What are other people's lives worth?

[francois]

lol so your calling me insane for having natural instincts, to protect my family and children from harm at any costs?. do you have children yourself?, and if you do could you look your little child in the face and say "i have to kill you for the good of many, your the minority here, and it would be insane to not kill you"

could you seriously kill your offspring?, personaly i could never do that. maybe its love, maybe its honour, maybe its my natural response as an animal to protect my family, maybe its all of the above. but i dont think its safe to call me insane for not wanting to kill my family to save random strangers.

You're capable of putting those "natural instincts" aside, aren't you? Isn't that what you're doing when put on a condom? I'm not asking you what you think you would do in one of those situations if it happened in real life. I'm asking you what you would do, ideally, as in if you had the time to think it out and calmly come to a decision. I thought I made this clear. [/quote]

I don't know what I would do if I were put in the situation where I had to save random people or my family. I'm not even sure what I would do ideally. In the first post I said I liked the idea of the five-of-them-for-one-of mine. Of course it's a somewhat arbitrary number, but at the time it sounded pretty good. And it still sounds reasonable.

How would you feel if you found out that your brother killed one million people to save your life? If my brother did that for me, I'd be kind of pissed that he didn't have restraint, but I'd probably forgive him anyway. I'd much prefer that he'd just let me go instead of letting a million die.

but instead you would want to live in a world where people would sacrifice thier own children, to save random strangers.

I'm saying utilitarianism makes sense. If we're to take utilitarianism to the limit, you should save only one stranger for one of your own. I realize, however, that family wouldn't work that way and that there should be some leeway. So while utilitarianism isn't completely practical, we can still use it as a meter stick and say "Well, this is ideal. But I really love my family, so I can bend the rules slightly." 100,000 to 1 isn't a slight bend of the rule.

and you do live in a world full of selfish lying cheating assholes, havent you noticed lol?



peace.

Well, no crap. You're missing the point. You don't want people to be selfish assholes to you or your family, do you? Do you want people to rape your wife and children? No. And I'm saying that if you don't want to live in that kind of world, your actions should reflect it.

First let me point out, in case anybody wasn't aware, that no logical argument can be considered sound unless it both begins and ends with "lol." (See above)

lol. That said.. I think the circumstances behind the situation are sort of important. People don't exist in a vaccuum, and the complexity of a situation deserves to be considered. What are we talking about here, killing your family members or allowing them to be killed? Are they being killed by an angry mob of random strangers and you happen to be on hand with an M249? Or are they being accidentally run over by a bus full of random strangers, and you're just up the street with an RPG? Whatever the case may be, there will be some circumstance behind it. I scoff at those of you who so eagerly pronounce that the lives of those you love are purely, simply, and regardless of circumstance, more worth preserving than anyone else's. Anybody who agrees with me should recognize that the question can draw responses from none other than the insane, because to answer it at all is to give legitimacy to a false dilemma. lol.

You're right, people don't live in a vacuum. I'm explicitly not asking people what they would do in a real-life scenario. I'm asking them what they would ideally do in such a hypothetical scenario, if for some reason you were calm and were capable of rationally making a decision--not likely if you were in a real-life scenario. In essence, I'm asking how much you all value your family members in relation to strangers.

I would have to agree......If hundreds or thousands of strangers had to die, for me to save my family.....I would press the red button....kaboom

That's crazy to me. I don't understand this at all. Would you want your family to do the same for you?

 

[Tiassa]

Would I pull a Jason Gedrick, hire Lou Gossett, Jr., con the United States Air Force out of a couple of fighter jets, manipulate flight plans to refuel over the ocean, and then attack some third-world backwater populated with two-bit villains in order to commit an act of war while rescuing my father, who foolishly crashed his jet while intentionally violating the airspace of our declared enemies? I suppose I might, if the opportunity presented itself. I mean, life is like Iron Eagle, right? If it's that easy, I have no excuse not to.

Except for the bit about starting a war. Oh, well. I'm an American. I don't have to care about starting wars.

