Several possible reasons - MAD, escalating environmental degradation, climate change…I’m sure there’s more to add to the list.
Non sequitur - What starts a society and what sustains it are not the same thing. I’ve said nothing about what it takes to start a society, only what I think it takes to timeproof it.
Not really complex - and I’m sure the victims won’t see it that way. See, seeing things from the victims’ point of view? That’s called empathy.
There’s no real reason it couldn’t work - so no reason not to try, because it’s better for everyone if it does happen. Human nature is not set in stone, and game theory doesn’t capture all the nuances of human behaviour.
Placing your family first is the way we’ve always done it - and the world is as it’s always been. I hope for better than what we’ve got now.
I disagree - we do not have to wait until everyone agrees before starting - Gandhi said it, I think - “be the change that you want to see in the world”. If we all just wait for agreement, no, you’d be right and we’ll never better our lot. But I think if some of us start now - no matter the consequences - the possible future is worth it. It is very much a grassroots thing, not at all “top-down”. Look at Gandhi or various NGOs like MSF.
If “graded love” require that I kill you, it is very much a “fuck you” stance, even if I feel bad about it afterwards. Actions speak louder than feelings.
If one truly believes that the lives of others are the equal of your own children, why spend money on your kid’s day-care or university education that could no doubt be better spent on Somalian orphans?
In fact, is anything you do for your own above and beyond what is available to the great mass of third-world humanity not immoral in this view?
Reductio ad absurdum works both ways in these cases.
To my mind, the better way to proceed is this: I have most compassion for my own children first, but this doesn’t preclude compassion for other people, charity, respect for the rule of law, etc.
Of course, there will be difficult moral choices when two moral principles come in conflict. Of course I would not steal a cell phone because my kid doesn’t have one; but would I steal a miracle cancer drug I could not afford, if my kid had cancer? Etc. etc.
To my mind, there is often no “right answer” to these questions, only different ways of reasoning them through.
Not the same thing at all. Doing something out of love for your child, no matter how heinous others may find the act is still doing something for another person’s sake. Stealing a phone because you don’t own one is just acting out of personal greed. And before you go there, no, I wouldn’t steal a cell phone for my daughter just because she wanted one and I couldn’t buy her one. What I would do to save her life and what I would do to cater to her whims are not necessarily the same.
But I am “being the change (I) would want to see in the world”. I want others to care for their kids, not toss them aside like garbage or abuse them. Therefore I care for my own kids and encourage others to do the same.
I do not want some random strangers to care for my kids, other than to be reasonably civil and polite.
I think this goal is achievable. The notion of “universal love” however packaged is not. It is not even particularly desireable.
I disagree on all counts.
I doubt very much that Gandhi thought that the Golden Rule was “bullshit”.
Only if you believe that we’re obligated to give, just as we’re obligated not to take, which I don’t.
In my view, you’re perfectly entitled to spend your own money how you like – it’s moral to give it to the poor, but not immoral to keep it (though it does depend somewhat on how you obtained the money).
Taking an innocent person’s life however, is simply immoral.
Fine. Then you’re doing a moral thing (saving your child’s life) plus an immoral thing (killing an innocent). We might be tempted to say that the two cancel each other out, except that morality doesn’t work that way – If I raped a woman, then rescued another woman from an attempted rape, we wouldn’t say I was “even”.
Similarly rescue workers aren’t free to go on a killing spree simply because they’ve saved lots of lives in the past.
Furthermore, killing multiple innocent people, as has been mentioned in other examples in this thread is a much greater immoral action than the corresponding saving of your child’s life.
No-one is saying killing innocents is of itself moral. What is at stake is whether one would do it anyway, to prevent greater immorality.
Reminds me of another hypothetical that sometimes gets bandied about - what if by taking an innocent life, you could accomplish an obviously greater good (such as - save all of Australia* from being reduced to nuclear waste and everyone in it killed)?
Seems to me one would have to be awfully self-righteous to say “I’d rather stand on principle and see all of Australia* nuked and millions killed, than stain my hands with any innocent blood”.
