable. You have to understand the peron's background and indivudual circumstances. But what if the person was racist and percieved every black person as a threat to him. He then is subjectively justified in killing any black person, but then we have to bring in some sort of objective reasonablness in ("social norm"). I don't think morality is truly only subjective or objective, but I think it can be defined as a counterplay between both standards. If you strictly believe in just an objective standard though, you'll end up coming up with the "wrong" decision in some circumstances.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough. We definitely need some sort of social norm, or else we can just all go around making excuses whenever we did something wrong as to why we believed we "had" to do it. There is no doubt that we will sometimes be forced to rely on the subjective beliefs of certain people to decide how to handle a moral issue in society (e.g. a jury deciding whether the police officer could have reasonably believed he was in danger from the watergun).

I tend to think we can generally outline objective principles regarding morality. But applying them to complicated situations in reality requires us to make a certain amount of subjective judgments as to how to weight the various principles at play. So I think I agree with you that there is a counterplay between objective and subjective.

[mrmazoo]

Ok then. Go ahead and give an objective proof for why murder is wrong.

[Lestat]

You are assuming the death ray is the morally wrong answer. Wrong for who? Certainly for the 10 African children, but not for myself or my loved one. Also not wrong for my loved one's loved ones. If my loved one were childless, then definitely not wrong for my loved one's future offspring, grandchildren, etc. If my loved one saves a life, then not wrong for the person who's life my loved one saved. If my loved one becomes a doctor or finds a cure for a deadly disease and saves hundreds and hundreds of lives, then not wrong for any of those who'ss lives my loved one saved.

I could go on and on. Ten deaths to 1 is not a slam dunk. I also do not believe morality is static with clear cut right and wrong answers.

[mrmazoo]

[ QUOTE ]

My contention is that the scenario outlined is somewhat similar. The right thing to do would be to refrain from using the death ray, even though it would be very difficult for most people to actually do so because they would allow their emotions and personal interests to trump their concern for making a morally correct decision. And given the stakes at hand and the fact that many people would make what I believe is the morally wrong decision, that indicates to me that it is possible (indeed appropriate) to be lenient toward the person even though they end up doing something wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

But this is not even an argument. All you do is state the conclusion you believe is correct without giving any reasons to believe so. It may seem obvious to you, and most of us, that 10 lives are worth more than one, but that doesn't make it true.

I'm not arguing that morality is relative. That would imply that ethical propositions are something we can assign as either true or false. I'm saying that there is no list of facts and inferences that can prove one way or another which actions are good and which bad.

That means that ethics is fundamentally NOT like physics, or poker. It isn't just that it is "difficult." It is completely intractable. It is beyond truth. Not even GOD could come up with an objective proof that ten lives have more worth than one (all things being equal). That's why it's called faith.

[sweetjazz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

My contention is that the scenario outlined is somewhat similar. The right thing to do would be to refrain from using the death ray, even though it would be very difficult for most people to actually do so because they would allow their emotions and personal interests to trump their concern for making a morally correct decision. And given the stakes at hand and the fact that many people would make what I believe is the morally wrong decision, that indicates to me that it is possible (indeed appropriate) to be lenient toward the person even though they end up doing something wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

But this is not even an argument. All you do is state the conclusion you believe is correct without giving any reasons to believe so. It may seem obvious to you, and most of us, that 10 lives are worth more than one, but that doesn't make it true.

I'm not arguing that morality is relative. That would imply that ethical propositions are something we can assign as either true or false. I'm saying that there is no list of facts and inferences that can prove one way or another which actions are good and which bad.

That means that ethics is fundamentally NOT like physics, or poker. It isn't just that it is "difficult." It is completely intractable. It is beyond truth. Not even GOD could come up with an objective proof that ten lives have more worth than one (all things being equal). That's why it's called faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope that I can reply to both of you in one reply, as I believe your responses are similar. I apologize in advance if I miss a subtle point in one of your arguments by trying to treat the two as one.

First of all, I realize that I did not provide an argument for my view in the post you replied to, but I have explained my reasoning in other posts. My series of posts with sexypanda explored the different rationales for killing someone.

The first premise of my argument is that, in order to willingly kill an individual, one must have a justification for it. Possible justifications given in other replies are:
(1) the other person requests your assistance in killing them (e.g. euthanasia)
(2) someone's rights are being infringed and you reasonably believe that homocide is necessary to protect the other person's rights (e.g. shooting someone who was about to shoot you or someone else)

Since the killing of the African children does not fall into any of the possible justifications for willingly killing another individual, it is immoral.

One premise in my argument is that there is a distinction between killing the African children with the death ray -- an outcome that would not have occurred had I not existed -- and allowing the loved one to die from the terminal illness -- an outcome that would haev occurred had I not existed. Many people in this thread have asserted that allowing the loved one to die is akin to murder.

I think it is clear that, all things being equal, one should not allow someone to die if there is something that can be done to prevent that situation from happening, especially if that person is a loved one. It would certainly be wrong to sit back and let them die if all you had to do was drive down to the local pharmacist and buy a $10 pill for them. However, while you should take every reasonable effort to save the loved one, you should not murder another person (or multiple people) in order to do so.

