A friend of mine is taking a sociology class this semester and his professor recently posed what I thought was an interesting question.
The scenario is this:
An alien race comes to the US and offers us inexhaustible clean energy supplies, cures to diseases, relief of national debt, etc. Basically just insert whatever you think it would take to make the country better. All they ask for in return is that we give them the entire black population of the US. To give some perspective according to the CIA World Factbook that would currently come to about 38.15 million people. To avoid controversy (and to avoid making the decision themselves) the government puts it up to a national popular vote needing a 2/3 majority to win. Another thing to note is that there is complete ambiguity as to the fate of those being taken, for all we know they could be going to a utopia, or to the dinner table (It’s a cook book!).*
The question is simply: Would you vote for this proposal?
Now what I found more interesting than the question was that in a class of 17 people my friend was the only one to say yes. Before the class was able to stone him for being an insensitive jerk (and don’t get me wrong he is an insensitive jerk, but this answer wasn’t coming from that personality trait) he was able to explain himself, but no one in the class agreed with him in the end.
Personally I would have said yes as well, and as my friend pointed out it has absolutely nothing to do with race. It is about giving up 12.9% of the population to benefit the other 87.1%. If the question was changed to say a random 12.9% of the population I would still vote for it. Heck, if they named a specific 38.15 million people and I was on the list I would still vote for it. I think in the end it is a question of what you find more important, the good of the individual, or the good of the group, and whether one equals the other.
Now I can see why with the question specifying the black population there is an initial gut reaction to say no, zeroing in on a single racial group does seem to add a certain level of moral reprehensibility to it. It feels like you are throwing yourself in with the white supremacist voting block. But even after discussion and consideration still only one of 17 was for it. So I thought I would pose the question to the Dopers, how and why would you vote?
*For readers not in the US replace the black population with any similarly proportioned ethnic group in you country
If I chose the wrong forum for this topic I apologize profusely and beg you to show mercy to a newcomer.
If you’re just looking for personal opinions on how to vote on the issue, I think the forum you want is IMHO.
If you’re looking for a debate on the moral principles involved, this is the place.
While I agree with you that the race issue is to some extent a red herring, I don’t think that takes away the problem with a “yes” vote. In particular, I think any such decision would probably violate the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, the one about slavery or involuntary servitude. Consigning any of your fellow citizens to the complete control of a group of aliens, whatever the race of the people involved or the nature of the bribe offered, would pretty much have to count as inflicting involuntary servitude on them, AFAICT.
And that, IMO, is also why such an act would be unacceptable, even if a majority of citizens voted for it, and even if the selection wasn’t race-based. No fair violating a minority’s human rights, even if the majority approves and even if we get groovy new technology as a result.
I don’t think the racial factor is meaningful. It’s not morally acceptable to sacrifice even one innocent person for personal gain.
I also think it’s easier to yes if you (or your loved ones) aren’t part of the hypothetical group to be sacrificed. Would you be willing to BE part of the 12% who sacrifices for the rest? Would you be willing to allow your children to be part of that group?
I think the question has been already answered. If you believe that we all have rights (and I think we all do), it is reprehensible for the majority to single out a single group for extermination, experimentation, or alien transmograification even if the rest of the world would benefit. Is it moral to abduct a handful of people off the street and conduct medical experiments on them that would benefit billions?
What is it about white America that in the space of three days I’d read about two equally reprehensible hypotheticals concerning black infanticide to improve America’s crime rate stats and (de facto) black genocide to deal with America’s position as a fading superpower?
Post-Katrina viewpoint adjustment, I’d guess. “OMG, some people are black! Wow, look at all those black people. Did you know that New Orleans is over 60% black? Black black black black black black.” They’re just a little disoriented at the moment.
I think it would have been a more interesting question with race left out of the equation: would you sacrifice (or “dissappear”) 38 million random people? Including, perhaps, yourself or your loved ones?
That scenario is disturbingly similar to Hitler’s idea of getting rid of the Jews.
As Askia noted, in the wake of the flak over William Bennett’s recent remark, I’d be leery of even raising such a question hypothetically. The mere idea of getting rid of an entire racial group (perhaps especially African Americans) has so many offensive connotations and pushes so many hot buttons that it’s best not to go there.
But even without the racial angle:
One objection: How do we know the aliens actually can and will follow through on their offer to us?
Another: And even if they did, given human nature and the law of unintended consequences, I’m not so sure we wouldn’t end up no better than before they gave us those “blessings.”
Another: If among those being taken were your husband or wife, your child, or your close friend, how much inexhaustible clean energy would it take to compensate you for your loss?
First of all, it’s safe to assume that what will happen to the taken will be bad. The aliens are making a deal. If what was going to happen to the taken was good, the aliens would mention that, to make their position more appealing.
Now that that’s out of the way, the answer is no, of course we don’t. Human beings are ends in themselves, not means to an end. Even if we eliminate the racial aspect by considering some form of random lottery for, say, 10% of the population, it’s still reprehensible.