There, am I patriotic enough? Am I enough of a family man? I can't wait to teach those principles to my daughter.

By the way, of all the folks who would nuke the world, or whatever, have any of you had a relative die for want of a transplant? Did you go out and abduct people and test them, releasing those who didn't match? Did you keep the one who did and steal the necessary organ or marrow?

No? Why not?

 

[Tiassa]

Because we're not them

Holy schmambo!

I wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't read it. Okay, so reading isn't believing, but it is through convoluted channels that the insight comes to me. A flaming liberal weekly dispatches a reporter to a conservative magazine's cocktail party, and some random woman quoted more for the appeal to liberal disgust provides me a very important perspective that I've been failing thus far to understand about this topic.

There's a reason some folks in this topic are willing to say they'll blow up the world for their families:

"The media gets things right every once in a while," a Republican woman is saying to the group of conservatives standing around her. "I saw this report on, I think it was 60 Minutes, and there was a camera crew in this house that had been bombed in"—she pauses—"I think it was Iraq, but it could've been Afghanistan, and they looked inside a crib, and there was a dead child. The reporter asked the father, 'Is this war worth it?' and the father said, 'Yes,' and the reporter did a double take, you know, because he was expecting this guy to say he wanted the U.S. out of whichever country it was, but he said, 'If it's for freedom, it's totally worth it,' and that reaffirmed my belief in everything." She looks around the steak house at all the other conservatives, her face the very definition of rapture, and says, "It's why we do what we do." (TheStranger.com)​

And there you go. People are looking at themselves in the mirror and saying, "Well, we just don't want to be like them."

No American of any color wants to get caught dead sounding like an Iraqi. First we do the favor of invading Iraq, and then we let the country go to hell. Next we do everything we can to bring about rampant violence from extremists of all sorts. People are dying, wailing, being stupid enough to get maimed. And in the end, we're doing this all for a bunch of cowards. These are the kind of pinko liberal cowards that would trade death and misery for a promise of better things to come. And the stupid cowards, they'll only trade it when they don't have a choice.

Saddam's mistake, then, was to not have anything to do with 9/11. After all, if someone smart enough to con eight years of aid out of Donald Rumsfeld and Ronald Reagan were to be responsible for what happened that day, they would have been smart enough to finish the job.

Those stupid Iraqis. How dare they? The sheer audacity is mind-boggling. They would hope to heal and accept their losses if they believe tomorrow will be better? They ought to nuke the lot of us, save their families just like people have been saying, right?

The cowardice is amazing.

 

[MrManganese]

The sarcasm made that the most confusing post I've ever read, Tiassa. But I've read it three times, and now it seems to make sense. Damn those Iraqis and their ability to endure the worst of what the world has to offer. Although in fairness to them, we only have the perspective of this one man, at this one time. Heck, with infant mortality being what it is, that dead baby was possibly his fourth or fifth, diminishing the value he places on its life. Maybe the Iraqis aren't cowards after all.

 

[Tiassa]

Sorry about the confusion. I'm actually trying to be sympathetic to what I consider an absurd outlook; obviously, I'm not succeeding. But it's starting to make sense to me that people would say the things they have. I heard on the radio this evening part of an interview with a former CIA agent who is now some kind of journalist or writer. He went to Iran with a British crew to investigate the phenomena surrounding suicide bombers. Apparently, Ahmadinejad, who was mayor of Tehran or something like that at the time, made arrangements for the guy to interview the family of a 13 year-old "martyr". The man explained how the family, and the greater part of society, rejected and rebuked the phrase "suicide bomber", explaining that the difference between suicide and martyrdom is that suicide is an internal issue, and martyrdom is an act in support of the greater good. The families of the "martyrs" seem to be proud of the sacrifice, even reverent.

And that would lend to the identity issue. Muslim extremists will accept sacrifice for the greater good, "And we certainly don't want to be like them."

So instead, it seems that some of "us" would nuke the world instead of accept sacrifice for the greater good. The idea suggests the error of identifying ourselves according to what we aren't. In the end, "we" become worse than "them".

