The Value of Human Life (a poll for BigSooner)

[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. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

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.