I doubt my own life would change, what with sleeping 18 hours a day and all.
Once the first seditious elements are crushed, it may become actually stable.
The video I linked to above addresses that exact scenario. As far as I can see, the question of consensus on that issue is interesting, but the really interesting question is why do we feel that that kind of strict “vulcan” logic is not moral, even though we can think up several equivalent scenarios where it clearly is? Or in other words; are we really certain that NOT throwing the guy in front of the train is the right course of action?
Once we kill each and every human, we’ll also have achieved stability. Not to be flippant, but I fail to see how stability is a moral goal. It certainly can be a means to a moral end, but that’s about it.
A (reasonable) lack of trust in the judgment and especially motivations of the person doing the sacrificing, I expect. When one person sacrifices themselves to save others they get called heroic, after all. When someone decides that you need to be the sacrifice and they get to live there’s a certain natural suspicion of bias.
That’s a justifiable argument, but… In the video I posted, the contrasting scenario was:
A train is running with the driver unconscious (or in some other way unable to stop it).
There are 4 workers on the tracks and the train will run over them if you do nothing.
You are at a switch and you can redirect the train
If you redirect the train, it will run over 1 worker (who’s working on the other fork of the tracks).
In the end, the result is the same: you’re sacrificing one person to save four, yet most people would find this scenario much easier to justify than the one were you actually push someone in front of a train. The point of the scenario is that moral decisions are based mostly on emotion instead of the objective results, and it suggests that justification is mostly an after-the-fact affair.
My view would be that we have moral instincts, and in this case they “judge” the train scenario as more “moral” because you are dealing with diverting an unstoppable force rather than acting yourself; you are one step back in the responsibility chain, you aren’t the instigator of the situation. And that affects how likely you are to be ultimately to blame and how suspect your judgment and motivations are.
Emotions are involved because emotions are deeply involved with human judgment. With no emotions you’d have no morality and wouldn’t care that you didn’t. You wouldn’t even build a moral system of your own that didn’t depend on emotion, because you wouldn’t care.
“Ancient Chinese tyrant, huh?”
Just popping back in to post a link to this NY Times op-ed: Morals Without God? - The New York Times
If you can get past the stuff about God, the writer has some good examples of chimps and monkeys acting in a moral fashion (sharing food, opening doors, breaking up fights), that makes it clear (to me, anyway) that we have morals baked right in.
“We need more despotic intellectual culling!”
Ah, Marley… what a hot-shot…