A philosophical/ethical question...

Post Reply New Topic

an easy no for me to the original question.

recently a friend asked me something like "if you knew the world was so overpopulated that it could only sustain itself if 70% of people died, and there was a button you could push that would kill 70%, would you do it?"

i don't mean with 70% fewer people we would have enough resources to sustain the population, i mean the survival of the earth itself depended on it. (and you could choose these 70%, or it could be random)

i said no.

Would I sacrifice the life of one for the greater good? Of course. Nothing is gained without sacrifice.

So you would brutally torture and murder one innocent person if only the HAPPINESS (again...NOT their mere survival) of 100 people depended on it?

There are so many ways of contextualizing this question…. Its to vague.

But I would say no to the question the way it was asked.

I couldn’t care less about the happiness of the 100 people. And the reality is that the 100 people will most likely still eventually end up being unhappy even if you tortured and murdered the one individual…. Seriously what the hell is happiness? Does the torture of the one individual stipulate perpetuated happiness… or is it just happiness for the time being, but not forever happiness.

And the 70 % question is funny to me because honestly if I was given the choice to push a red button to eliminate 100 % of the human population to save the earth I would so do it…. Screw 70 % I would go for all humanity… Humanity is earths disease, and the earth will eventually heal its self after the 100 % elimination of all humanity….

It sounds wrong but screw it I’m just being honest.

As somebody who's been grouped into "the disposable minority" (I'm not talking about AS; I'm talking about something on a completely different level of suffering altogether) my answer is a resounding no. I know what it's like to be screwed over for somebody else's happiness (in this case, represented by financial gain) and... I'll leave it at that because I'm getting pissed off.

As for the 70% question, that's a different matter entirely. I view torture and death as two completely different things: death is no big deal; torture is the most serious offense on Earth. As long as those 70% of the people die humanely, I really couldn't care less. Most people just get in the way and serve no perceivable benefit to society. For that matter, most people seem hellbent on driving us to extinction.

I'm surprised nobody asked if this person did anything wrong. That's a case worth asking, as I'm sure it'll have an impact on some people's judgment.

That said, this really sounds like a case of forcing someone to be 'Jesus', and to bear all suffering. I've heard of a few plotlines that center around stuff like that.

The question presupposes a simple dilemma--either brutally torture and murder an innocent, or deprive one hundred of survival and happiness.

But these hypothetical speculations are really example of of reductio ad absurdem. The moral and ethical questions facing each person cannot be reduced to a simple binary function. Is there no other way to provide for the survival and happiness of the hundred? Is there an alternative less than brutal torture and murder? The reality of human existence is that our moral and ethical decisions present myriad options, along a whole spectrum of values.

I disagree with the analogy that the OP has made from The Ones Who Walk away from Omelas. My preferred analogy is not to the people who are at the margins or outside of our society, but rather those things that exist within our (supposedly) happy and prosperous society that we are aware of and that we choose to ignore. In some cases we may describe them as "necessary evils" or "unavoidable evils." Sometimes we make public disavowals of them, (we "kick the child") but then we lock the door and go on with our (supposedly) happy and prosperous lives. When Plato conceived of his Republic, he conceded that a Noble Lie would be required to ensure that the guardian class will have a distaste for power. Our society is full of express and implicit lies that keep the wheels on the cart--these are the children in our collective basement. So, to my mind, this is not a call to justify our continued existence.

I prefer the view that says that within each human existence lies significant value. The moral and ethical imperative is not to stop procreating, but rather to create a society in which all individuals have the greatest likelihood of reaching their full potential.

While I doubt I would actually do it, I would be sorely tempted to eliminate 100% of humanity via the "red button".

Like yourself....I view the human species as a disease which is unworthy of the gift of life. But also....I would sort of view it as a "mercy killing" for the billions who know little but suffering. Those who aren't suffering are often directly responsible for the suffering of those who are and ones who aren't responsible are doing little or nothing to alleviate suffering.

But alas....i'm not interested in playing god. Authority has not been given to me to determine who lives and who dies. I'm OK with Jack Kevorkian-style assisted suicide. I feel that only the individual has the right to take their own life regardless of how much or how little they are suffering. Still....humanity and all it's unspeakable miseries and injustices digusts me to no end and thus, the aforementioned temptation would be there.


So let's just say while I wouldn't want to be PERSONALLY responsible for the death of anyone, let alone billions, I can't honestly say i'd be too broken up if I knew a gamma ray burst was going to wipe us all out within 24 hours.

Well if you believe that happiness ultimately lies within your own abilities, then even if you killed that one, the happiness of the others cannot be guaranteed because something else might come along to make them unhappy again, so no I am not going to torture and kill anyone.

Anyway, I cannot kill a spider so I probably couldn't do it even if I wanted to, although I would spray a wasp to death because I have serious allergies and it could be a threat to my life.

Whether I would be able to kill a person who may or may not be a threat to my life I cannot tell, though I think in that situation I would need to be able to think quickly and I would probably stop to analyse the situation and want to think it through

Only for happiness? No way.

It reminds me this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

Do you believe happiness ultimately lies within one's own abilities? If so....what do you mean by that? Do you mean that our innate abilities will DETERMINE how happy we are? Or do you mean that each of us makes a conscious and willful decision to be happy (or not) irrespective of our innate abilities or lack thereof?

In other words....do you believe that happiness/unhappiness is something we choose out of our own free will?

From my own experience as well as my observation of others, I don't think it's POSSIBLE for some people to be happy no matter what their circumstances. By the same token, I don't believe it's possible for some people to be unhappy.

