Parents - would you sacrifice SOMEONE ELSE'S life for your child?

[LonesomePolecat]

@Scumpup

Why we do something is as important as what we do.

I suspect the survivors would care little about your motives. Please explain the moral difference between yourself and a Serb militiaman engaged in an ethnic cleansing.

[Mijin]

@Crocodiles And Boulevards

Admit that it’s your fear of yours being threatened. Admit that it’s an equally cold calculus of broken social contracts, and of making sacrifice of an individual to feed the whole. Admit that it’s the survival of yours and yourself that you’re ultimately kowtowing to in your supposedly morally superior argument.

No, what you are saying is not how my mind works at all.

If I could bring about world peace by killing myself tomorrow* I would do it. Why? Because I actually care about society, for non-selfish reasons.

If all your actions are based on selfish motives, I feel sorry for you.

• Oh, and to block the obvious retorts, I’ll add that my action will be anonymous, and none of my friends or family will gain any notoriety from it.

[MrDibble]

@Crocodiles And Boulevards

Admit that it’s your fear of yours being threatened. Admit that it’s an equally cold calculus of broken social contracts, and of making sacrifice of an individual to feed the whole. Admit that it’s the survival of yours and yourself that you’re ultimately kowtowing to in your supposedly morally superior argument.

I’ll admit no such things.

I believe in better future humans - more selfless, more social, more peaceful, more intellectual. That’s always been my adult stance, before I had a family of my own to be worried about - the “me and mine” whose survival I want is the entire human race, not an isolated segment thereof. I think it’s essential for our long-term survival as a species that we isolate and contain the killer inside ourselves, just like I think we need to do something about the xenophobe, the misogynist and the capitalist in us all.

So no, no “Gotcha-ya!” for you.

[Scumpup]

@LonesomePolecat

I suspect the survivors would care little about your motives. Please explain the moral difference between yourself and a Serb militiaman engaged in an ethnic cleansing.

I suspect you are willfully pretending you don’t get this point. Serbian militiamen are motivated by ethnic hatred. I don’t hate the Australians_despite their having inflicted Foster’s Lager on the world_and wouldn’t eliminate them out of hatred. If it would save my daughter, they’re toast (with Vegemite?). If not, they can continue living their lives grilling shrimp, drinking bad beer, and other Australian pursuits free from any kind of interference from me.

[ch4rl3s]

@LonesomePolecat

No, I think it goes beyond mere cynical estimates of self-interest, however sub-conscious. I think humans are social animals who have a need to belong to a group, to have respect and acceptance from others, and I think we suffer when we are denied a way of satisfying that need. Of course, obviously cynical self-interest is still often a critical factor in human behavior.

I wasn’t talking “mere cynical estimates of self-interest.” Nobody sits down to do the calculations consciously. I was talking about the working of our brains, and how groups of neurons fire in response to something, thereby putting a “value” to it. Such as that need to belong to a group, or respect and acceptance. and the negative value, (pain,) we feel when we even think we might be denied that need.

That feeling of need is a value your brain has put on something based on the firing of groups of neurons. And we weigh one need against another and make decisions based on what is more important to us. (Sometimes we even do it consciously… but not often.)

[LonesomePolecat]

@Scumpup

I suspect you are willfully pretending you don’t get this point. Serbian militiamen are motivated by ethnic hatred. I don’t hate the Australians_despite their having inflicted Foster’s Lager on the world_and wouldn’t eliminate them out of hatred. If it would save my daughter, they’re toast (with Vegemite?). If not, they can continue living their lives grilling shrimp, drinking bad beer, and other Australian pursuits free from any kind of interference from me.

I suspect you’re the one who’s willfully pretending not to grasp the point. Those Serb militiamen believe their actions are justified by a desperate situation. Your action would be motivated by the same belief. So what’s the moral difference?

[Mijin]

@ch4rl3s

That feeling of need is a value your brain has put on something based on the firing of groups of neurons. And we weigh one need against another and make decisions based on what is more important to us. (Sometimes we even do it consciously… but not often.)

Again though, I feel I must repeat my opinion that characterising the mind and our decision-making in this simplistic way is misleading at best.

Consider, as I’ve already mentioned, the high value I place on society prospering, even if it requires my death to do so. And further note that this objective is an end in itself – I don’t care about society to feel good, I just care, period.
It’s very misleading to characterise this as fulfilling a “need”.

[Scumpup]

@LonesomePolecat

I suspect you’re the one who’s willfully pretending not to grasp the point. Those Serb militiamen believe their actions are justified by a desperate situation. Your action would be motivated by the same belief. So what’s the moral difference?

Forget it. You aren’t listening. You’d be more at home in the Pit thread that accompanies this one.

[LonesomePolecat]

@Scumpup

Forget it. You aren’t listening. You’d be more at home in the Pit thread that accompanies this one.

I’m listening. You’re just not making any sense.