It’s part of the social contract that each human being has inalienable rights. Even if only one person was taken in this deal, it would still be wrong. It’s not even a question of voting. There are certain things that one does not vote on.
Look at it like this. Would you agree to it if it were your mother, your brother, your best friend, or your wife or husband? Could you look them in the eye while they were begging you to save them? Could you make some sort of sanctimonious utilitarian argument in that position? Well, everyone taken will be somebody’s mother, brother, best friend, or lifemate.
Perhaps there are some people who would say yes to the above questions. These people are monsters or, to use modern parlance, sociopaths. There are certain moral statements that are axiomatic if we’re to have a morality at all. First and foremost is that, again, individual human beings are ends, not means.
I had the same exact scenario presented in one of my classes. The difference was that she didn’t ask us vote on the matter, instead, the instructor told the scenario as a story and it included the entire black population in the world (rather than just the US). The rest of the story goes as follows:
As the last of the people of African descent enter the spaceship in chains, the President of the United States asked the head alien what they plan to do with the blacks. The alien replied, “Why paradise, of course. Their time in Hell has been officially been served.”
What is it about black America that when one white radio personality makes a remark indicating that he would oppose black infanticide as an immoral method to lower crime and a college professor (of indeterminate race) asks a question probing the ethics of his students and receives an overwhelming response to not banish the black population, they all decide that infanticide has been proposed as legitimate and the banishment must lead to genocide?
Oh, wait. It was not black America, it was one poster on a message board who happens to be black.
Bennet’s comments were stupid and he (deliberately?) misstated the point described in Freakonomics, but he actually was using the argument to indicate that the suggestion would be wrong to implement.
As to the Sociology course, if one wants to explore ethics, it is quite reasonable in a hypothetical to stack the deck in terms of making one’s actions harm only the “other” (for the purpose of testing the actual moral thought) and no group in the U.S. is as visibly “other” as blacks are.
I do think the racial factor is meaningful - because with that, it puts into stark relief disposing of a part of the population that has always been and is still (as evidenced by Bennet’s comments) considered disposable. It’s just another genocide of a minority group, and people have historically been able to turn a blind eye to that, especially when they’re promised some benefit when it’s all over.
For me, this is an absolutely different question than “would you be willing to turn over all the 18-27 year olds?” a group that is not as easily described as “them” by the majority of Americans.
My answer, either way, is still “no.”
Also, to you & your friend - why on earth do you believe these aliens? What makes you think they won’t turn and say “screw you, suckers!”
Ursula le Guin has written a more difficult take on this dilemma in The Ones who Walk Away from Omelas. I’d say that even in that extreme case, where you get a perfect utopia at the cost of one single individual, it’s wrong to sacrifice someone without their accept for others’ happiness. If you ask for, and get, volunteers, it’s OK.
Let’s say for the sake of example that it were me (or you, if you prefer). The rest of the…what’re we up to anyhow, 7 billion? …inhabitants of the planet have consigned me to something (they know not what, but they don’t know it to be benign) and as it turns out they’re torturing me. (Or you).
If I had been the one to make the decision/sacrifice (or you had done so), that’s one thing, and either of us might say “Yeah, do me, bring it on, my species shall benefit”.
But when it’s not with my consent (or yours), that’s just plain wrong, I don’t care how many others benefit.
I dunno. Where the heck is “white America”? Does it start start at 42 degrees N? Is Bo Gritz it’s titular head? If I tan too darkly on vacation will I be refused re-entry? :rolleyes:
Back to the OP, as a historical matter, we (the United States, and the Western world in general) have in fact written off millions of people as a sop to convenience and “advancement”, or in pursuit of some ideological goal. And in every case, we’ve eventually castigated and/or reversed ourselves for doing it, be it slavery, carpet bombing Southeat Asian nations, and so forth. In the end, we don’t get to the moral high ground by taking the low road; but nonetheless, we keep doing it.
It is “right”? Clearly the answer is no, notwithstanding the question of how we’d objectively distinguish “black” from “not-black” and the impact upon professional team sports that aren’t played on ice. In every case, the payback for our exchange hasn’t been a profit, any more than the permitted annexation of Czeckoslovokia resulted in “peace in our time.” But this is a rather simplistic question, even as a hypothetical poser, and its answer is a nonconundrum for anyone with the barest knowledge of history can command of ethics. A more complex and equivocal question is what if we were instructed to sacrifice a certain fraction of our population (on the basis of, say, earlobe length) in order to preserve the remainder?
I was thinking of that same story. (Which is also in Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov.) And even if they were volunteers, it’s still wrong to use others in this manner.
I dunno. I missed the last three Secret White America Meetings (SWAMs).
Count me in on the “Hell no” side. Or, even better, count me in on the “I’ll tell you my answer if it ever happens.” side. I can’t get past the part about giving up the entire <insert group here> population. Anyway, if the alien race really has that capability, they’d probably have the capability to welch. Reality always intrudes on these hypotheticals.
If things get too out of hand, we always have a hero to fix things.
