Would you sacrifice one life to save the lives of all?

[Titan Rising 2,156]

This is something that really bugs me.  People act as if sacrificing the life of one man for the sake of many is a righteous thing to do.  Even more so people will act as if sacrificing oneself is the greatest thing a man can do.  I hate this idea with every fiber of my being.  I hate to think that the lives of many are valued more than the lives of one.  I hate in it's entirety the "ends justify the means" mentality.

 

I never want another person to feel as if they should sacrifice themselves for me, as if my life or a dozen lives are worth more.  So many people pretend that we're united civil beings, but when the shit hits the fan  they cower away, sacrifice each other, and make each other think that sacrificing ourselves is righteous under the guise that the collective is what matters, when in reality it's because they're scared and unwilling to sacrifice themselves to help protect perhaps the only real right that any of us are born with - the right to own ourselves and exist

 

What are we if we are willing to sacrifice each other for the sake of the majority?  Certainly not civil, certainly not united, certainly not free or courageous or righteous.  Just cowards, hiding behind an illusive backwards morality conjured up by fear.

 

There has been a moral question asked by philosophers for a number of years that goes something like - if there was a train approaching towards a group of five people tied up together on the tracks, and you were next to a lever that would switch the train off to a separate track where only a single person was tied up, would you pull the lever?  

 

I say forget the lever and try to figure out a way to stop the train.

 

So to answer my original question, no I would not sacrifice anyone for the sake of anyone else, nor would I ask anyone or promote the idea that they should sacrifice themselves for the sake of others.  If I am to sacrifice myself for anything it will be for the exact opposite ideal of this... it will be for the sake of building a world where the individual and their freedom and their right to exist is valued by the collective, over the collective

Edited December 12, 2012 by Hollowshield

[khaine21x3 789]

So to answer my original question, no I would not sacrifice anyone for the sake of anyone else, nor would I ask anyone or promote the idea that they should sacrifice themselves for the sake of others.  If I am to sacrifice myself for anything it will be for the exact opposite ideal of this... it will be for the sake of building a world where the individual and their freedom and their right to exist is valued by the collective, over the collective

 

I'm just the opposite, I'm willing to sacrifice myself for a world where everyone works for the collective and criminals/terrorists are shot without trial.

 

As for sacrificing a single life to save the majority, I think that it would highly depend on whether or not I agree with the majority.The idea of sacrificing the majority to save a single life ain't that bad either if the majority are evil.

[Moon Rat 4,772]

I am quite unsure about this thought

I, myself, am too afraid to die so I pretty much will not go sacrificing myself for anything

 

 

[Shift 4,271]

I'm with Ds. I'll admit it, i'm really scared to die and I definitly won't be sacrificing myself for anyone anytime soon. If I had too then, uh, I wouldn't do anything.

[CapnKrunk 307]

I choose no.Because What if the sacrifice you are doing is not worth it, or the sacrifice doesn't have any effect at all.Then you just wasted a life.

[Discovery Dream 592]

Duh, cut the first guy free, then pull the lever. Win/win.

 

I'd sacrifice myself if I could see no benefit in not doing so. Sacrificing other people is just stupid and selfish, though.

[Starswirl the Trixie 974]

This is something that really bugs me.  People act as if sacrificing the life of one man for the sake of many is a righteous thing to do.  Even more so people will act as if sacrificing oneself is the greatest thing a man can do.  I hate this idea with every fiber of my being.  I hate to think that the lives of many are valued more than the lives of one.  I hate in it's entirety the "ends justify the means" mentality.

 

I never want another person to feel as if they should sacrifice themselves for me, as if my life or a dozen lives are worth more.  So many people pretend that we're united civil beings, but when the shit hits the fan  they cower away, sacrifice each other, and make each other think that sacrificing ourselves is righteous under the guise that the collective is what matters, when in reality it's because they're scared and unwilling to sacrifice themselves to help protect perhaps the only real right that any of us are born with - the right to own ourselves and exist

 

What are we if we are willing to sacrifice each other for the sake of the majority?  Certainly not civil, certainly not united, certainly not free or courageous or righteous.  Just cowards, hiding behind an illusive backwards morality conjured up by fear.