It has absolutely nothing to do with trying to assess which person's life has more value. That is a subjective judgment and clearly will depend on who is making the assessment (e.g. whether it is you or the mother of the African children). In fact, that is one of the main reasons why it is wrong to kill someone else (outside of the exceptions listed above)! Because we cannot objectively determine the value of people's lives and so we don't have the right to play God. When it comes to determining who will live and who will die, we are sometimes morally obligated to allow the natural course (i.e. the one that would take place if we weren't around) to take place.

The scenario of the OP is an illustrative example of such a case. The mistake in thinking it is okay to kill the African children is assuming that the situation is symmetric (someone will get killed no matter what we choose) and therefore we are free to decide for ourselves who dies. In fact, the situation is asymmetric, because letting the loved one die, though unbelievably painful and regrettable, is not murder while blasting the African children with the death ray is murder. And not murdering innocent people takes precedence over saving the life of an individual, no matter how dear to heart.

[sweetjazz]

[ QUOTE ]
You are assuming the death ray is the morally wrong answer. Wrong for who? Certainly for the 10 African children, but not for myself or my loved one. Also not wrong for my loved one's loved ones. If my loved one were childless, then definitely not wrong for my loved one's future offspring, grandchildren, etc. If my loved one saves a life, then not wrong for the person who's life my loved one saved. If my loved one becomes a doctor or finds a cure for a deadly disease and saves hundreds and hundreds of lives, then not wrong for any of those who'ss lives my loved one saved.

[/ QUOTE ]

The "wrong for who?" argument makes no sense. I cannot go and kill Celine Dion and then argue that, yes it may have been wrong for her, but it was right for so many people who hate her music with boundless zeal. Your choice could be between saving Mother Theresa or zapping a spoiled brat with a death ray.

[ QUOTE ]

I could go on and on. Ten deaths to 1 is not a slam dunk. I also do not believe morality is static with clear cut right and wrong answers.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you 100% that is possible that there is more value to society as a whole to save the terminally ill person than to not zap the African children. Thus, zapping the African children could be for the greater good. Still, it would be wrong to do. (Just as, even if most people thought that killing Celine Dion would serve the greater good of society, it would still, unfortunately, be wrong.)

I too do not believe that morality is always static with clear cut right and wrong answers. But I also believe that in some situations, there are clear answers. I think the example of the OP is relatively clear. (Though I think the reason stated in the poll for not using the death ray is completely off the mark, which might be part of the reason so many people disagree with it.) You could add some additional facts that would make it closer.

[sweetjazz]

The reason that your beloved one has to die has absolutely nothing to do with the greater good. It has everything to do with the fact that it is wrong to commit murder, even if the intentions behind it are good.

As the question is posed, you cannot just go out and use the death ray. Anymore than I could go hunt you down, shoot you, and take your heart to give to a loved one for a heart transplant. (Don't worry: I'd be careful to shoot you in the head so your heart is not damaged, and I'll bring an expert medical crew that will have your heart in proper storage as quickly as possible. And I wouldn't literally give the heart to my loved one, but rather to an expert heart surgeon who would perform the necessary heart transplant.) Even if I somehow knew that your heart was the only one my loved one's body wouldn't reject and that this was the only option to prevent them for dying.

[sexypanda]

[ QUOTE ]
The mistake in thinking it is okay to kill the African children is assuming that the situation is symmetric (someone will get killed no matter what we choose) and therefore we are free to decide for ourselves who dies. In fact, the situation is asymmetric, because letting the loved one die, though unbelievably painful and regrettable, is not murder while blasting the African children with the death ray is murder.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it depends on how you frame the issue. I think that at the time you are given that decision, the future exists as follows: either your friend dies and 10 annoynomous african children live, or your friend lives and the starving children die. It forces you to make an affirmative decision about the future. The second option specifies that your best friend lives and 10 annoynomous starving children die. You are given a conscious decision to decide who lives.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue">And not murdering innocent people takes precedence over saving the life of an individual, no matter how dear to heart. </font>

Takes precedence for who? Takes precedence for you? Takes precedence for the innocent people? Takes precedence for God?

Suppose the loved one was your child. Then it certainly doesn't take evolutionary precedence insofar as advancing one's own genes. If you are saying you would give up the life of your child for 10 strangers, then you are either not a parent, or I pity your child.

If not killing innocents were our only concern, there could be no winnable wars. A general could never commit 20 innocent soldiers live's to any cause.

[sweetjazz]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue">And not murdering innocent people takes precedence over saving the life of an individual, no matter how dear to heart. </font>

Takes precedence for who? Takes precedence for you? Takes precedence for the innocent people? Takes precedence for God?

Suppose the loved one was your child. Then it certainly doesn't take evolutionary precedence insofar as advancing one's own genes. If you are saying you would give up the life of your child for 10 strangers, then you are either not a parent, or I pity your child.

If not killing innocents were our only concern, there could be no winnable wars. A general could never commit 20 innocent soldiers live's to any cause.

[/ QUOTE ]

Based on your logic, nothing is right or wrong. Obviously, any time we can take an action we also have the option of not taking the action. And whatever our decision is, some people will benefit and others will not. The point is that people have basic rights. Such as the right not to be killed by another person for no good reason. That's why it is wrong to kill them. And while not killing will result in your loved one dying, you are denying your loved one their basic right to life, because they are going to die as a result of a natural biological process that you did not inflict upon them.