Like everything else.....I believe this ill-defined and subjective thing we call "happiness" is largely determined by neurobiological (including genetic and possibly epigenectic factors ofcourse) factors beyond the control of the individual.

Well, I was thinking more along the lines of global/national security, freedom, liberating an oppressed nation, etc. But in terms of happiness? As in "Oh! I just ate a candy bar!" happiness? No, then I would not. Only if theres a means to the end.........greater than that of eating a candy bar.

My entire thread here reminds me of why i'll never comprehend the supposed "wisdom" in the world's spiritual traditions and why NONE of these traditions have solved the problems of "evil" and suffering to my mind.

Take Buddhism for example:

Suffering's causes and solution
The Four Noble Truths
Main article: Four Noble Truths
According to the Pali Tipitaka, the Four Noble Truths were the first teaching of Gautama Buddha after attaining Nirvana.[29] They are sometimes considered as containing the essence of the Buddha's teachings and are presented in the manner of a medical diagnosis and remedial prescription—a style common at that time:[citation needed]

1.Life as we know it ultimately is or leads to suffering/uneasiness (dukkha) in one way or another.
2.Suffering is caused by craving. This is often expressed as a deluded clinging to a certain sense of existence, to selfhood, or to the things or phenomena that we consider the cause of happiness or unhappiness. Craving also has its negative aspect, i.e. one craves that a certain state of affairs not exist.
3.Suffering ends when craving ends. This is achieved by eliminating delusion, thereby reaching a liberated state of Enlightenment (bodhi);
4.Reaching this liberated state is achieved by following the path laid out by the Buddha.


WHAT???


So suffering is caused by craving (or if you prefer...desire) and we're just not supposed to have ANY desires/cravings AT ALL if we wish to avoid suffering?

So the DESIRE to be free of the pain which results from hot pins being stuck in my eyeballs qualifies as a "deluded craving" according to Buddhist doctrine?!?!?!?

The desire to be free of grinding poverty and all the suffering it usually brings is also a "deluded craving"???

So suffering of anykind in human beings is ultimately just a delusion? Just a mere state of mind we can all learn to control by "eliminating delusion"???

And the ultimate point of existence is to acheive some vague and undefinable "liberated state of enlightenment"???

I think it just might be the "enlightened" Buddhists who are the delusional ones. Maybe they just happen to be people who, for whatever reason, have some great internal capacity for self-deceit and self-delusion. If so, then in that sense they are fortunate. But it's a bit unreasonable expect EVERYONE to have that same capacity. I happen to believe the suicide rates would be far higher than they are if millions of people had less of a capacity for self-deceit and self-delusion.

Consider what was said by the OP in the "Total Perspective Vortex" thread:

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt123773.html




Religion/Spirituality seems to be one of the greatest enablers of self-deception and self-delusion. As if i'm saying anything new or original here

Oh well....carry on.

The recent death of Type O Negative singer/guitarist Peter Steele seems to be a good illustrative case of the human DESPERATION for self-deceit and self-delusion. Consider what Steele, supposedly a convinced atheist for decades,had to say about his supposed recent conversion to Roman Catholicism

I say "supposed" and "supposedly" because regardless of what Wikipedia (or any other source) has to say about Steele's religious beliefs, I obviously have no way of knowing whether these claims about his beliefs are true or not. It really doesn't matter though as i'm sure many former atheists/materialists have used a similar line of reasoning to rationalize their new-found theism/spiritual beliefs:

In April 2007, Steele revealed that he began identifying himself as Roman Catholic in recent years, after decades of self-professed atheism. In an interview with Decibel magazine, Steele explained “There are no atheists in foxholes, they say, and I was a foxhole atheist for a long time. But after going through a midlife crisis and having many things change very quickly, it made me realize my mortality. And when you start to think about death, you start to think about what’s after it. And then you start hoping there is a God. For me, it’s a frightening thought to go nowhere. I also can’t believe that people like Stalin and Hitler are gonna go to the same place as Mother Teresa.”[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Steele


Well....in my own way....I feel like i'm a foxhole too and yet I remain an atheist/materialist.



Unlike the late Mr. Steele.....I have not been able to make that leap (an illogical leap in my estimation) from wholly materialist/atheistic view of reality to... well....something else. I don't see any reason whatsoever to believe that Stalin and Hitler aren't in the "same place" (oblivious nothingness for want of a better term) as Mother Teresa is.

I only wish that I could....indeed...I believe self-deception and self-denial are beneficial to us humans in certain cases. My life might be significantly more tolerable if I was capable of making that same sort of leap as Mr. Steele supposedly did.

I think that when we are chemically balanced and have done all we can to be happy, then there is every good reason to think we can be happy using all of our own ways of thinking and being.

I also acknowledge that some people have chemical imbalances that would affect that and that some peoples circumstances would make that extremely difficult, so ultimately, and I mean by altering the mental state with medicines if need be and changing our lives for the better as much as we can, then we have every chance of being happy.

I do think that a lot of what we call happiness is within our own minds and the decision to think positively and see things in a good way is within all of us, though some people need to be taught how to use their minds in a way that enhances their wellbeing.

If you have a very negative upbringing where people are always very negative, it would be difficult to grow up using your own mind in a positive way, that way of thinking negatively would be a habit, so anyone with that kind of background would be helped by being around positive people and being shown how to think differently, in a way that makes the world look like a better place.

Milgram experiment….LOL Makes me cringe and laugh at the same time…damb sheeple