 

There has been a moral question asked by philosophers for a number of years that goes something like - if there was a train approaching towards a group of five people tied up together on the tracks, and you were next to a lever that would switch the train off to a separate track where only a single person was tied up, would you pull the lever?  

 

I say forget the lever and try to figure out a way to stop the train.

 

So to answer my original question, no I would not sacrifice anyone for the sake of anyone else, nor would I ask anyone or promote the idea that they should sacrifice themselves for the sake of others.  If I am to sacrifice myself for anything it will be for the exact opposite ideal of this... it will be for the sake of building a world where the individual and their freedom and their right to exist is valued by the collective, over the collective

 

Ugggg, not the Utilitarianism versus Deontology debate!  It's one of the oldest debates in philosophy and I don't particularly like it ):

 

The common argument for Deontology (AKA the means justify the ends and not vice versa) I see in this thread is "Well, you can't know for sure if sacrificing someone will be worthwhile."  Honestly, that's just a horribly weaselly answer.  

 

In my Introduction to Philosophy course the professor was very pro-Deontology and got into a debate with a few students about it.  He cited the famous story by Immanuel Kant (the creator of Deontolgoy).  Here's my modern retelling:  A friend of yours comes to your door and says "Help, someone is trying to kill me!"  You let him inside and close the door.  A minute later, someone knocks on your door.  You open it to see a man caring a bloody chainsaw.  He says "Hello, is your friend in there?"

 

Kant said that you have the moral obligation to tell the truth to the murderer as he said the ends cannot justify the means.  However, Kant suggested that you should just immediately after slam the door in the guy's face and try to get help from the police.  My philosophy professor then gave this BS add-on.  "Imagine you lie to the guy and say that your friend went down to the store.  You go back inside after the murderer leaves to find your friend, only to find that he's slipped out the back door and is running towards the store.  Thus Utilitarianism is wrong."

 

Now, as anyone should be able to tell, that's utterly ridiculous and made me question the professor's qualifications to be teaching philosophy.  Thankfully, one student caught it and brought up a counterexample.  She asked the professor: "What if this was Nazi Germany, Jews were hiding in your house, and the Gestapo came to your door?  What do you do then?"  The professor was utterly dumbfounded, stammered for a few moments, and then changed the subject as he saw his beloved Deontology crumbling around him.

 

_____

 

Deontological "logic" is rife with contradictions.  Deontologists often try to "convert" non-philosophers by saying "Hey, we just use the Golden Rule!  Something is only morally correct if it would be good if everyone did it!"  Except that's just stupid.  

 

Socrates used an interesting example to disprove an early Greek version of Deontology.  I've adapted it for modern times: You're at the mall (or somewhere) when you hear gunshots go off.  There's a shooter on the loose.  You hide behind a trashcan and, for whatever reason, there's a box of bullets behind it.  You pick them up out of curiosity.  After a few moments the shooting stops.  Suddenly, a man taps you on the shoulder; it's the shooter, saying that he lost his box of bullets and would like you to return them.  Consider Deontological logic: "If everyone refused to give back objects they found that belong to someone else, the world would be a worse place.  In addition, only the means can justify something, and refusing to give back the bullets constitutes the  means not justifying the ends.  Therefore it is morally correct to give the bullets back."

 

Of course, a world in which everyone aided and abetted in shootings would also be bad, meaning that it's morally wrong to give them back, but it's also morally right.  Deontology is an utterly absurd philosophy.  I reject it wholeheartedly and request all others to do the same already...

[Titan Rising 2,156]

@

 

I am not advocating deontology based on whether or not telling lies are moral, in fact now that I think of it... I do not know if I think lying is particularly immoral.  I am advocating it *here* based on whether or not it infringes on another's right to exist.

 

If deceiving a man trying to kill my friend will buy him time to escape from the man then I will lie.  If it means removing another man's weapon then so be it.  If I am forced to fight against a man trying to take my life then I will fight at the capacity necessary to protect my life, even if that means killing them - to not do so I believe is an insult to the life I have been given.

 

Also the whole lying-is-always-immoral thing is specific to moral absolutism, not deontology

 

No philosophy is absurd.

