The Value of Human Life (a poll for BigSooner)

[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.