I have said earlier that it is understandable if a person chose to use the death ray and save their loved one. If I were in this farfetched scenario, I might very well do the same thing. That doesn't make it right (or even not wrong). It is certainly less wrong than using the death ray just for the enjoyment of it, knowing it wouldn't save your terminally ill loved one (or not having a terminally ill loved one to begin with). Just because 100% of people would do something does not make it right.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> Based on your logic, nothing is right or wrong. Obviously, any time we can take an action we also have the option of not taking the action. And whatever our decision is, some people will benefit and others will not.</font>

This is exactly what I'm saying. Morality is not set in stone. You cannot say what is morally right for me, any more than I can say what is morally right for you.

<font color="blue">The point is that people have basic rights. </font>

Actually they don't. There are no basic earthly rights. You might have the rights that certain societies might give you, but the OP took society out of the equation. Does a person have the right not to be struck by lightning? Does a gazelle have the right not to be killed by a lion? Where are these earthly rights which you speak of? Are they written down somewhere?

Societal laws might guide us along, but at the core we area guided by our own laws when it comes to morality. A recent poster suggested he'd have no problem keeping a million dollar jackpot won with a friend's money, if his friend would never find out about it. Personally, I could never do that. But he sets his own laws when it comes to morality. I don't.

Personally, I think morality should normally strive to benefit the greater cause. In this case, my loved one is the greater cause (to me). Now change it to 100 children who suffer terrible deaths, or an entire village or city getting wiped out, and I'd probably make a different decision.

In the end, we are alone in the universe when it comes to moral values. There is no right or wrong. IMO-

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue">And not murdering innocent people takes precedence over saving the life of an individual, no matter how dear to heart. </font>

Takes precedence for who? Takes precedence for you? Takes precedence for the innocent people? Takes precedence for God?

Suppose the loved one was your child. Then it certainly doesn't take evolutionary precedence insofar as advancing one's own genes. If you are saying you would give up the life of your child for 10 strangers, then you are either not a parent, or I pity your child.

If not killing innocents were our only concern, there could be no winnable wars. A general could never commit 20 innocent soldiers live's to any cause.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow Stat,

I must say you floored me with this one. I’d have never put you on this.

RJT

[DougShrapnel]

The correct response is 89% death ray 11% other.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue">And not murdering innocent people takes precedence over saving the life of an individual, no matter how dear to heart. </font>

Takes precedence for who? Takes precedence for you? Takes precedence for the innocent people? Takes precedence for God?

Suppose the loved one was your child. Then it certainly doesn't take evolutionary precedence insofar as advancing one's own genes. If you are saying you would give up the life of your child for 10 strangers, then you are either not a parent, or I pity your child.

If not killing innocents were our only concern, there could be no winnable wars. A general could never commit 20 innocent soldiers live's to any cause.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow Stat,

I must say you floored me with this one. I’d have never put you on this.

RJT

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm being honest, which I don't think anyone who has a child is doing if they say they'd choose allowing their child to suffer a horrible death over 10 strangers.

I guess this is where being an athiest is helpful. I don't worry about God's wrath. But how much more pitiful are those who do, yet STILL save their child?

[hmkpoker]

We have to define "right" and "wrong" before we can go any further. I want to hear someone give me a good definition of them without telling me that it's what God wants us to do, or that I'm a bad person for not believing in right and wrong (even though I honestly don't know what they are)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I can not justify taking someone else's life even if it means letting someone I love die.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can justify taking someone else's life... even if no loved one's are involved: self-defense, euthanasia.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough: I think good arguments can be made for killing someone in the two examples listed. Can you give a justification for killing someone who (1) hasn't infringed on your rights at all and (2) hasn't consented to your taking their life?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure: to save someone else's life. If a suicide bomber is about to blow up a building that I'm not in, then it would be moral for me to kill him to prevent him from killing other people.

Then, the next step would be to kill someone who wasn't intentionally putting other people's lives at risk.

Then, the next step would be to introduce acts of omission, and show that they are really no better than acts of commission. But, I digress.

Killing an innocent person is bad. That is true. However, there are times when that is the least bad choice. Which would make it the right or moral thing to do.

[ QUOTE ]
The right thing to do would be to refrain from using the death ray,

[/ QUOTE ]

And let the children starve to death? I'd rather be killed with an unforseen death ray than knowingly starve to death.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I can not justify taking someone else's life even if it means letting someone I love die.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can justify taking someone else's life... even if no loved one's are involved: self-defense, euthanasia.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough: I think good arguments can be made for killing someone in the two examples listed. Can you give a justification for killing someone who (1) hasn't infringed on your rights at all and (2) hasn't consented to your taking their life?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure: to save someone else's life. If a suicide bomber is about to blow up a building that I'm not in, then it would be moral for me to kill him to prevent him from killing other people.

Then, the next step would be to kill someone who wasn't intentionally putting other people's lives at risk.

Then, the next step would be to introduce acts of omission, and show that they are really no better than acts of commission. But, I digress.

