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

[DusK 1,264]

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

Yes, I do, as do most philosophers (don't even try to argue with this unless you want to look delusional, as studies back it). Personally, I believe the golden rule to be an objective moral standard, as has been proven by being an essential foundation on which any successful society is built, and is something that runs contrary to the idea that right and wrong can't be measured on its results. And make no mistake, countries like Australia, Canada, the U.K., Hong Kong, and Somalia, and the U.S. all prove that right and wrong can be measured on its results to varying degrees with an awakening degree of precision.

 

And before you go all "but moral disagreement disproves yada yada" on me, moral disagreement arises out of one party exhibiting selfishness, so you'd only be proving my point. Really, nihilistic moral philosophies are, like many things libertarians and conservatives cling to, adverse to the scientific method.

 

My fiance and I were discussing one school of thought called the social contract theory. It's the idea that, in order to make a society strong, certain personal freedoms must be given up for the whole, and likewise, those who do so are entitled to the benefits of being in said society. We already see this in its most basic forms with the outlawing of crimes like murder, theft, etc., and as a result, these people are able to utilize services that would combat those crimes. I personally like this idea. Don't want to give up a few individual freedoms to benefit society? Is self-interest really your only moral purpose? Then get out of society, stop reaping the benefits of being in said society, and be by yourself.

[im scootaloo 24]

1. I would prefer not sacrificing anyone but if some one had to go I would volunteer so I know I did something with my life. (No I'm not emo.)

[khaine21x3 789]

nvm this is going nowhere and I think I'd rather not continue on this topic as it'll only lead to the same old arguments we've heard millions of times.

Edited December 13, 2012 by khaine21x3

[DusK 1,264]

nvm this is going nowhere and I think I'd rather not continue on this topic as it'll only lead to the same old arguments we've heard millions of times.

Old arguments like the prime example of Godwin's Law you posted just now before editing it? "Zomg collectivism = Nazis lololol"

[Titan Rising 2,156]

@,

 

 So you are deciding your morality based on what makes a society successful?  Really?  So are you telling me that if killing off all people with genetic defects/disabilities/etc was shown to bring success to a society that it would be moral?

 

Your argument is essentially what brings pleasure is good and what brings pain is bad.  There is next to no reason for me to even continue this discussion because that kind of philosophy is completely hyporitical when you try to apply it to the collective.  If pain and pleasure is all there is then there is no reason to consider anything else or anyone else than yourself.

 

Next you'll say we do it instinctively because it helps ensure our survival.  Well there might be something to that, but what exactly are you saying then?  You are essentially saying that what is moral is whatever ensures our survival.  In which case how could you claim morality is objective?

 

tell me I'm wrong

 

I'm not even gonna comment on social contract theory

[DusK 1,264]

So you are deciding your morality based on what makes a society successful?  Really?  So are you telling me that if killing off all people with genetic defects/disabilities/etc was shown to bring success to a society that it would be moral?

No, I'm deciding morality based on things that cause prosperity around the board. "Killing off all people with genetic defects/disabilities/etc" would do exactly the opposite to that, as does creating a society based almost entirely on the ideas of self-interest that you propagandize (See Hong Kong for more info on that).

 

Your argument is essentially what brings pleasure is good and what brings pain is bad.

Are you really going to argue that "I'm the only one in the world that matters" is somehow a better viewpoint to have? Because if so, I agree that we're done here, and I'll refer you to the second post I made in this thread on my way out.

 

I'm not even gonna comment on social contract theory 

Scary idea, huh? A society where you wouldn't be able to be selfish and reap the rewards as if you weren't. How utterly terrifying. Not really so much for those of us that actually feel human emotions, though.

Edited December 13, 2012 by ItStartsAtDusK

[Moon Rat 4,772]

Dude, this was supposed to be a discussion about the opinions, OPINIONS, of the people here about our thoughts on sacrificing one life to save others

 

 

It wasn't supposed to be a "grab a guitar and bash people in the face because their opinion is stupid" kind of deal

 

 

Personally, and I have said this before,

I am a bit of a coward and as such I will do my best to not die

Even if the situation goes out of hand and death is the only option, I would end up doing nothing, sadly

Edited December 13, 2012 by ~ds8~

[Gone Airbourne 21,977]

First off I do not think anyone would want to be put into this kind of a situation... I know for one thing though I would never want to sacrifice 10 people's lives for just one person. If it were me being the one person to be killed rather than those 10 people, then I would be fine to go instead of them. But like I said before I never would want to imagine being put into that kind of a situation....

[Crispy 5,563]

"Be excellent to each other, and party on, dudes!" - Bill and Ted

 

There is no absolute answer, never has been, never will be.  One should pass through life doing as little damage to others as possible, and that's about it.  It all comes down to not being too much of a dick.

[Lady Rarity Pony 4,892]

Well, these are two different scenarios.

 

Sacrificing one - or a few - in order to save many is on a totally different level than being willing to sacrifice yourself for others.

 

Now, the first scenario is probably the most difficult to decide.

 

Allow me to give an even more horrifying example. Has anyone seen the scene from Saw 7 in which three individuals are tide to a trap and only two of the three can survive? One will inevitably die (via saw) depending on which way the saw is pushed.

 

Well, yeah. Scenarios like this suck don't they! I don't particularly care much for the Saw series but it does constantly bring up the dilemma we're discussing.

 

In some cases someone will inevitably die. You can't really blame the person who caused the death of one over the many unless he had some sort of intentionally nefarious reason for killing the particular person over the others.

 

I don't exactly believe that the value of human life works like a scale where having five people in one corner and one person in another means you have 5x human value here and 1x human value there. So choosing between one of the two wouldn't rest solely on how many people would die - unless that was the only information I had to work with.

 

So long as it wasn't due to negligence or bad intentions I would not consider either the decision to save the one or save the five as immoral. Someone can only do so much and under pressure and with limited time you can't really blame someone for choosing either.

 

Now, the final option I could see was what you mentioned, which was trying to stop the train so no one dies. I suppose this could be considered negligence or foolishness if realistically there was no way to stop the train - and that was evident. While that may be foolish I would still not consider it immoral unless the decision was made as a sort of cop-out you're using to avoid any decision.

 

 

Summary: I would not consider either decision as having been immoral so long as the decision was not made out of bad intentions and/or negligence.

 

I don't generally support Utilitarianism but in some scenarios saving many over a few may be the only sane option - particularly when two numbers is all you get to work with.

 

 

 

Now, the second scenario is quite easy for me! I don't see anything wrong with someone being willing to lay down their own life for the sake of someone else. Of course you should be sure that laying down your own life is necessary - if only to avoid an awkward situation if you died for no reason!

 

If your intentions are moral and the laying down of your life is the only sure way to meet a serious goal (saving someone else or something of the sort) then I see nothing wrong with such a self-less act.

 

"No one has greater love than this, to lay down one’s life for one’s friends." - John 15:13