To my mind, there is no question that killing an innocent is immoral. The issue is a choice or a balance of wrongs. Is it more immoral to do X or Y? Undertaking this balancing is not the same as arguing that X or Y, on their own, are themselves “good”.
*Australia is the continent of choice for these types of hypotheticals. Sorry, Australia.
Never said you weren’t. My statement was strictly to counter the idea that we need to wait for “universal acceptance” of selflessness before even trying it out for anyone.
For you. I wouldn’t call it “universal love” (I’m with Der Trihs on the overuse of that word) - but a more socialist society? It’s something I’d pray for daily, if I prayed.
Please tell me how “I’ll kill you to save mine” is not a big “fuck you” to the victim, please?
Never said he did. I do, though.
I prefer a formulation closer to “do unto others as they’d like you to do unto them” instead.
It wasn’t always that way. Before Crocodile Dundee, most Americans chose Iceland as their preferred nuclear annihilation target for hypothetical questions. The violence and arrogance depicted in those movies was shocking. Now we know what Australians are really like. Steve Irwin with those crazy eyes didn’t help matters either. I guess you could call it the new Cold War.
That’s exactly my point - you have to “pray for” a socialist society, because it isn’t something you can implement sensibly in your own life - society as a whole has to go that way for it to make any difference.
In contrast, being good to your own kids is something anyone can do.
Certainly. I do not know (you), (you) are a complete stranger. If it came to a choice between the life of my child and (you), I would choose my child; just as I believe you would choose yours, were matters reversed.
This implies no animosity whatsoever towards (you).
In contrast, “fuck you” is all about animosity. It is a statement of hostility.
The point of the “Golden Rule” is not its exact wording, but the notion of reciprocity it represents.
Indeed, if this thread and the accompanying Pit thread have revealed anything, it is the hitherto unexplored depths of genocidal hatred towards Australia. :eek:
That’s not a strife… [describes in detail how if I could flame-broil every Australian to save my child from getting a splinter, I’d do so without hesitation]… that’s a strife!
It’s important to understand the distinction between “You have only one parachute…” type hypotheticals, and what’s being discussed in this thread, which is to murder someone to save your child.
In the former scenario, someone has to die, you’d rather it not be your child, which is understandable.
(FWIW, I’m not sure how I’d behave in such a scenario).
In the latter, a person / people were in no danger, but your child was. To commit murder is to involve people that were not otherwise involved.
If we consider this justified it opens the door for “justifying” pretty much any immoral action you like; it’s not even “the ends justify the means” it’s “the means don’t affect me”.
But how is it a greater immorality?
I’ve never heard of a view-specific morality*, so how can killing one or more people, possibly be less immoral than allowing the death of one?
In other words, nobody would say a given action is neither moral nor immoral and depends entirely on the viewpoint of affected parties. Which apparently is what you’re saying.
Of course our natural response is hard-wired - to bastardize an old Arab saying: children before brother, brother before cousin, cousin before clan, clan before tribe, tribe before the infidel. But that what’s we have learned values for. To make us more than mere subjects of our primitive drives.
This very topic is the subject much discussion in Jewish thought, Talmudic and otherwise. I quote from Rabbi Joseph Telushkin’s book, Jewish Literacy (pp 507-508) for a discussion of it.
He goes on to describe how the father felt that if it were permitted he would have been told so and accepted it.
To scumpup who would say that that father was no kind of man - I would just have to disagree. I’m not sure that I could be such a man, in the absence of having devout religious beliefs in the infallibility of sacred text. Would my secular humanist ethics be enough to allow me to be such a man? I don’t know.
What I do know is that the path of assuming that my blood and the blood of my children is redder, is the path down which lay the worst of what humanity has to offer and has done. It is a natural response. It is human nature. Yes. Sometimes our human nature is what we need to beware of the most.
Judging by the number of responses, as well as the variance of the answers, as well as the need to further specify the circumstances, it is not simple.