Killing an innocent person is bad. That is true. However, there are times when that is the least bad choice. Which would make it the right or moral thing to do.

[/ QUOTE ]


What makes this stuff "morally right" though? If a "morally wrong" action poses no negative consequence to me, why should I care? It's like the illegalization of oral sex in some states: they can't enforce it, so no one seems to care. The "illegality" is just a formality, and it's completely worthless.

[ QUOTE ]
We have to define "right" and "wrong" before we can go any further. I want to hear someone give me a good definition of them without telling me that it's what God wants us to do, or that I'm a bad person for not believing in right and wrong (even though I honestly don't know what they are)

[/ QUOTE ]

Something is good to the extent that it increases happiness(*) and/or decreases suffering(*).

Something is bad to the extent that it decreases happiness(*) and/or increases suffering(*).

An action is right to the extent that it was intended to do good.

An action is wrong to the extent that it was intended to do bad.

(*) "Happiness" means not just pleasure, but joy, peace, contentment, and well-being. Suffering is the opposite of that.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I can not justify taking someone else's life even if it means letting someone I love die.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can justify taking someone else's life... even if no loved one's are involved: self-defense, euthanasia.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough: I think good arguments can be made for killing someone in the two examples listed. Can you give a justification for killing someone who (1) hasn't infringed on your rights at all and (2) hasn't consented to your taking their life?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure: to save someone else's life. If a suicide bomber is about to blow up a building that I'm not in, then it would be moral for me to kill him to prevent him from killing other people.

Then, the next step would be to kill someone who wasn't intentionally putting other people's lives at risk.

Then, the next step would be to introduce acts of omission, and show that they are really no better than acts of commission. But, I digress.

Killing an innocent person is bad. That is true. However, there are times when that is the least bad choice. Which would make it the right or moral thing to do.

[/ QUOTE ]


What makes this stuff "morally right" though? If a "morally wrong" action poses no negative consequence to me, why should I care?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's "morally right" because it is motivated by the intent to do good (increase happiness). You should care because you would want other people to stop the bomber if YOU were in the building. Mutual cooperation is beneficial to happiness.

[Lestat]

Exactly. But who defines right and wrong? And when does what's right and wrong change? Certainly most would agree to killing 10 children if it would save the entire human race. Some might be willing to kill 10 children if it kept their country from going bankrupt. I might be willing to give up my life so that 10 strange children can live, but not be willing to give up my kid's life.

The majority (society), helps us with what is acceptable and what isn't for the good of that society. But you seemed to have purposely taken society out of the question.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We have to define "right" and "wrong" before we can go any further. I want to hear someone give me a good definition of them without telling me that it's what God wants us to do, or that I'm a bad person for not believing in right and wrong (even though I honestly don't know what they are)

[/ QUOTE ]

Something is good to the extent that it increases happiness(*) and/or decreases suffering(*).

Something is bad to the extent that it decreases happiness(*) and/or increases suffering(*).

An action is right to the extent that it was intended to do good.

An action is wrong to the extent that it was intended to do bad.

(*) "Happiness" means not just pleasure, but joy, peace, contentment, and well-being. Suffering is the opposite of that.

[/ QUOTE ]




Here, then, is an interesting twist...

Let's say that there is an island out in the Pacific somewhere. About two hundred natives live on it. Although they are isolated from the rest of the world, they live happy lives and have plenty to eat.

Let's say my beloved girlfriend is dying and the only remedy is to vaporize all the inhabitants of the island. (DEATH RAY! DEATH RAY! DEATH RAY!)

If I nuke them, I and my girlfriend, and our friends, are much happier. The inhabitants of the island do not suffer, and their lack of existance doesn't bother the rest of the world.

If I don't nuke them, my girlfriend dies, I am sad because I killed her, and other people that matter to me are also sad. The island inhabitants continue living happy lives, but their happiness will not affect the rest of us.

What incentive is there for me to spare the islanders' lives?

[purnell]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We have to define "right" and "wrong" before we can go any further. I want to hear someone give me a good definition of them without telling me that it's what God wants us to do, or that I'm a bad person for not believing in right and wrong (even though I honestly don't know what they are)

[/ QUOTE ]

Something is good to the extent that it increases happiness(*) and/or decreases suffering(*).

Something is bad to the extent that it decreases happiness(*) and/or increases suffering(*).

An action is right to the extent that it was intended to do good.

An action is wrong to the extent that it was intended to do bad.

(*) "Happiness" means not just pleasure, but joy, peace, contentment, and well-being. Suffering is the opposite of that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why Kip, it appears that you are adopting Buddhism. Congrats! (absolutely no sarcasm intended)

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue">And not murdering innocent people takes precedence over saving the life of an individual, no matter how dear to heart. </font>

Takes precedence for who? Takes precedence for you? Takes precedence for the innocent people? Takes precedence for God?

Suppose the loved one was your child. Then it certainly doesn't take evolutionary precedence insofar as advancing one's own genes. If you are saying you would give up the life of your child for 10 strangers, then you are either not a parent, or I pity your child.

If not killing innocents were our only concern, there could be no winnable wars. A general could never commit 20 innocent soldiers live's to any cause.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow Stat,

I must say you floored me with this one. I’d have never put you on this.

