People who would strangle other kids to save their own are fucked up

[LonesomePolecat]

@Scumpup

You could summarize mine, somewhat incompletely, as “Take care of your own.”

… and to hell with everyone else. You’re sounding more and more like a Mansonoid with every post.

[Alessan]

@LonesomePolecat

… and to hell with everyone else.

One does not neccesarily imply the other. In **scumpup’s ** case, maybe, but not in everyone elses.

[LonesomePolecat]

@Alessan

One does not neccesarily imply the other. In **scumpup’s ** case, maybe, but not in everyone elses.

Duly noted.

[Malthus]

@Alessan

Your mistake here is that you assume everybody takes the global point of view, and that people do what they do to benefit humanity as a whole. I admit that my own child is no more special than other children in any objective sense; however, his value to me is greater than his value to anyone ese, and greater than the value of any other childern to me - just as I expect other parents to hold their own childern in higher value than they do mine.

Furthermore, there’s also the issue of responsiblity. No matter what my child’s value may be, I have a resopnsibility towards him as a parent I do not have towards other childeren. In effect, I will treat him *as if * he has a greater value than he actually has because according to my belief system, I value things I am responsible for more.

“Value” is a subjective term; so is “worth”. I personally attribute greater value to people who attribute greater value to me. It’s a two-way relationship. In the eyes of humanity as a whole, I have very little value, if at all. In the eyes of my countrymen, I have a slightly higher value. In the eyes of my family members my value is very high indeed, and therefore I accord them the same treatment.

Now, if could assure me that the whole of humaninty valued me as higly as they did their own friends, family and counrymen, I would attibute the same value to everyone. But I don’t see that happening.

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 others in this debate, I do not believe that those who think differently than me are some sort of inhuman monsters.

[Alessan]

Thank you, Malthus. That was very informative.

[Scumpup]

@Czarcasm

You’re absolutely right.
Could anyone please give me some reasons why the life of their child is worth more than the life of someone else’s child, or even the lives of a multitude of other children? What is it that your child is going to contribute that is worth murdering innocents for?

Have you been paying attention at all? My responses to the the questions in the original thread are based on how much my child is worth to me. Your question quoted above presumes I value people for at least some of the same criteria you do. “Contribute?” She contributes to my life every day, which the people of Australia do not.

[Malthus]

@Alessan

Thank you, Malthus. That was very informative.

No problem. Personally, I find it very illuminating to study the history of the philosophy of other times and cultures, as it sheds some light on our own problems.

[diggleblop]

Actually, there is. Killing other people to save your kid is wrong. Happy to have been able to clear that up for you.

No, there ISN’T a correct answer here. The question was theoretical and a “what if” or “Would you” type of question. Your answer of “no, wouldn’t kill anyone else to save my child” is your opinion in this scenario, because the scenario doesn’t imply something that would really happen.
I personally would murder whomever I had to to save my son’s life. That’s my answer and it’s not wrong, because I love my son and I don’t want him to die, and if the only way I could save him was to off someone else, then…I feel sorry for whomever is at the end of my gun.

[Crocodiles_And_Boulevards]

@Czarcasm

You’re absolutely right.
Could anyone please give me some reasons why the life of their child is worth more than the life of someone else’s child, or even the lives of a multitude of other children? What is it that your child is going to contribute that is worth murdering innocents for?

I’m pretty sure it’s been explained several times, including in my earlier lengthy rebuttal of many of the points raised in this absurd argument.

So far, the most effective “dismissal” of our (the willing) argument has been “it’s just plain wrong” and a ridiculous oversimplification of the scenario offered. We’ve also been confronted with escalation, where the naysayers keep harping on the also absurd extreme extensions of this principle (i.e. destroying the world/Australia) for the kid.

I’d appreciate it if the naysayers in question could come down off their high horse for a moment and discuss the actual premise for the question originally raised. One person to one person.

For the record, I also think it’s ridiculous to sacrifice the world for your kid. Neither you nor he/she is going to reap any kind of benefit from that scenario. Plus it’s ridiculous. The first scenario was already ridiculous. Why are we adding on to it?

[MsWhatsit]

@diggleblop

No, there ISN’T a correct answer here.

Yeah, there is, and it’s “People who would strangle other kids to save their own are fucked up”, just like I said in the OP.

I can’t believe this thread is 6 pages long.

[Scumpup]

@MsWhatsit

I can’t believe this thread is 6 pages long.

…especially when you contributed virtually nothing of interest to it.

