War is waged based on a basic principle:

The death of X enemy soldiers+ Y allied soldiers + the loss of civilian collateral in the range of h:0->R, in the pursuit of objective Z is acceptable.

This does not just apply to aggressive war, but also to the concept of self defense.

This principle is also applied to other settings.

In real world settings: Kill a killer with a gun to the head of an innocent to prevent a murder.

In fiction: Kill one innocent person to save two innocent people. Or kill on guilty person to save million. Or one innocent person to save million.

As a species, we have virtually universally accepted the concept of, "It has to be done." The question is, in doing so, have we economized human life, and in economizing human life, have we opened ourselves up to dangerous moral positions?

To illustrate the point, let me raise a hypothetical:
There are 3 human beings left.
Only 2 can survive and procreate.
To do so, the the third human being must be destroyed.
2 of them wish to procreate.
To do so, the the third human being must be destroyed.
Is it not moral to do so, not just for the survival of the species, but for the greater good of the two lives that will be saved? If not, why not?

Then let us extend the argument to a morally ghoulish one:
There are 6 billion people on earth.
Only 4 billion can survive and procreate.
To do so 2 billion must be destroyed.
4 billion wish to survive and procreate.
To do so 2 billion must be destroyed.
Is it not moral to do so, not just for the survival of the species, but for the greater good of the 4 billion lives that will be saved? If not, why not?

Understand that I in no way advocate this, but simply pose it as a philisophical problem that I think should be approached and solved.

Views: 43

Replies to This Discussion

This reminds me of the storyline of The Watchmen, honestly. I would say that, while a tragic situation, it must be handled objectively. It is not in any way optimal for the one, or the two billion, to be destroyed. If they could be saved, do so. However, do not save them at the expense of the greater good. If you were called upon to die to save humanity, would you?
I would like to think I would, but I do not know, however, in the situation I propose, the sacrifice is non optional. The death involved is functionally extermination.
It's deontology vs utilitarianism.
Morality won't come into it..when it comes to survival, we tend to regress to our animal selves and do whatever is needed to survive.
I think I would have to agree with Mill on this one, and say yes.
To answer the specific question, yes we do.

From there we must decide, not necessarily corporately, where we go from that point. Are we ok economizing human life, is it essential, or must we think differently.
A consensus has been achieved that survival outweighs the individual. So let us weigh the inverse.

There are 6 human beings left.
Only 2 can survive and procreate.
To do so, 4 must be destroyed.
2 wish to survive and procreate.
To do so, 4 must be destroyed.
Is it not moral to do so, as an extension of the previous principle, and if not, why not?

Then let us make another extension.
There are 6 billion humans on earth.
Only 2 billion can survive and procreate.
To do so 4 billion must be destroyed.
2 billion wish to survive and procreate.
To do so 4 billion must be destroyed.
Is it not moral to do so, as an extension of the previous principle, and if not, why not?
A consensus has been achieved that survival outweighs the individual.

No it hasn't. I can't think of anyone who believes it is okay to kill four people in order to preserve one.

There's not a lot you can say about these kind of blunt statements. You have to start with premises most people easily accept. Otherwise, the argument doesn't even get started.
2 versus 4? Those odds don't look too good. If there were only six people left wouldn't it be more interesting to simply prevent anyone from reproducing? Or at that simplified level just kill the other five or the opposite sex. That way mankind would go extinct and morality and all the adornments of humankind would go with it and force some other adaptation or possibly a catastophic chain of events in the world. That would be extremely interesting.
The consensus achieved was in the majority outweighing the minority in matters of absolute survival. The question now is to test the inverse.

At what ratio of necessary dead to survivors would you determine it no longer worthy enough to save the human race?
Luckily for us the world never works in absolutes such as this one. Let's say there were only 3 people left on earth. Two males and one female or the inverse. Why is it that most people would go right into the thinking of one of them must die? Why can't they just live harmoniously reproducing together? Are we that hardwired against polygamy? Would the female be considered a whore if she procreated with both males in order to propagate the species? Would the male be looked at wrongly for procreating with both females?
The question is not about the preservation of social mores. It is an exploration of the way we turn the lives of human beings into a commodity. The ultimate issue is not one of extermination, but of the exchange rate. How many human lives are worth how many lives as a sacrifice? What conditions add to the value of a life and what conditions subtract from the value of a life? We internally make these value judgments on a daily basis, and the challenge is to intellectualize the subconscious by recognizing the fact we make these judgments, hence the initial statement about the economy of life. So again, I pose to you, how many for how many. What cost are you willing to pay?

RSS

Latest Activity

Regular Joe replied to John Muir's discussion Bulk Shopping For Staples
"He looks online to find out where the cheapest gas is and then does the math to factor in the cost of driving to and from the various stations to fill up and then makes a grand announcement on where we should fill up each week. ;)"
5 minutes ago
Regular Joe replied to John Muir's discussion Bulk Shopping For Staples
"My father in law is a frugal (literal) mathematician. Shopping with him is awesome. "
6 minutes ago
Native Son replied to Andrew D, USA Ret's discussion Militias, politics, anti-2nd amendment hysteria and the Bundy issue in the group The Great Debate
"Since some on this thread love splitting hairs, it actually was Nevada ceding any claim to federally owned public lands and it happened 150 years ago.  "
6 minutes ago
Regular Joe replied to John Muir's discussion Bulk Shopping For Staples
"I bought one of the sampler packs for men and one for women. Dorco said each pack would last at least a year. I'm at a year and almost three months now and still have plenty of blades and disposables from that same pack. So, for more or less…"
8 minutes ago
Elliott George replied to Noah's discussion People that inspired me: Chuck Ragan and Ken Casey
"I am really inspired by Peter Mattheissen. He was a Zen Master, writer, and environmentalist. I first read his book about the Everglades, _Shadows Country_, and my mind was blown by how much research he did and how incredibly well-written it…"
9 minutes ago
Regular Joe replied to John Muir's discussion Bulk Shopping For Staples
"There are loads of variations. This is just my humble opinion but I feel like the Lebanese do it best. If you can get a Lebanese recipe, give it a shot.  And you're right; it's less about the ingredients and more about the sequence,…"
10 minutes ago
John Muir replied to Andrew D, USA Ret's discussion Militias, politics, anti-2nd amendment hysteria and the Bundy issue in the group The Great Debate
"Well, I'd just hate for anyone to think that dude Bundy riding around on a horse waving an American Flag, saying he doesn't recognize the federal government the flag symbolizes couldn't buy  cheap, high quality federally…"
10 minutes ago
Regular Joe replied to John Muir's discussion Bulk Shopping For Staples
"SERIOUSLY bad. Hummus should be smooth and creamy. "
11 minutes ago

© 2014   Created by Brett McKay.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service