RJT

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm being honest, which I don't think anyone who has a child is doing if they say they'd choose allowing their child to suffer a horrible death over 10 strangers.

I guess this is where being an athiest is helpful. I don't worry about God's wrath. But how much more pitiful are those who do, yet STILL save their child?

[/ QUOTE ]

Purnell, (I mean Stat, - edited)

I assumed you were being honest. If one would have no problem with murder then I would hope that he would at least be honest on an open forum –lol. It just surprised me is all I was saying.

(I think this illustrates well NotReady’s point from a while back; that he was trying to make (yet few seemed to get): If … (can’t remember exact context) then murder is OK

RJT

[purnell]

No biggie, but you are talking to lestat, not me. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
No biggie, but you are talking to lestat, not me. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL - oops, late night at weekly poker game.

RJT

[sweetjazz]

Are you saying that the reason you shouldn't be killed is not because you will be denied the opportunity to live out your life but because it will make your mom cry?

How do you vaporize 200 people and they don't suffer? Even if they don't feel the pain of dying (which I assume is what you were getting at), they are denied the possibility of living their happy lives. Kip's definition (which I don't think is satisfactory, but that's another matter) does not say anything about good being the increase of happiness that affects us. He makes it fairly explicit that suffering does not just mean feeling pain, but includes the denial of future pleasure and well-being.

[Lestat]

Also, if I'm not mistaken, doesn't God do a lot of murdering? Of course, I'm sure any theist would tell me it's ok when God does it.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
How do you vaporize 200 people and they don't suffer? Even if they don't feel the pain of dying (which I assume is what you were getting at), they are denied the possibility of living their happy lives. Kip's definition (which I don't think is satisfactory, but that's another matter) does not say anything about good being the increase of happiness that affects us. He makes it fairly explicit that suffering does not just mean feeling pain, but includes the denial of future pleasure and well-being.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but why should I care?

I know that sounds cruel, and I really hope no one answers with a "god you're a horrible person" or "you're stupid" or "you're a selfish jerk" or something like that. The fact is that I am on this Earth for a brief period of time. I want to enjoy that time. Eventually I'll be dead, and the ride will come to an end.

I don't care about what someone says is "moral" or not any more than I care that fellatio is against the law. Please explain why I should care about something that doesn't affect my life when something that does affect my life is at stake.

Again, I DON'T want to be judged by someone's pompous morality. I want an explanation.

[sweetjazz]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue"> Based on your logic, nothing is right or wrong. Obviously, any time we can take an action we also have the option of not taking the action. And whatever our decision is, some people will benefit and others will not.</font>

This is exactly what I'm saying. Morality is not set in stone. You cannot say what is morally right for me, any more than I can say what is morally right for you.

<font color="blue">The point is that people have basic rights. </font>

Actually they don't. There are no basic earthly rights. You might have the rights that certain societies might give you, but the OP took society out of the equation. Does a person have the right not to be struck by lightning? Does a gazelle have the right not to be killed by a lion? Where are these earthly rights which you speak of? Are they written down somewhere?

Societal laws might guide us along, but at the core we area guided by our own laws when it comes to morality. A recent poster suggested he'd have no problem keeping a million dollar jackpot won with a friend's money, if his friend would never find out about it. Personally, I could never do that. But he sets his own laws when it comes to morality. I don't.

Personally, I think morality should normally strive to benefit the greater cause. In this case, my loved one is the greater cause (to me). Now change it to 100 children who suffer terrible deaths, or an entire village or city getting wiped out, and I'd probably make a different decision.

In the end, we are alone in the universe when it comes to moral values. There is no right or wrong. IMO-

[/ QUOTE ]

I appreciate your sharing your point of view, and I think your ideas on this matter are very interesting. Definitely stuff for me to think about.

I agree with you that morality is not independent of societal norms and values. So morality is not set in stone in that sense. There are some things which are definitely ambiguous, or contain some amount of good and bad. Part of what makes the situation of the OP hard to wrap your mind around is that using the death ray has a good aspect to it, namely saving your loved one.

But your claim is more radical. You assert that if I were to go shoot Celine Dion, that she might think it is wrong, you might think it is wrong, but her opinion and your opinion are no more meaningful than my thought that it was right. My action is disrespectful of human life, breaks an implicit agreement that we all make living in society, and is patently unfair to Celine Dion's interests. These are all parts of the concept of "wrong".

The fact that I cannot spell out exactly what is right and wrong and that there will always be some difficulty determining what is right and what is wrong doesn't mean right and wrong are meaningless concepts, any more than the fact that I cannot spell out exactly what love is and that there will always be some disagreement as to what exactly love is mean that love is a meaningless concept.

Anyway, I think your perspective is interesting and that you are on to something. However, I think that your claim that it follows that there is no right and no wrong (ever) is too strong.