The answers indicate and testify as to the nature of your character, your values, core beliefs, whatever you want to call it. I suppose your answer to ANY question does that as well but I digress…
The greek philosophers, as well as many great minds throughout history have wrestled with the very nature of this topic, Morality and reason. Where do these concepts come from? Is it intuitive? This type of question strikes at the very core of the human condition/essence/nature/beliefs/whatever. right or wrong? can they be absolute on any terms?
In my humble opinion, you are oversimplifying the question. Try these on for size:
What WOULDN’T you do for your child?
Would you destroy the rest of the world so your child would live forever? How about 1000 years? 100? 10? A day? A minute? How about instead of living longer, so they could have a popsicle? Thats right, the only thing making your child happy is a popsicle and all you have to do is destroy the whole universe. (excluding your child of course, your child is afterall apart of “it”)
BINGO. Kinda what I was trying to get at with my above response. If the circumstances are right, ANYTHING is possible. I like this question so we are treading on the very boundaries of belief and values. Kinda what I am trying to get at with those questions I asked.
[QUOTE=Collaborator]
Everyone interprets the question 2 ways (without there being specifics). You can kill one and save the other. Either way, you lose. The question is far too broad to analyze specifics though. Is this a kidnapping and choose situation? Hanging from a cliff? Would the choice between one or the other involve willfully murdering one of them? Or be saving one of them?
[QUOTE]
Exactly
I personally believe we reproduce and propagate our essences in more ways then mere genes.
We rule, and shape our DNA, not the other way around. Atleast in my humble opinion. I could be wrong however and i wrestle with this everyday.
Anyways, I’ll get back to more responses. But for now I won’t read past what I’ve responded to until tommorow.
Who knows, maybe I will be enlightned after reading more. Until then…ta ta!
Don’t be so happy with the rhetorical device I used - like I said, I don’t pray.
But anyway, I think you make a mistake in thinking Society is a monolithic entity. Society, to me, is an emergent structure composed of all our social interactions, each of which are ultimately one-to-one. So no, I don’t agree that implementing selfless values in my life makes no difference. How we act to others influences how they act too, for good or ill. Plus I believe in social tipping points - not everyone has to do the right thing, but when enough do there’s a social phase transition.
Yet curiously, in this society, already run along the lines you propose, that isn’t always the case.
Yet, as I’ve already said, I wouldn’t - and here I refer specifically to murdering yours to save mine. So already you are wrong in your assumptions.
Like I said, actions speak louder - murdering my kid sure as hell counts as animosity in my book.
Actions speak louder than words. Again, how is murdering my kid not an act of hostility - please note, I’m not asking what your intentions are, I’m asking how the sweet Og you can say murdering someone isn’t a hostile act?
I’d say the Golden Rule and my rule represent two completely different notions of reciprocity, the Golden one being self-interest writ large, while mine (not that I’m the first formulator of it) encapsulates empathy above all. Not the same thing.
first protect your offspring
second protect yourself
third protect your family
fourth protect your tribe
It’s not too hard to see where people get the idea that they don’t owe it to strangers to let them live in a hypothetical situation where their death saves someone they love.
I remember reading a study about morality, where people were put into a hypothetical situation where they controlled the track where a speeding train was going to crash into a group of 30 people. The person could divert the train to hit another group of only 5 people.
Without too much stretching, you can make the same hypothetical apply to this situation. A speeding train is heading toward your child, but you can pull a lever to divert the train into a stranger’s child instead. I’d pull the lever if I were convinced there were no other way to stop the train, but I’d be sorry for that kid’s parents.
Not sorry enough to stop me from doing it, though.
Right, and in the same study as I recall, they had another hypothetical where you could push a man in front of the train and his weight would be enough to stop it (for whatever reason, you can’t stop the train with your own bodyweight).
Most people saw this as immoral. Actively killing someone; involving someone who was not involved.
Apparently though, you and others on this thread still can’t see the distinction.
So your morality doesn’t work in the same way as most people’s, at least as found in studies like this one anyway. What I’m trying to figure out is why.
