Your own child or 5 other people's children?: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Ethics » Your own child or 5 other people's children? » Your own child or 5 other people's children?

Your own child or 5 other people's children?
Is it right to choose your own child?

Your own child or 5 other people's children?

Bronze
Sexiest Nihilist Alive

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 25, 2008
Location: Watertown, NY
Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 93

Posted 04/10/08 - 02:40 PM: Subject: Your own child or 5 other people's children?	#1
Lets say we have ourselves one of those 'you can only save one' dilemmas, an incoming train a falling boulder, whatever you want. If you had on one side, your child (a single child), and on the other side, 5 children of people you do not know, would it be right to choose your own child and have 5 families suffer so that do not have to? Also, is this type of question asked allot on the ethics board? It seems like it would be, sorry if you guys get it allot.
_____________________ Why is the word 'dictionary' in the dictionary? If you need to know how to spell it, the word is right on the cover, if you need to know what the definition of 'dictionary' is, you wouldn't exactly know to look in a dictionary would you?

jaoman
On the Road...

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 13, 2004
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Total Topics: 84
Total Posts: 1312

Posted 04/10/08 - 03:08 PM:	#2
Absolutely. My child has subjective value to me. Theirs don't. To choose theirs would be to reduce each human life to a single mathematical digit. I would like to think that a person's existence had a little more clout than that behind it. Choose the other children, and I make all lives meaningless. I may as well choose mine then. As for the grief of the other parents – if I'm concerned for their grieve, they must by the same principle be concerned for mine. It cancels out.
_____________________ "With no relation to class or social background, whether it suits them or not, people yearn for a dream. Sustained by a dream, hurt by a dream, revived by a dream, killed by a dream. And even after being abandoned by a dream, it continues to smolder from the bottom of one's heart... probably until the verge of death. A man should envision such a lifetime once. A life spent as a martyr to the god named "dream." - Kentaro Miura

Caldwell
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 18, 2006
Location: Under the banana tree, with Zuleiha.
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 1316

Posted 04/11/08 - 12:49 AM:	#3
Yes, a good response from jaoman. As for the grief, before one can feel grief for others, he must have known what it is for himself. And so, it is strongest when he feels it towards his own child, compared to the grief he feels towards the strangers. And it is this intensity that tells us that life isn't a matter of numbers. Incidentally, I think if you asked Plato's Socrates, he would say that choosing to save your own child is not a matter of ethics, but something like familial loyalty, which does not automatically count as ethical, but only traditional piety. The question to such scenarios (Bronze's) for ethical consideration, is the "good" that comes out of such conduct. What it is we want out of that conduct, and how it is "good" in itself, or otherwise. Edited by Caldwell on 04/11/08 - 12:55 AM
_____________________ So, you've finally figured out how reality works. Have a glass of muriatic acid, everyone.

nawitus
Transhumanist

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 27, 2006
Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 221

Posted 04/11/08 - 06:37 AM:	#4
The "correct" answer for any moral system depends completely on which moral system one is using, and for any decision there exist a moral system that suggest doing so. From this it is concluded that any act can be considered "good" given the correct moral system. Please specify your moral system or your question better so this discussion can be useful. Better question would be "in which moral systems is this act moral?". No moral system is better than the other though.
_____________________ "In a place like this, words fail. In the end, there can only be a dread silence, a silence which is a heartfelt cry to God -- Why, Lord, did you remain silent? How could you tolerate all this?" - Pope Benedict

despinozist
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2008
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 56

Posted 04/11/08 - 08:56 AM:	#5
Arbitrarily "choosing" a moral system by which to test game show ethics "dilemmas" such as this would not yield the "right" or "good" answer; demanding a moral system by which to gauge the goodness of an act yields completely to relativism. We might as go play Monopoly at Steve's for an hour, then go play at Susan's for another; tenants vanishing as quickly as your humanity. Contemporary Ethics is about Criticizing older moral system in an attempt to better understand your own choices in life; moral systems are not themselves right or wrong, nor is any event which occurs under that moral system's purview. It would be a pointless endeavor to ask "What would Kant do?" Why not ask, "What would Joe from Accounting would do?" Whereas with the former, you delude yourself into understanding anything simply because you've read some convoluted prose on the matter. The latter just gives you something equally insipid. Criticize Kant and Joe the same. Systematic ethics (deontic, utilitarian) robs us of our humanity--we are not automata. Deontic ethics reduces to faith in our own rationality, something we have no justification for having faith in for epistemic limitation, acculturation, alienation, etc. Deontic ethics attempts to turn us into god, and this is absurd by definition. Utilitarian ethics is a joke; it cannot judge itself the best ethical system, but yet it is logically possible that qua system, it might not yield the greater happiness. Do we really have time to calculate all ethical systems against one another before the train smashes everyone to bits? Virtue ethics was not Meant to address "game show ethics" such as the original post. Game Show Ethics should be rejected outright as Platonic Douchebaggery. If you reject Platonic Realism, you will reject any "idealized ethics incident." Simply because it's asked in an ethics class does not therefore make it an ethical concern. Applied Ethics presupposes society, and society entails that some therein will idle and reflect on how society could be better (ethics), generally. Therefore, nothing is isolated and the only granted assumption should be that which defines your society and its broadness, its extent.
_____________________ Understanding is the first and only basis of virtue.