(Final thought: Maybe this analogy is useful. People are currently debating which team is better: USC or Texas. There are some good reasons to think that each team is the best team, and it is hard to think that anybody knows right now for sure which team is better. But I think there is a hypothetical way we could test which team is better. The teams would simply play a series of games, and the team that won more often would be the better team. I think it is meaningful to say that, given enough games, we could decide which team is better. Of course, we might never be able to actually test the idea in the real world -- it might take hundreds of games and injuries from the early games could affect the outcome of later games. So we will likely never know for certain which team is better. But that does not mean it is right to say that neither team is better than the other. All that we can say is that it is not currently possible to determine, with absolute certainty, which team is better.)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How do you vaporize 200 people and they don't suffer? Even if they don't feel the pain of dying (which I assume is what you were getting at), they are denied the possibility of living their happy lives. Kip's definition (which I don't think is satisfactory, but that's another matter) does not say anything about good being the increase of happiness that affects us. He makes it fairly explicit that suffering does not just mean feeling pain, but includes the denial of future pleasure and well-being.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but why should I care?

I know that sounds cruel, and I really hope no one answers with a "god you're a horrible person" or "you're stupid" or "you're a selfish jerk" or something like that. The fact is that I am on this Earth for a brief period of time. I want to enjoy that time. Eventually I'll be dead, and the ride will come to an end.

I don't care about what someone says is "moral" or not any more than I care that fellatio is against the law. Please explain why I should care about something that doesn't affect my life when something that does affect my life is at stake.

Again, I DON'T want to be judged by someone's pompous morality. I want an explanation.

[/ QUOTE ]

2 reasons I can think of:

1) Most people would feel quite awful if they knowingly killed 200 innocent people. But if you wouldn't then...

2) Reciprocity. What goes around, comes around. Not always. You may very well get away with it. But, people usually treat you, the way you treat them (and other people). So, if you don't care about annihilating an entire island of innocent people... perhaps someone else won't care about annihilating you and your loved ones. Kantian ethics. We act in a way that would maximize happiness if everyone were to act in the same way. Prisoner's Dilemma. Cooperation is better, even if you gain more happiness by defecting.

[ QUOTE ]
Kip's definition (which I don't think is satisfactory, but that's another matter) does not say anything about good being the increase of happiness that affects us. He makes it fairly explicit that suffering does not just mean feeling pain, but includes the denial of future pleasure and well-being.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is correct. I'd like to hear your definitions, though. And why you don't think mine are satisfactory. In another thread (such as this one (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&amp;Board=scimathphil&amp;Number=3917847 )) if you wish?

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, if I'm not mistaken, doesn't God do a lot of murdering? Of course, I'm sure any theist would tell me it's ok when God does it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don’t get me wrong, I am not arguing with your opinion. I was simply surprise with it. In fact, if I were atheist I might very well have the same opinion.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How do you vaporize 200 people and they don't suffer? Even if they don't feel the pain of dying (which I assume is what you were getting at), they are denied the possibility of living their happy lives. Kip's definition (which I don't think is satisfactory, but that's another matter) does not say anything about good being the increase of happiness that affects us. He makes it fairly explicit that suffering does not just mean feeling pain, but includes the denial of future pleasure and well-being.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but why should I care?

I know that sounds cruel, and I really hope no one answers with a "god you're a horrible person" or "you're stupid" or "you're a selfish jerk" or something like that. The fact is that I am on this Earth for a brief period of time. I want to enjoy that time. Eventually I'll be dead, and the ride will come to an end.

I don't care about what someone says is "moral" or not any more than I care that fellatio is against the law. Please explain why I should care about something that doesn't affect my life when something that does affect my life is at stake.

Again, I DON'T want to be judged by someone's pompous morality. I want an explanation.

[/ QUOTE ]

2 reasons I can think of:

1) Most people would feel quite awful if they knowingly killed 200 innocent people. But if you wouldn't then...

2) Reciprocity. What goes around, comes around. Not always. You may very well get away with it. But, people usually treat you, the way you treat them (and other people). So, if you don't care about annihilating an entire island of innocent people... perhaps someone else won't care about annihilating you and your loved ones. Kantian ethics. We act in a way that would maximize happiness if everyone were to act in the same way. Prisoner's Dilemma. Cooperation is better, even if you gain more happiness by defecting.

[/ QUOTE ]


I like your answer, Kip. Good job /images/graemlins/smile.gif

I agree with both of these statements. The reason that I set up the island death ray scenario as I did is because it allows us to kill WITHOUT these negative reprocussions...the people will not reciprocate anything either way, and the method of killing is so depersonalized that it makes the emotional reprocussions much less. I think it's safe to say though that if someone isn't going to be bothered by this emotionally, the death ray is the correct choice.

[r3vbr]

I'd rather the whole african, american and asian continents to dissapear, with everyone in it, than to have my mother/father/brother dead. And it's not even close.

[ QUOTE ]
The reason that I set up the island death ray scenario as I did is because it allows us to kill WITHOUT these negative reprocussions...the people will not reciprocate anything either way, and the method of killing is so depersonalized that it makes the emotional reprocussions much less.

[/ QUOTE ]

For me, it would be pretty hard for me to push a button and kill 200 innocent people if only to save the life of one loved one. I doubt I could be happy living with the knowledge of what I had done.

But, anyway...

Reciprocity needen't be given by those to whom you are inflicting the harm. Another person could find out what you did, and treat you with disdain for it. Or, kill you and your family because you inadvertantly killed one of their loved ones that was visiting the island. Or an alien race could wipe out the earth because we are in the way of their intergalactic highway, and failed their "humane" test because of your death ray episode. Thanks for killing the human race, man. Thanks a lot.

