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: 53

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 Nick F's discussion Connecting with God Emotionally in the group Christian Men
""You find a church that isn't like that.  Find a church that has a large population of men who seem to be active, and there voluntarily ... rather than because their wife told them to." Makes sense to me!"
12 minutes ago
Regular Joe replied to Nick F's discussion Connecting with God Emotionally in the group Christian Men
13 minutes ago
Regular Joe replied to Nick F's discussion Connecting with God Emotionally in the group Christian Men
""Some say it's become very domesticated where women feel welcomed and valued and men feel ill at ease in such an emotion and sentiment filled space." Well that's fucking weird. I thought one of the main purposes of church…"
15 minutes ago
Alan Robertson replied to Nick F's discussion Connecting with God Emotionally in the group Christian Men
"You make an excellent point about Mark Driscoll. I always enjoyed him in small doses and from a distance. I don't think I could have attended Mars Hill. But he was a man that spoke like a man to men.  This is how Paul spoke. (I'll…"
17 minutes ago
Jack Bauer replied to David F.'s discussion Pew Research on Trust of News Orgs. in the group The Great Debate
"That is a gross oversimplification.  The amygdala is associated with more than just fear.  It is associated with decision-making, including the processing of emotion and memory.  Not only 'fear', but processing all emotion…"
19 minutes ago
Regular Joe replied to Nick F's discussion Connecting with God Emotionally in the group Christian Men
""I am curious why you say the church has been more feminine in the recent past?" Ditto. "
20 minutes ago
Regular Joe replied to Nick F's discussion Connecting with God Emotionally in the group Christian Men
""As the church, we are the Bride of Christ and corporately feminine (in a sense)." That's open to interpretation. "
20 minutes ago
Alan Robertson replied to Nick F's discussion Connecting with God Emotionally in the group Christian Men
"Well said."
23 minutes ago

© 2014   Created by Brett McKay.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service