|
|
|
|
prohemp
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 7716
Location: in the cradle of liberty
|
| Back to top
|
|
 Posted: 09/11/03 - 21:37 Post subject: A Quick Ethical Question
Do you view life quanitifably? For example, is sacrificing one life always acceptable if it saves two lives? If you don't believe this, when is it not acceptable?
|
|
|
|
|
monk25
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 25 Jun 2002
Posts: 3922
Location: The Beautiful South Shore of L.I. NY
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 09/11/03 - 21:41 Post subject: Re: A Quick Ethical Question
| prohemp wrote: | | Do you view life quanitifably? For example, is sacrificing one life always acceptable if it saves two lives? If you don't believe this, when is it not acceptable? |
Too many variables.
I would sacrifice my life for my kids or my wife or my brothers or sister. I might not sacrifice my life for a stranger (i said sacrifice, not risk). My reason fo this is that I have a responsibility to my family to stay alive, if possible.
|
|
|
|
|
robp
Pyromaniac
|
|
|
Joined: 26 Jul 2002
Posts: 16242
Location: Waiting in line at the beer store...
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 09/12/03 - 07:38 Post subject:
What monk said.
|
|
|
|
|
copteacher
Adjunct
|
|
|
Joined: 08 Jun 2002
Posts: 20588
Location: Teaching in the Halls of Justice
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 09/12/03 - 07:46 Post subject:
The bibilical standard is no greater love than when man lays down his life for another. I do not think it is proportional . Though I would be more likely to take greater risks to save my family, I would still lay it out to save another if it came to that.
|
|
|
|
|
prohemp
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 7716
Location: in the cradle of liberty
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 09/12/03 - 08:13 Post subject:
I'm not necessarily talking about sacrificing your own life - my premise is that I think a lot of people would factor in the "value" of a person's life whereas the idea of one human being evaluating the life-value of another human being strikes me as, well, not one's place.
without providing specific circumstances - would killing a genius, cancer-curing, scientist type to save two below-average intelligence monkey handlers be acceptable / appropriate?
|
|
|
|
|
Pug
The Movie Geek
|
|
|
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Posts: 8924
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 09/12/03 - 10:22 Post subject:
If we aren't talking about sacrificing one's own life, i don't think we can truly quantify the value of a human life compared to another. Not in the case of "I'll kill me one Einstein to save three Pugs". Sure, an Einstein may have a larger significant impact to human civilization, but do you really know the long term impact of my life? Who i have impacted in such a way to alter their lives, my children and grandchildren and who they impact and what they do? I don't think it is really possible (or even appropriate) to try to quantify a life like that. This isn't to say that i've never done exactly that, but it still isn't appropriate, methinks.
|
|
|
|
|
RangerG
Bounty Hunter
|
|
|
Joined: 13 Mar 2003
Posts: 7301
Location: Gmail Server Number 126
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 09/12/03 - 10:30 Post subject:
It's would depend on the situation, and you cannot predict what your response would be.
If someone would attempt to hurt my kids, Maddie, or her son, I would stand between them and the agressor...no question...I would take the bullet, knife, whatever... Then the &*$^% better run, cuz I am hard to take down 
I would give my life to protect my loved ones, and I would risk my life to help a stanger if the situation demanded it.
Your question as worded is difficult to answer. Would I give my life to save a school full of kids, a train, a ship, or a building full of people...yea, I probably would... Again, it would depend on the situation.
Ranger
|
|
|
|
|
elkid
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 18 Nov 2002
Posts: 8353
Location: hiding out in Philly
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 09/12/03 - 10:34 Post subject:
[observation]
I am interested to see the responses of those in a service industry v. those who are not. I am even more interested to see how the more conservative RRers will answer this, because this question is a cornerstone of another hot topic. I hypothesize that the conservatives would say yes, within prohemp's guidelines it would be acceptable to sacrifice one life for another, but would say no in the context of the hot topic.
[/observation]
Please continue.
|
|
|
|
|
prohemp
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 7716
Location: in the cradle of liberty
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 09/12/03 - 10:57 Post subject:
| Pug wrote: | | If we aren't talking about sacrificing one's own life, i don't think we can truly quantify the value of a human life compared to another. Not in the case of "I'll kill me one Einstein to save three Pugs". Sure, an Einstein may have a larger significant impact to human civilization, but do you really know the long term impact of my life? Who i have impacted in such a way to alter their lives, my children and grandchildren and who they impact and what they do? I don't think it is really possible (or even appropriate) to try to quantify a life like that. This isn't to say that i've never done exactly that, but it still isn't appropriate, methinks. |
you're right - the very idea of quantifiable mortality is at complete odds with the widely accepted belief of human equality. You cannot say that all humans are created equal and yet some humans are more deserving of life than others, obviously the claim would be self-contradictory.
|
|
|
|
|
monk25
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 25 Jun 2002
Posts: 3922
Location: The Beautiful South Shore of L.I. NY
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 09/12/03 - 10:59 Post subject:
How about just a good ass-kicking?
|
|
|
|
|
prohemp
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 7716
Location: in the cradle of liberty
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 09/12/03 - 11:03 Post subject:
| monk25 wrote: | | How about just a good ass-licking? |
hey - that kinda talk may work with the chicks but not here
|
|
|
|
|
omega lambda
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 4691
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 09/12/03 - 11:04 Post subject:
I think you're talking about the greater good. Logically, killing the scientist would have a detrimental impact on society as well his/her family and friends, whereas killing the below-average monkey handlers would have little or no impact on society but would also hurt their family and friends. Allowing the scientist to live allows the potential to save many more lives, so it is an acceptable/appropriate choice. But most people don't think or operate logically, and when it comes to the life and death of people, family and friends, reason is thrown out the window. This choice is, therefore, only good for discussion purposes.
edited to finish my thought 
Last edited by omega lambda on 09/12/03 - 11:07; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
monk25
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 25 Jun 2002
Posts: 3922
Location: The Beautiful South Shore of L.I. NY
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 09/12/03 - 11:04 Post subject:
| prohemp wrote: | | monk25 wrote: | | How about just a good ass-licking? |
hey - that kinda talk may work with the chicks but not here |
Doesn't work with the chicks, either 
|
|
|
|
|
elkid
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 18 Nov 2002
Posts: 8353
Location: hiding out in Philly
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 09/12/03 - 11:06 Post subject:
| omega lambda wrote: | | Allowing the scientist to live allows the potential to save many more lives, so it is an acceptable/appropriate choice. |
So says the scientist.
|
|
|
|
|
omega lambda
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 4691
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 09/12/03 - 11:09 Post subject:
| elkid wrote: | | omega lambda wrote: | | Allowing the scientist to live allows the potential to save many more lives, so it is an acceptable/appropriate choice. |
So says the scientist. |
I saw that coming, but realize I'm a monkey-handler. No one will live or die by my work.
|
|
|
|