Also... just so you know... if I were to know you were going to use the death ray to save your loved one by killing 200 innocent people... I'd kill you before letting you do it. I think society would see it as justified, much like killing a terrorist trying to hijack a plane 9/11 style.

So, maybe there's your 3rd reason. Because someone might kill you to stop you from doing it, or punish/kill you after they find out you did it.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The reason that I set up the island death ray scenario as I did is because it allows us to kill WITHOUT these negative reprocussions...the people will not reciprocate anything either way, and the method of killing is so depersonalized that it makes the emotional reprocussions much less.

[/ QUOTE ]

For me, it would be pretty hard for me to push a button and kill 200 innocent people if only to save the life of one loved one. I doubt I could be happy living with the knowledge of what I had done.

But, anyway...

Reciprocity needen't be given by those to whom you are inflicting the harm. Another person could find out what you did, and treat you with disdain for it. Or, kill you and your family because you inadvertantly killed one of their loved ones that was visiting the island. Or an alien race could wipe out the earth because we are in the way of their intergalactic highway, and failed their "humane" test because of your death ray episode. Thanks for killing the human race, man. Thanks a lot.

Also... just so you know... if I were to know you were going to use the death ray to save your loved one by killing 200 innocent people... I'd kill you before letting you do it. I think society would see it as justified, much like killing a terrorist trying to hijack a plane 9/11 style.

So, maybe there's your 3rd reason. Because someone might kill you to stop you from doing it, or punish/kill you after they find out you did it.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. The island Death Ray scenario is anonymous, inconsequential, hypothetical, and practically impossible. It eliminates the factors that otherwise deter us from killing people, and asks what we would do if these common factors were not an issue. No one's going to punish you for the Death Ray blast. That's the point.

[ QUOTE ]
No one's going to punish you for the Death Ray blast. That's the point.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, but the real world doesn't work like this. You and/or your offspring may very well be punished for such a heinous crime against humanity. If there is no correlation between the real world and a hypothetical scenario... then flying pigs can chop down trees in a sub-zero Hades and nobody would hear it.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No one's going to punish you for the Death Ray blast. That's the point.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, but the real world doesn't work like this. You and/or your offspring may very well be punished for such a heinous crime against humanity. If there is no correlation between the real world and a hypothetical scenario... then flying pigs can chop down trees in a sub-zero Hades and nobody would hear it.

[/ QUOTE ]

...

Jesus Kip, take a philosophy class or something.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No one's going to punish you for the Death Ray blast. That's the point.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, but the real world doesn't work like this. You and/or your offspring may very well be punished for such a heinous crime against humanity. If there is no correlation between the real world and a hypothetical scenario... then flying pigs can chop down trees in a sub-zero Hades and nobody would hear it.

[/ QUOTE ]

...

Jesus Kip, take a philosophy class or something.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[purnell]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd rather the whole african, american and asian continents to dissapear, with everyone in it, than to have my mother/father/brother dead. And it's not even close.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. I'd give up my own life, but I don't think I could take another. I guess we see this issue very differently.

[Solami17]

I get to save the one I love at the cost of 10 people children who may not even make it past early adulthood...thats a tuffy

[mr_whomp]

HMKpoker, theres two ways to go here. Utilitarian, (the greatest good); or deontology (outcome matters less than the morality of the action itself).

Actually 4 ways to go...

Utilitarian
deontology
virtue-based (should do whatever a person i look up to as a role model would do)
divine belief (should do whatever god says to do)

so your answer to this question depends on which of these you use to frame your ethical/moral belief system. I think also that a utilitarian (greater good) could go both ways on the issue.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]

HMKpoker, theres two ways to go here. Utilitarian, (the greatest good); or deontology (outcome matters less than the morality of the action itself).

Actually 4 ways to go...

Utilitarian
deontology
virtue-based (should do whatever a person i look up to as a role model would do)
divine belief (should do whatever god says to do)

so your answer to this question depends on which of these you use to frame your ethical/moral belief system. I think also that a utilitarian (greater good) could go both ways on the issue.

[/ QUOTE ]


No, there's more.

Feminist (that which most advances the equality of women in society)

PETA-ian (that which helps liberate the cute animals most)

Lollypop Guildian (that which helps promote the existence, and eventually hostil takeover of the world by midgets from Oz)

Discordian (five pounds of flax)

l337 h4X0rian (7h47 \/\/h1(h pWns t3h m057 n00bs!!!!!!!11eleven)

BigSoonerFan Mockian (that which furthers my plight to ridicule BigSoonerFan)

[nigelloring]

My colleague in the office said he's rather let his loved one die than use the death ray on even one individual. I said that he could prevent a bunch of random starving people from dying right now by donating $500 to a charity, which he promptly did right over the interrrnet.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
My colleague in the office said he's rather let his loved one die than use the death ray on even one individual. I said that he could prevent a bunch of random starving people from dying right now by donating $500 to a charity, which he promptly did right over the interrrnet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your man is quite a generous fellow ^_^

[hmkpoker]

A new twist on the question:

Some of you (KipBond included) have said that part of the reason for your vote to Death Ray the starving African children was because, well, they're starving. Based on the assumptions provided, they are probably not going to lead as great, fulfilling, or happy a life as the person you are saving.