jdrw
definitely ~d1

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 11, 2004
Location: Pennsylvania
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 1498

Posted 04/11/08 - 02:02 PM:	#6
What so-called "moral dilemmas" such as this can help anyone understand are the buried values informing their judgments about what to do. For example, as jaoman noted above, someone who judged that it would be immoral to save the one kid instead of the five might be basing their decision on the value judgment that every life is an equally valuable unit, (Therefore since five such units are more valuable than one unit, the moral choice would be to save the five.) Someone who says that the moral choice would be to save their own child might justify their judgment by claiming that their own child is more valuable (at least to themselves) than the other five children. In any case, such dilemmas can help people consciously realize and clarify some of the values on which they'd base their so-called moral judgments. Such analyses also can reveal that the moral issue in the end is a value issue. And when there is dispute about the "morality" of the choices, there is no rational or empirical way to determine which values should be the referent values in such choices. But we at least can admit and come to terms with the values that we are basing our judgments on. Cheers. jd
_____________________ OTOH I might be exhaustively wrong about everything I've ever thought--with the possible exception of this sentence.

nawitus
Transhumanist

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 27, 2006
Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 221

Posted 04/11/08 - 03:07 PM:	#7
despinozist wrote: Systematic ethics (deontic, utilitarian) robs us of our humanity--we are not automata. Provide evidence that humans are not biological robots (automata).
_____________________ "In a place like this, words fail. In the end, there can only be a dread silence, a silence which is a heartfelt cry to God -- Why, Lord, did you remain silent? How could you tolerate all this?" - Pope Benedict

despinozist
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2008
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 56

Posted 04/11/08 - 05:04 PM:	#8
nawitus wrote: Provide evidence that humans are not biological robots (automata). Let us define our terms. Are we entirely automata like how people tend to think of animals and computers? Yes. Can we say exactly that our natures are identical to animals and computers? No. Even if dogs were to pick up philosophy, their philosophy would be automata to us--and yet, part of their habit is still interesting to us. Their philosophy would be their habit which would be unique. Our own human habit is interesting to us. We cannot completely describe ourselves as "automata" to one another. That remainder, which cannot be put to paper, is our "humanity." Evidence will do no good, since you see that I am not talking about "humans are so cool! they've got rationality and free will!!" Because of epistemic conditioning (Humean Skepticism), we are forced, as a species, to consider everything outside of our species as "automata"; the world ticks and tocks with or without us. Though Hume's Skepticism points out our use of custom or habit, we cannot say our custom or habit is like that of a dog or a computer. What's more, Hume's Skepticism makes your demand for evidence pointless.
_____________________ Understanding is the first and only basis of virtue.

killerofgod
Travelling Journeyman

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 01, 2006
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 44

Posted 04/15/08 - 11:31 AM:	#9
Let's up the ante. How about saving one to a hundred? One to a thousand? One to the entire population of East Asia?
_____________________ Just my own meaningless thoughts and opinions.

jaoman
On the Road...