[Malthus]

I’ve said it in the Pit thread, but really it probably belongs here … to take a highfalutin philosophical point of view , this whole argument reminds me strongly of the conflict in ancient Chinese philosophy between the “graded love” of Confucius and the “universal love” of Mo-tzu:

Mozi tended to evaluate actions based on “benefit” (li) instead of the “humanity” (ren) advocated by the Confucians. Similar to the Western utilitarians, Mozi thought that actions should be measured by the way they contribute to the “greatest good of the greatest number”. With this criterion Mozi denounced things as diverse as offensive warfare, expensive funerals, and even music and dancing, all of which he saw as serving no useful purpose. Mozi also tried to replace long-entrenched Chinese family and clan structures with the concept of bo-ai which can be translated as “impartial caring” or “universal love”. In this, he argued directly against Confucians who had argued that it was natural and correct for people to care about different people in different degrees. Mozi, by contrast, argued that one should care for all people equally, a notion that philosophers in other schools found absurd, as it would imply no special amount of care or duty towards one’s parents and family. Specifically, in the first chapter of the writings of Mozi on universal love, Mozi argues that the best way of being filial to one’s parents is to be filial to the parents of others. The foundational principle is that benevolence, as well as malevolence, is requited, and that one will be treated by others as one treats others. One’s parents will be treated by others, as one treats the parents of others. Mozi argued that benevolence comes to human beings “as naturally as fire turns upward or water turns downward”, provided that persons in position of authority illustrate benevolence in their own lives. Mozi’s basic argument concerning universal love asserts that universal love is supremely practical against those who object that it sounds good but cannot be put into practice.

Mozi

In essence, those on one side of the debate are more likely to agree with Confucius that one owes one’s moral duty to one’s immediate family first and only secondarily to strangers; those on the other side are more likely to agree with Mo-Tzu that one owes one’s duty in an impartial utilitarian sense to humanity equally.

For myself, I am more inclined to the Confucian position. Unlike some others in this debate, I do not believe that those who think differently than me are some sort of inhuman monsters. I can easily see that without acknowledgement of the basis of disagreement (and maybe even with it), the argument quickly turns ugly. Each looks on the other as being somewhat inhuman - the “Mo-ist” thinking that it is a higher calling to be idealistically impartial; the “Confucian” thinking that the “Mo-ist” is willing to sacrifice his or her children on the altar of idealism.

[MrDibble]

I don’t think the other side is less than human. I think they are, to quote Nietzsche, “human, all too human” - and I aspire to be better than that.

[Malthus]

@MrDibble

I don’t think the other side is less than human. I think they are, to quote Nietzsche, “human, all too human” - and I aspire to be better than that.

Heh, speaking of quotes, this from Eric Hoffer (recited from memory from The True Believer) strikes me as the response most likely in the back of the minds from the “Confucian” side of the debate:

“The burning conviction that we have a duty toward others is often a way of attaching our drowning selves to a passing raft. What looks like giving a hand is often a holding on for dear life. Take away our duties and you leave our lives puny and meaningless. There is no doubt that in exchanging a self-centered for a selfless life we gain enormously in self-esteem. The vanity of the selfless, even those who practice utmost humility, is boundless.”

In short, they would deny that in “self-denial” or “service to humanity as a whole” there is necessarily a higher morality than in service to one’s own children - more likely a higher order of vanity and conceit. Service to one’s children is not “selfless” either of course and may play exactly the same role (i.e. giving meaning to life); the point is that one is by no means “better” than the other.

[ErmesMarana]

I can’t say whether or not it is “right” to brutally murder innocent people to save your child.

The question hinges on why we value life at all.

If heaven or hell exist, then certainly one might decide that extending their kids life a bit longer is not worth spending eternity in hell for choking their child’s classmates to death in school.

But if our short lives on this planet are all we have, then perhaps it would only be logical to kill any number of people to save your child.
However, right or wrong, such an action is no different than murder for any number of other reasons.

Maybe it isn’t “wrong” to commit home invasion murders of innocent families whenever there is something you really want money for that is more important to you than the family you intend to kill.
If you are guaranteed not to be caught, it might only seem logical to be committing murders on a regular basis.
Having your reason be your child does not make it any better. There are many things one might care about more than an innocent stranger.
But again, I can’t say it is right or wrong. I know I wouldn’t do it, but maybe that is only because I don’t believe I would be capable. Even if I tried, I would probably break down in tears after choking the first few children to death, and would be unable to continue.

[Maastricht]

I just wanted to thank Malthus for bringing up those two Chinese philosophers. I dindn’t know much about Chinese philosophy, and the two sides quoted perfectly sum up a large part of the discussion. Such posts are what I come to SD for.

[MrDibble]

@Malthus

In short, they would deny that in “self-denial” or “service to humanity as a whole” there is necessarily a higher morality than in service to one’s own children - more likely a higher order of vanity and conceit. Service to one’s children is not “selfless” either of course and may play exactly the same role (i.e. giving meaning to life); the point is that one is by no means “better” than the other.