So...now for a question that will make me seem even more horrible:

Is the life of a young, healthy, priviledged and smart white American boy worth the lives of two impoverished American boys?

[mr_whomp]

yeah but i don't know if those quite hold up to logic as well as the four i mentioned. Personally i think most responses to this thread fell into the Utilitarian/deontological category with a few people going with divine belief.

[ QUOTE ]
Is the life of a young, healthy, priviledged and smart white American boy worth the lives of two impoverished American boys?

[/ QUOTE ]

Worth is subjective. I think it would be immoral to kill the 2 impoverished (yet not starving) kids in order to save the life of 1 non-impoverished kid.

[mr_whomp]

Why a white american?

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Why a white american?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because we're so damn sexy.

*flaunt*

[BigSoonerFan]

[ QUOTE ]
BigSoonerFan Mockian (that which furthers my plight to ridicule BigSoonerFan)

[/ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately I don't have nearly as much time to ridicule you. Fortunately the idiocy of your posts stand out on its own.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
BigSoonerFan Mockian (that which furthers my plight to ridicule BigSoonerFan)

[/ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately I don't have nearly as much time to ridicule you. Fortunately the idiocy of your posts stand out on its own.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ironically, it took you more characters to announce that you don't have time to ridicule me than I used in my latest jab.

[Dominic]

i don't even think I thought about this for one second. Death Ray it is!

And in case I have some remorse later, I can always justify my choice by saying no one suffered.

[Dominic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So a random innocent child's life is worth more to you than the most important person in your life?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course not, and that has nothing to do with it. Do you know what the definition of murder is? Do you even think that murder is morally wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

what if your loved one went on to discover a cure for cancer? Is hitting the death ray still immoral?

[Dominic]

there are no moral absolutes.
morality is subjective.
life is NOT precious or rare - exept mine.

but I would still LIKE to believe we are capable of altruistic acts - even if, in the long run, we cannot sustain the ideals we wish humanity stood for.

[PokerAmateur4]

[ QUOTE ]


I suppose you'd make the decision to allow your child to die a horrible death? Or are you one of those sob artists who just likes to wax poetically about morality?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sat shoots, he scores!

"If this is an accurate representation of people's feelings, then it certainly illustrates the moral decline that seems to be accelerating of late. I've always said that man's biggest deficiency is selfishness and this certainly reflects that. "

BSF are you for real? How have you been monitoring and analyzing the accelearation rate of society's morality over time? What criterion do you set for something being moral? It is moral when you say it is?

As for why I am sure you are a hypocrite, how much of your money goes towards starving children? I'm guessing but I don't think it would cost more than $300 to save 10 african children's lives for a year.
What was the last thing which you purchased? How much did that cost, in dollars or in the length of time it could of sustained an impoverished child. Finally why was that purchase a more moral use of your resources then someone's life?

[BigSoonerFan]

[ QUOTE ]
Ironically, it took you more characters to announce that you don't have time to ridicule me than I used in my latest jab.

[/ QUOTE ]

I took a little extra time.

Straight from the presses, from Business Week Online:

Top 10 Most Generous Philanthropists
1. Gordon and Betty Moore
2. Bill and Melinda Gats
3. Warren Buffett
4. George Soros
5. Eli and Edythe Broad
6. James and Virginia Stowers
7. The Walton Family
8. Alfren Mann
9. Michael and Susan Dell
10. Bigsoonerfan

Least Generous Philanthropists
6,523,563,222 OJ Simpson
6,524,563,223 David Duke
6,524,563,224 Harry Karavan

[hmkpoker]

So I guess as the 6,524,563,224th least generous philanthropist, I'm somewhere near the top /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[DcifrThs]

jeez, you pro lifers /images/graemlins/wink.gif

seriously though. this poll has to do with the UTILITY of human life to the poll taker, not the VALUE of human life in general. so the utility of this most polltakers' loved ones is higher than that of the utility of 10 african children living.

change the poll to include one fewer person, but make the other 9 the supreme court justices and see what happens.

Barron

[sweetjazz]

Barron,

Despite the title of the thread, your observation that the discussion has centered on utility is spot on.

However, the poll is complicated because it asks what action would one take, and that action depends heavily, if not entirely, on which you consider more important in making a decision like this -- the value of human life or the utility of the specific human lives in question.

I am very surprised that so many people feel that it is okay to base the decision on the utility of the specific human lives involved, and that they argue it is morally acceptable to do so (or, at least, that they cannot be fairly criticized for acting immorally).

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
I am very surprised that so many people feel that it is okay to base the decision on the utility of the specific human lives involved, and that they argue it is morally acceptable to do so

[/ QUOTE ]

I throw out morality. It's meaningless. Why should I care about what's "moral" when lives are at stake? There's a little more critical thinking necessary here beyond dogmatic morality.

[ QUOTE ]
(or, at least, that they cannot be fairly criticized for acting immorally).

[/ QUOTE ]

Life's not fair. Criticize me all you want. I don't care because there are more important issues at hand.