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 13, 2004
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Total Topics: 84
Total Posts: 1312

Posted 04/15/08 - 12:26 PM:	#10
Makes no difference.
_____________________ "With no relation to class or social background, whether it suits them or not, people yearn for a dream. Sustained by a dream, hurt by a dream, revived by a dream, killed by a dream. And even after being abandoned by a dream, it continues to smolder from the bottom of one's heart... probably until the verge of death. A man should envision such a lifetime once. A life spent as a martyr to the god named "dream." - Kentaro Miura

Mike H
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 05, 2007
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 71

Posted 04/16/08 - 12:13 AM:	#11
I think it does make a difference whether we'e talking about 5 other children or a whole nation of children. As much as you value your child, shouldn't the fact that other parents feel the same way cause you to value their children too, at least a little? All else being equal, would you not expend some amount of effort to save their children if they were in danger? Granted, you may not be willing to "spend" so much as your own child (in the form of his/her death), but you would spend something. Add to this the fact that the value of your child is not infinite (right?). So then it follows that if enough children (who aren't your own) are at stake, you should be willing to sacrifice your own child to save them. Its just a matter of how many other children we're talking about. We might reasonably expect that you value your child more than 5 random children, but a whole nation of children? To choose your own child in that case would show that you care little for humanity. What kind of world would we live in if people didn't care about humanity?

jaoman
On the Road...

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 13, 2004
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Total Topics: 84
Total Posts: 1312

Posted 04/16/08 - 01:10 AM:	#12
Mike H wrote: I think it does make a difference whether we'e talking about 5 other children or a whole nation of children. As much as you value your child, shouldn't the fact that other parents feel the same way cause you to value their children too, at least a little? Sure. If I have a plain choice of save a child or not save a child, I will of course take the more kitten friendly option. Mike H wrote: Add to this the fact that the value of your child is not infinite (right?). So then it follows that if enough children (who aren't your own) are at stake, you should be willing to sacrifice your own child to save them. Why shouldn't my child's value be infinite? How cool would that be! The problem is that you are talking about stranger's children. No matter how many of them there are, any value I ascribe to them is purely a matter of guilt. I have no commitment to any single one of these individuals. I'm certainly not going to kill my child to spare myself guilt. And I repeat what I said in my first post. To presume that mathematic must have some sway over the situation is to take away human value. There is no fixed price at which I esteem my loved ones. I just esteem them. This is a quality no stranger can ever meet so long as he or she is a stranger. Mike H wrote: What kind of world would we live in if people didn't care about humanity? So, I'm killing my child to make a statement about my love for humanity? My love for humanity can rot, thanks – I'd rather have concrete people beside me.
_____________________ "With no relation to class or social background, whether it suits them or not, people yearn for a dream. Sustained by a dream, hurt by a dream, revived by a dream, killed by a dream. And even after being abandoned by a dream, it continues to smolder from the bottom of one's heart... probably until the verge of death. A man should envision such a lifetime once. A life spent as a martyr to the god named "dream." - Kentaro Miura

Bronze
Sexiest Nihilist Alive

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 25, 2008
Location: Watertown, NY
Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 93

Posted 05/06/08 - 01:20 PM:	#13
jaoman wrote: Why shouldn't my child's value be infinite? Why should it be infinite? I realize people have an enormous value for thier own kids, they'd sacrifice themselves, they mean the world etc. But why not live with the sorrow of losing a child so that 5 other families don't have to? Isn't it incredible selfish not to? Lets say your kid is one of the 5 kids, and some stranger is the one making the dicision to sacrifice thier one kid or your kid and 4 others. You suddenly would be praying on your hands and knees that that person doesn't share your egotistical selfishness. I would consider it a lack of empathy on your part. Without empathy, which I would argue is the single biggest cause of morallity in human beings, society as we know it wouldn't have evolved this far. It's that type of mentallity (I don't have to endure the loss therefor I don't care) that justifies slavery and genocide. Why work when I can force 5 black slaves to do it? Who cares that they would have to suffer at my stead? Would you sacrifice eating a cupcake so that 5 other people could eat a cupcake? Also, no one is really breaking it down mathmatically, the point is that the collective pain/suffering felt by those 5 families is certaintly greater than the pain and suffering felt by your single loss.
_____________________ Why is the word 'dictionary' in the dictionary? If you need to know how to spell it, the word is right on the cover, if you need to know what the definition of 'dictionary' is, you wouldn't exactly know to look in a dictionary would you?