[Crocodiles_And_Boulevards]

@MsWhatsit

Yeah, there is, and it’s “People who would strangle other kids to save their own are fucked up”, just like I said in the OP.

I can’t believe this thread is 6 pages long.

Personally, I find it hilarious that you made this reply right after I criticized the general position of not actually having an argument.

[ch4rl3s]

@qed

Hitler himself? Absolutely. The entire upper echelon of the Nazi Party? You betcha. But every single German on the entire Earth? You’d have to be batshit insane to even consider that as a positive course of action.

@Alessan

Then you’d let all those millions of Russians, Poles, Gypsies, gays and Jews die? That’s nice.

So, the Nazis killed 6 million Jews, a few million more gypsies and gays and other “undesirables” living in their borders. We’re you including Russian and Pole war loses? or just the civilians they rounded up? Well, we’re talking about innocents, so I’ll just assume civilians.

The civilian population of Germany was about 68 million in 1940, not counting Germans living abroad. Most of them innocents.

How does you killing 68 million+ innocent people factor into your head as a reasonable alternative to them killing 12 million innocents? You’re just trading their evil act for your own much greater evil act, and because their evil act never happened, no one would see that there was any trade at all. Your act would have gone down in history as the Holocaust. (ok, so you might not define your act as evil; humanity would, and we outnumber you.)

[Captain_Amazing]

@ch4rl3s

The civilian population of Germany was about 68 million in 1940, not counting Germans living abroad. Most of them innocents.

How does you killing 68 million+ innocent people factor into your head as a reasonable alternative to them killing 12 million innocents?

Because most of those people weren’t innocents. The people who resisted Hitler and the Nazis, yes, the children, yes, incompetents, sure. But the entire nation is responsible for the Nazis actions, because they couldn’t have occurred without the consent of the nation.

[JThunder]

@Scumpup

Have you been paying attention at all? My responses to the the questions in the original thread are based on how much my child is worth to me.

And if someone considers the life of a child to be worthless? There’s a term for such people. Would you care to guess what it is?

[Scumpup]

@JThunder

And if someone considers the life of a child to be worthless? There’s a term for such people. Would you care to guess what it is?

Oh do let me guess, are you going to try to win the door prize for being the 1,000,000th person to use the word “sociopath” in this thread? Are you going to fall back on the time-honored and much used “monster?” If you have something of interest to say, please be brisk and post it.

[Fuji]

@Captain Amazing

Because most of those people weren’t innocents. The people who resisted Hitler and the Nazis, yes, the children, yes, incompetents, sure. But the entire nation is responsible for the Nazis actions, because they couldn’t have occurred without the consent of the nation.

2008 version:

Because most of those Iraqis weren’t innocents. The people who resisted Saddam and the Ba’athites, yes, the children, yes, incompetents, sure. But the entire nation is responsible for the Ba’athites’ actions, because they couldn’t have occurred without the consent of the nation.

Kill 'em all, etc…

[JThunder]

@Scumpup

Oh do let me guess, are you going to try to win the door prize for being the 1,000,000th person to use the word “sociopath” in this thread?

If I do, would that make the point any less valid?

Besides, it seems to me that you folks are dodging the question. You justify your stance based on what your child’s life would be worth to you. Why should that be the only criterion – or even the main one? What about parents who don’t care about their children? Would they be justified in abandoning these innocents on the grounds that they’re worthless in their eyes?

[ErmesMarana]

@Scumpup

Oh do let me guess, are you going to try to win the door prize for being the 1,000,000th person to use the word “sociopath” in this thread? Are you going to fall back on the time-honored and much used “monster?” If you have something of interest to say, please be brisk and post it.

The reason you look like a sociopath to me is because you were able to say without a doubt that you would commit home invasion murders of innocent families and choke your kid’s classmates to death in school if it would bring back the health of your child.

In other words, you don’t appear to experience the natural revulsion at such actions that are, yes, “socialized” into us.
I’m not even saying you are wrong. Given that you won’t be caught, it might be logical to murder for all kinds of things that you care about more than the life of an innocent. There is nothing special about murdering for your kid.
What stands out to me is just the very personal way you claimed to be willing to murder innocent children.

[Sophistry_and_Illusion]

@Captain Amazing

Because most of those people weren’t innocents. The people who resisted Hitler and the Nazis, yes, the children, yes, incompetents, sure. But the entire nation is responsible for the Nazis actions, because they couldn’t have occurred without the consent of the nation.

So you also agree with the reasoning I attribute in post #195 to Alessan?