The Value of Human Life (a poll for BigSooner)

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

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.