And I'm an American. If there's one thing we don't get to call the Iraqis, it's "coward". As the sarcasm shows, sympathy for the Devil is often trying.

 

[Lord Hillyer]

I assign no particular value to the 'average' person. Only to those I have known, know, or, imaginatively, will know.

 

[EmptyForceOfChi]

You're capable of putting those "natural instincts" aside, aren't you? Isn't that what you're doing when put on a condom? I'm not asking you what you think you would do in one of those situations if it happened in real life. I'm asking you what you would do, ideally, as in if you had the time to think it out and calmly come to a decision. I thought I made this clear.

i surely am capable of putting those instincts aside, but i would 100% choose not to. im so protective of my family and loved ones that i turn into a monster and would destroy mankind to save them. it is foolish of me but im not going to lie about it. i was talking about real life situations by the way. i seriously would obliterate and take india off the map just to save my wife. all of those people 1 billion lives, just to save a single soul. so selfish and illogical in the greater scheme of things i know. but thats how it is and i would to it again to china aswell straight after to save her again.

I don't know what I would do if I were put in the situation where I had to save random people or my family. I'm not even sure what I would do ideally. In the first post I said I liked the idea of the five-of-them-for-one-of mine. Of course it's a somewhat arbitrary number, but at the time it sounded pretty good. And it still sounds reasonable.

yes but i wouldent draw the line with mere numbers, i just couldent let my loved ones die. it goes against everything i am, i just couldent ever bring myself to let harm come to those who i care about. i just couldent do it and that will never change.

How would you feel if you found out that your brother killed one million people to save your life? If my brother did that for me, I'd be kind of pissed that he didn't have restraint, but I'd probably forgive him anyway. I'd much prefer that he'd just let me go instead of letting a million die.

i would thank my brother and tell him that i would have done the same for him, because if the roles were reversed i wouldent have been able to take out my own brother either.

I'm saying utilitarianism makes sense. If we're to take utilitarianism to the limit, you should save only one stranger for one of your own. I realize, however, that family wouldn't work that way and that there should be some leeway. So while utilitarianism isn't completely practical, we can still use it as a meter stick and say "Well, this is ideal. But I really love my family, so I can bend the rules slightly." 100,000 to 1 isn't a slight bend of the rule.

thats not how my mind works, i am not an idealist. it would be ideal for the good of humanity, but im not out to save humanity, im out to protect my loved ones and defend them no matter what.

Well, no crap. You're missing the point. You don't want people to be selfish assholes to you or your family, do you? Do you want people to rape your wife and children? No. And I'm saying that if you don't want to live in that kind of world, your actions should reflect it.

ofcourse i dont want people to rape my wife or my children, just like i dont want to kill my wife or my children to save random strangers. i do live int hat world and i accept that bad things happen. luckily me and my family come from a long line of fighters, soldiers and warriors. we know how to defend ourselves and protect each other. i carry a weapon so does my wife and so will my child. a rapist is taking a huge risk trying to rape somebody armed with CS gas and a hunting knife, i hope he knows he could lose his manhood.


it might not be ideal in your eyes or for the greater good of mankind, but just as in the tupac song changes says, "thats just the way it is"



peace.

 

[Norsefire]

All people are priceless. I'd die for anyone (so long as they're good, you know), but no doubt I'd save someone closer to me rather than some random stranger, but I'd try to find a solution for both.

 

[lucifers angel]

All people are priceless. I'd die for anyone (so long as they're good, you know), but no doubt I'd save someone closer to me rather than some random stranger, but I'd try to find a solution for both.

i am ashamed to say the only people i will die for is my children and no one else.

 

[fo3]

Just to clear up, I'm not asking how you would act in a real-world situation. That would be really tough to answer, because nobody knows what they would do unless they were put in that situation. I'm asking how much you value the lives of your family. In a clear frame of mind, what would you ideally do?

If asked as an ideal situation, I would like to think I wouldn't prefer my family members over other people, except in a 1:1 ratio. Unfortunately, I think that in a real world situation, depending on the details, I might make a different decision, but I would blame myself for that later.