In the GD threads about the possible war with Iraq there is much discussion of the loss of life from the war, and the potential loss of life from future terrorist attacks etc. My question here is, If you were in charge of foreign policy for a super power, would you consider the lives of your citizens more important than the lives of citizens of some other nation? If so, how much more important? Say you can prevent an attack that will kill 1000 of your citizens, but at a cost of 5000 foreigners, what do you do? (Does your answer change if it is 50,000 foreigners?)
This is not meant to be a debate, just a solicitation of different thoughts on the subject.
My own feeling is that the government’s duty is to its own people first.
In all liklihood, the 5000 foreigners that would end up being killing wouldn’t have been responsible for the attack on my country so no, the lives of my citizens are not more important than the lives of the foreigners.
The life of my fellow citizens would have higher value in my eyes, the value of a human life is a very subjective thing. Not sure though exactly where the ratio would stand, but then that’s why I have no wish to make foreign policy for a super power.
I’ll be in the minority with you. I believe everyone is equal, or should have the opportunity to be equal. And I couldn’t hold a group of people in higher priority than another, just because I live in the same country as them, or am of the same race as them, or… for any reason, really.
But trying to set whatever value a human life actually has, whether equal or not, is impossible for everyone but actuaries, insurance agents, and engineers.
Ask the parent of any new baby - in an “office debate” at lunch of long ago, two people who were new parents ended up admitting that the life of their baby was worth more than a million other people.
Me: So you would slaughter a million innocent people such that your child would live? Seriously?
Them: Yes, of course. What parent wouldn’t?
Really? A single child worth a million innocent people? Is that the epitome of the “Me” generation culture, or just irrational “baby madness” taking root, or…are they right in their context?
How about the same family? If you were faced with a situation where two lives were in certain and imminent danger, you could only save one, and one was your child/sibling/parent while the other was a total stranger, I find it hard to believe that you–or virtually anybody–would not consistently choose to save the one you love. Then you can make it your best friend vs. a stranger, then a co-worker vs. a stranger. You can draw a line somewhere, but forgive me if I don’t believe you will not draw a line at all.
I don’t deal with hypothetical situations, because they do not illustrate the point with any clarity. For example, if you are held hostage by a mad terrorist, who is trying to make you decide whom he will shoot, a friend of yours or some total stranger. Who will you choose?
I believe that all they were really doing here is understandably failing to express that the idea of deliberately condoning or initiating the death of their child was unthinkable; comparing absolutes is not easy.
I’m not saying that a human life has zero value, nor am I saying that the value of a human life is infinitely great. I literally do not believe it is meaningful to ascribe value to a human life - Context is everything.
In your example you don’t provide nearly sufficient information to make a decision - Who are these 5000 foreigners? Are they soldiers who would attack my country? Civilians? How would these 5000 be killed?
**If you were in charge of foreign policy for a super power, would you consider the lives of your citizens more important than the lives of citizens of some other nation? **
Anyone who is in charge of foreign policy for a nation, superpower or not, should consider the lives of his citizens more important than the lives of another nation. The fact that such a belief is utterly and completely wrong is irrevelant.
I was going to include something about family there, too. I suppose a family member shouldn’t be different to anybody else, but they are.
However, if I were faced with making a decision to kill a family member or 5000 other people, I’d kill my family member. And I would hope that a family member in the same position would killl me to save 5000 people.