DoctorInWaiting
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 01, 2008
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 36

Posted 05/06/08 - 03:53 PM:	#14
Utilitarian beliefs would say 5 children, altruistic behaviour would suggest 5 children, but really you only use this philosophical question within a hypothetical context. As Marx instigated Theory is different in practice. Not one soul on this forum would save 5 children over their own. Psychological attachment theorists such as John Bowlby would cane anyone who is in a secure attachment with thier own children to save 5. What is the motivation to save 5 children when your own genetic survival (within your child) is at stake? Therefore Darwinian evolution would suggest your own for genetic survival. Altruistic acts to save 5 children would only bring around a heroism that people would love you for. Therefore the question is do you really want to look superior (and your own gains are fulfilled by saving 5 and looking like a hero) or save your own child (survival, attachment, maternal instinct, family issues after, folk psychological) It really is a question that people are thinking too deep about. Its not about infinity and how much each means to you, its what you would do in practice (which I am ridiculously sure no one on here would sacrifice thier own child) Hypothetical questions do not work in the same manner.
_____________________ "The Philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways, the point however is to change it" Marx and Engels "Freedom of conscience entails more dangers than authority and despotism." Michel Foucault Society is rebelled against if society condemns

jaoman
On the Road...

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 13, 2004
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Total Topics: 84
Total Posts: 1312

Posted 05/08/08 - 08:21 PM:	#15
Bronze wrote: Why should it be infinite? I realize people have an enormous value for thier own kids, they'd sacrifice themselves, they mean the world etc. But why not live with the sorrow of losing a child so that 5 other families don't have to? Isn't it incredible selfish not to? Yes. Absolutely. Selfishness is good. It is derived from desire. Acting on it culminates desire. A world where we could not fulfill our desires is a world not worth living in. Why should I care about the sorrows of others? If they care about my sorrow, don't they want me to save my child? Or is it that they want their children saved? They don't have to make the choice so they're allowed to be selfish. Gluttony for the impotent, yay! No, thank you. Bronze wrote: Without empathy, which I would argue is the single biggest cause of morallity in human beings, society as we know it wouldn't have evolved this far. It's that type of mentallity (I don't have to endure the loss therefor I don't care) that justifies slavery and genocide. Why work when I can force 5 black slaves to do it? Who cares that they would have to suffer at my stead? Sure. Bring on the black slaves! Or how about the Asian slaves? Who made your shoes, Bronze? Or the cutlery in your house? Or, likely as not, sown together a good part of your wardrobe? For that matter, who is serving you cheeseburgers at minimum wage so you don't have to suffer through having to cook for yourself? And, while we are at it, who is starving to death in Africa while you are sitting home typing righteous messages on Internet forums? Surely you realize, Bronze, the time and money you waste delivering onto me your moral smack down could save lives it were all channeled to better causes. Yet, here you sit, fed, content, clothed, warm, and safe. All the while people are dieing, man. People you could've saved with your money, time, and comfort, if only you were willing to surrender all the luxuries in your life. How can you sleep at night? Where is your empathy, Bronze? The question for me is not whether I'm enslaving others for my comfort. My test of worth is what their assistance allows me to contribute. In the end of the day, my contribution is the only thing that can validate both myself and the gallons of blood I'm floating in.
_____________________ "With no relation to class or social background, whether it suits them or not, people yearn for a dream. Sustained by a dream, hurt by a dream, revived by a dream, killed by a dream. And even after being abandoned by a dream, it continues to smolder from the bottom of one's heart... probably until the verge of death. A man should envision such a lifetime once. A life spent as a martyr to the god named "dream." - Kentaro Miura

Bronze
Sexiest Nihilist Alive

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 25, 2008
Location: Watertown, NY
Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 93