Edited December 12, 2012 by Hollowshield

[MelancholicMemory 2,022]

 

Well said, fellow follower of Discord. I don't think deontology holds any ground as a universal system of morality. Kant had his moments, but he is one of my least favorite philosophers. I'm more of an existentialism kind of guy.

 

Both utilitarianism and deontology have serious flaws so really its up to one's personal preference. Whether we use the ends to justify the means or not (and morality in general) is determined largely by neither rational thought nor some philosophical system, but instead they are based in our irrational emotions. At the end of the day we do what we feel is right, even if it makes no sense. I do not believe in objective morality so I cannot say with certainty which choice is right or wrong in regards to the train scenario, but I probably wouldn't do anything.

 

In regards to Hollowshield's initial proclamation, the problem is there isn't really any way for one man to stop a runaway train outside of movies and comic books. This holds true in the rest of life. There are some times when a win/win scenario isn't possible. In fact when the train scenario is usually introduced, the fact that you can't stop the train or save both is often part of the premise.

Edited December 12, 2012 by MelancholicMemory

[Titan Rising 2,156]

In regards to Hollowshield's initial proclamation, the problem is there isn't really any way for one man to stop a runaway train outside of movies and comic books. This holds true in the rest of life. There are some times when a win/win scenario isn't possible. In fact when the train scenario is usually introduced, the fact that you can't stop the train or save both is often part of the premise.

 

You are right, there may be no way to stop the train.  But to switch the tracks implies that you are valuing one life less than others and this is the problem.  I would say the only immoral thing here is wasting time considering such sentiments instead of thinking of ways to save everyone or stopping the train.

Edited December 12, 2012 by Hollowshield

[SillyPinkie 40]

Hmm if a a bunch of aliens were surrounding Earth and were going blow up the planet killing everyone unless I was killed, yup I'd be willing to sacrifice myself. However, if it was my friend they wanted to kill, or even some guy I don't know, I would feel like it was wrong. Of course, if the planet exploded, they would die, anyway, but it would still feel wrong, especially since, well, what if the aliens were bluffing? Did anyone bother trying to ask the aliens why they wanted this guy killed or try to reason with them?

 

As for the train example, would flip the switch. Because it's kinda hard to stop a train if it's close enough unless you're Superman, and untying or cutting the ropes holding one person to the track seems a lot more doable than five,

Edited December 12, 2012 by SillyPinkie

[Betez 1,734]

I feel like if you die protecting whatever matters to you, you are a hero. If by sacrificing, you mean committing Suicide, I don't feel that that's honorable. Sad, but not honorable, and you don't really save anyone that way.

 

If you die in battle, I feel like you've done a great honor. Not solely for dying, but more for giving your life for people. I hope that if I'm ever faced with the conflict of dying so people I love don't have to, I hope I'd make the right choice.

[Magpie 621]

Depends if you mean me, or some random person. If it was me, I'd do it. But as for if it was some random person, I don't feel like I should be the one to judge this. I'd try and help both, but not make the decision.

[Commander Urdnot 2,680]

You are right, there may be no way to stop the train.  But to switch the tracks implies that you are valuing one life less than others and this is the problem.  I would say the only immoral thing here is wasting time considering such sentiments instead of thinking of ways to save everyone or stopping the train.

I disagree. If you value one person just as much/more than the other 10 people, that means you value that 1 person more than you do 1 person out of that bunch of 10. All lives are worth the same. Their intelligence, physical swiftness, or character have nothing to do with it. The fact of the matter is, they're all the same thing: human. Choosing the 1 person over 10 people is discrimination, and is unfair to the other 10 people. After all, they're all the same thing.

 

That said, I am willing to sacrifice my life if it means I can save another. However only if I know that I will be able to save the other person's life. I am not going to throw my life away simply because there's a chance that I can save another person. We don't need 2 people dying when it could have been just 1.

[Vedana Purity 221]

Well I got my family to look after, and I have lived a good life. So if it means to sacrifice my own life so my family, and everyone else can live, then I would do it.