This is a logical fallacy of the False Dilemma. I’ve already said, I believe my way is better for the future - and that includes my children, and for my children’s children, and so on - a better world for my descendants, as well as everyone else’s.

Sure, it’s probably not as advantageous for them in the short term as if we gamed the system and were “cheaters”, but I like to take the long view, and “Fuck you, I got mine” really doesn’t seem sustainable to me. So my way, everyone wins, and keeps winning. The other way, some win, some lose, now, and in the long run, everyone loses.

[Crocodiles_And_Boulevards]

@MrDibble

This is a logical fallacy of the False Dilemma. I’ve already said, I believe my way is better for the future - and that includes my children, and for my children’s children, and so on - a better world for my descendants, as well as everyone else’s.

Sure, it’s probably not as advantageous for them in the short term as if we gamed the system and were “cheaters”, but I like to take the long view, and “Fuck you, I got mine” really doesn’t seem sustainable to me. So my way, everyone wins, and keeps winning. The other way, some win, some lose, now, and in the long run, everyone loses.

Is it just me or did you just commit the same logical fallacy that you accused Malthus of? There’s no reason that using the other way everyone loses. In fact, I’m pretty sure “the other way” is what got society started in the first place, because “the other way” is not “Fuck you, I got mine.”

It’s more like, “Sorry, the situation sucks and I understand why you, personally, may not be supportive of this course of action, but I have to protect my kid and if you were in this same situation I’d not blame you either.” That’s a much more complex sentiment.

[Mijin]

@Crocodiles And Boulevards

In fact, I’m pretty sure “the other way” is what got society started in the first place, because “the other way” is not “Fuck you, I got mine.”

It’s more like, “Sorry, the situation sucks and I understand why you, personally, may not be supportive of this course of action, but I have to protect my kid and if you were in this same situation I’d not blame you either.”

This thread is about killing innocent people for the sake of your child. You’re doing to another person what you don’t want to happen to your own, or perhaps even doing worse to others (e.g. the genocide, strangling children examples). Of course it’s “fuck you, I got mine”.

@Eric Hoffer

There is no doubt that in exchanging a self-centered for a selfless life we gain enormously in self-esteem. The vanity of the selfless, even those who practice utmost humility, is boundless.

Right, but is the feeling of self-esteem the motivation for selfless behaviour or merely a side-product?
I would contend that often it’s the latter.

[Malthus]

@Maastricht

I just wanted to thank Malthus for bringing up those two Chinese philosophers. I dindn’t know much about Chinese philosophy, and the two sides quoted perfectly sum up a large part of the discussion. Such posts are what I come to SD for.

Thanks!

[Malthus]

@MrDibble

This is a logical fallacy of the False Dilemma. I’ve already said, I believe my way is better for the future - and that includes my children, and for my children’s children, and so on - a better world for my descendants, as well as everyone else’s.

Sure, it’s probably not as advantageous for them in the short term as if we gamed the system and were “cheaters”, but I like to take the long view, and “Fuck you, I got mine” really doesn’t seem sustainable to me. So my way, everyone wins, and keeps winning. The other way, some win, some lose, now, and in the long run, everyone loses.

As I said before, this tracks perfectly with what Mo-Tzu wrote centuries ago:

Specifically, in the first chapter of the writings of Mozi on universal love, Mozi argues that the best way of being filial to one’s parents is to be filial to the parents of others.

The problem with this is, of course, as the Confucians were quick to point out, this relies on everyone agreeing on embracing Mo-ism (or whatever other philosophy current pushing some version of universal love) - a condition which may, and probably will, never happen, and certainly not any time soon.

In contrast, graded love - i.e., placing your children and family above those of others - is doable; I’d be happy indeed if we could achieve at least that in our society - that is, that people would display love towards their own, and not abuse or abandon them.

In short, “graded love” works from the bottom-up – reforming each relationship one at a time; “universal love” works from the top down – its benefits really require universal agreement before the lives of everyone are made better.

I would disagree that graded love = fuck you to everyone else. Think of the Golden Rule of reciprocity: “Do unto others as you would be done by”. I would expect that most others would place their own children first. The rule does not require perfect universal love.

[Mijin]

@Malthus

In short, “graded love” works from the bottom-up – reforming each relationship one at a time; “universal love” works from the top down – its benefits really require universal agreement before the lives of everyone are made better.

I would disagree that graded love = fuck you to everyone else. Think of the Golden Rule of reciprocity: “Do unto others as you would be done by”. I would expect that most others would place their own children first. The rule does not require perfect universal love.

If murdering someone’s child* so that yours doesn’t die is “graded love”, then stealing someone’s mobile phone because you don’t own one is similarly “graded love”.
In fact, is anything immoral in this view?

• And note I’m talking about actual murder, as discussed in some of the examples. Not the “you only have one parachute…” type hypotheticals where I can understand someone putting their child first.