[Flicker Sweet 3,391]

yes, that's a fair trade off.  Though I probably would not be able to live with myself if I had to kill someone else.......I hate hurting people, much less killing them

[DusK 1,264]

Props on writing six paragraphs that embody the very idea of selfishness. I can't imagine being self-centered enough to believe that I somehow mean more than countless others.

Edited December 12, 2012 by ItStartsAtDusK

[Titan Rising 2,156]

I disagree. If you value one person just as much/more than the other 10 people, that means you value that 1 person more than you do 1 person out of that bunch of 10. All lives are worth the same. Their intelligence, physical swiftness, or character have nothing to do with it. The fact of the matter is, they're all the same thing: human. Choosing the 1 person over 10 people is discrimination, and is unfair to the other 10 people. After all, they're all the same thing.

 

That said, I am willing to sacrifice my life if it means I can save another. However only if I know that I will be able to save the other person's life. I am not going to throw my life away simply because there's a chance that I can save another person. We don't need 2 people dying when it could have been just 1.

 

I phrase that more for convenience than for it to be taken literally so I apologize for that.  The way I mean it is with respect to the premise that we all have a right to own our existence.  To sacrifice one for the sake of ten is to ignore or take that person's right of existence from him, it is in that way that they are being valued less.

 

It is not about weighing lives or souls, it's about weighing the right to exist.  If we do not all have that basic uncompromising right, then we have no rights as far as I can tell

 

To leave the train's course unchanged does not demand this sacrifice from the 5 that may be killed

 

 

 

Props on writing six paragraphs that embody the very idea of selfishness. I can't imagine being self-centered enough to believe that I somehow mean more than countless others.

 

 

How do you figure it's not selfish to ask one to wave away their right to exist?  I value that right for myself as the same as any other's and wish the same to be done for me by others.  If I do not have that right then what do I have?  I was not born to be a sacrificial lamb for the majority to sink their teeth into and have no intention of lowering myself or anyone for that matter, to that status

Edited December 13, 2012 by Hollowshield

[DusK 1,264]

lowering myself

Lacking basic human traits like compassion and empathy definitely does that enough already, so I don't think you have to worry about going any lower.

[Titan Rising 2,156]

Lacking basic human traits like compassion and empathy definitely does that enough already, so I don't think you have to worry about going any lower.

 

So I guess the only thing left for you to do is continue to not respond to all of my thoughts and leave the thread without adding anything of actual value

[DusK 1,264]

 

So I guess the only thing left for you to do is continue to not respond to all of my thoughts and leave the thread without adding anything of actual value

Hey, sorry bro, but the truth hurts sometimes. A key aspect of humanity is our ability to feel for others. If you lack that, you lack your humanity, making any argument that you're somehow "above" those who actually feel compassion and empathy invalid.

[khaine21x3 789]

Hey, sorry bro, but the truth hurts sometimes. A key aspect of humanity is our ability to feel for others. If you lack that, you lack your humanity, making any argument that you're somehow "above" those who actually feel compassion and empathy invalid.

 

Circular argument that has been disproven for as long as humans existed and you can simply prove it by looking at history books or any modern society.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_%28Ayn_Rand%29

[DusK 1,264]

Circular argument that has been disproven for as long as humans existed and you can simply prove it by looking at history books or any modern society.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand)

Saying the philosophy of Ayn Rand proves that point is like saying an article on InfoWars proves 9/11 was an inside job. Ayn Rand is garbage, and her books and philosophy embody everything a human be shouldn't be. There's a very good reason why most philosophers don't take her seriously.

[Titan Rising 2,156]

Saying the philosophy of Ayn Rand proves that point is like saying an article on InfoWars proves 9/11 was an inside job. Ayn Rand is garbage, and her books and philosophy embody everything a human be shouldn't be. There's a very good reason why most philosophers don't take her seriously.

Are you saying that because there is in fact an objective moral standard that every single human being should strive towards?

 

Cause If that's not the case I don't understand why anyone should care about anyone elses philosophy at all

Edited December 13, 2012 by Hollowshield

[Just some guy 1,070]

Would I sacrifice myself if neccessary?Hell yeah I would,even if I was doing it for a complete stranger.But I would not sacrifice the lives of others unless it is the absolute last resort.I would exhaust all other possible options first before resorting to sacrificing a few to save many.