Posted 05/09/08 - 12:37 PM:	#16
jaoman wrote: Yes. Absolutely. Selfishness is good. It is derived from desire. Acting on it culminates desire. A world where we could not fulfill our desires is a world not worth living in. Why should I care about the sorrows of others? If they care about my sorrow, don't they want me to save my child? Or is it that they want their children saved? They don't have to make the choice so they're allowed to be selfish. Gluttony for the impotent, yay! No, thank you. I'm actually stating my position from a logical stance, not from desire. So Im not saying you should choose the five kids purely to appease a sense of selflessness, I'm saying that the amount of suffering if you save the 5 kids instead of your one will be less (5 times less). And this has nothing to do with not being able to fulfill desires, this has to do the consequence of fulfilling those desires. If you can fulfill a desire that creates no victims, exellent for you, but if by fullfilling your desire 5 people must suffer an overall pain of 5 fold your gain, it's illogical. Sure. Bring on the black slaves! Or how about the Asian slaves? Who made your shoes, Bronze? Or the cutlery in your house? Or, likely as not, sown together a good part of your wardrobe? I'm a socialist, if I had it my way everyone would benefit from wage regulation and there'd be no outsourcing abuse, etc (you've this bit before, I'm sure you are familiar). For that matter, who is serving you cheeseburgers at minimum wage so you don't have to suffer through having to cook for yourself? Me actually, I work at McDonalds. Not at minimum wage though, I got my first raise about a month ago. And, while we are at it, who is starving to death in Africa while you are sitting home typing righteous messages on Internet forums? Surely you realize, Bronze, the time and money you waste delivering onto me your moral smack down could save lives it were all channeled to better causes. I don't have a particularly influencial outlet to exact my political philosophies at the moment, but I do write articles for our school's paper, I debate about it with people at any chance I get, I do what I can given my limiting situation. Yet, here you sit, fed, content, clothed, warm, and safe. All the while people are dieing, man. People you could've saved with your money, time, and comfort, if only you were willing to surrender all the luxuries in your life. How can you sleep at night? Where is your empathy, Bronze? I am willing to sacrifice money and effort for global economic parity, but the problem is, sending 10 dollars to Etheopia is never going to solve the problem like people think it will. We need drastic political changes to effect anything, and until the large number of conservatives and greedy a**holes are waned, it will never be accomplished. The necessary movement will start with hard-left writers and politicians. I'd preffer not to be a politician, which is why I do actually plan on being a writer, one of many things I'd like to write about is my political philosophy which would hopefully do something to change peoples' minds. But until peoples minds are changed, nothing significant will happen.
_____________________ Why is the word 'dictionary' in the dictionary? If you need to know how to spell it, the word is right on the cover, if you need to know what the definition of 'dictionary' is, you wouldn't exactly know to look in a dictionary would you?

jaoman
On the Road...

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 13, 2004
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Total Topics: 84
Total Posts: 1312

Posted 05/09/08 - 02:29 PM:	#17
Bronze wrote: I'm actually stating my position from a logical stance, not from desire. So Im not saying you should choose the five kids purely to appease a sense of selflessness, I'm saying that the amount of suffering if you save the 5 kids instead of your one will be less (5 times less). How do you measure the suffering? I, for example, have never been able to quantify it. Wouldn't want to, either. Can you imagine the 911 call operator working with a sufferingometer or something? “Please wait, ma'am. The suffering you are experiencing after your rape rates only 2 out of 5 on my equipment. You might still be in shock. I'll set you down for medium urgency and an available officer will arrive as soon as one can be spared. Thanks for your patience!” That just gives me chills. Who are you to tell me how much I'm suffering? Maybe I love my child enough that my suffering will be proportionally worth any other six parent's suffering. You don't know. So, what do you do? Well, you fall back on numbers. You insist that you are not reducing lives to mathematics, Bronze, but that is exactly what you are doing. Five suffering parents in corner A and one suffering parent in corner B. A > B, therefore: choose B. You even bypass the children who will be doing the living and dieing. They aren't important to you, apparently. That is where you and I divide. I'm not comparing my suffering to that of five others. When I'm making the choice, I'm comparing the joy of my child at being alive to the suffering of five others. I don't care about principles. I don't care about morality. I don't care about looking cool. I care about people. You imply that my suffering is the same as that of each of the five other parents and that my joy at having my child survive is also the same. Well, it's not. They only get to find out that their child has lived or died. I get to actively save or kill my child. That has a lot of weight. And I get to experience my child's life for however long he lives with me and then whenever he so deigns to be inconvenienced by visiting his cranky old daddy. That's people, man. That's life and joy for a long time. That's worth way, way more than the immediate suffering of five, actually ten, others and all their assorted relatives. You can, of course, reverse it and say that they have similar statistics behind them, only multiplied by five. But that again would be an appeal to numbers, and I insist it to be a lousy way to treat human beings. Bronze wrote: I don't have a particularly influencial outlet to exact my political philosophies at the moment, but I do write articles for our school's paper, I debate about it with people at any chance I get, I do what I can given my limiting situation. That sounds suspiciously like an excuse. You want to be consistent, subtract everything from your paycheck but the minimum needed to cover food and lodgings, all of it if you are supported by someone else, and give that to the Red Cross or any other organization involved in helping the unfortunate. Sell your laptop, sell your playstation, sell all you luxuries and donate that money as well. If you want to sacrifice your future for a group of strangers, don't let me stop you. But don't try to pass the burden of that sacrifice on to me. That's just hypocrisy. Bronze wrote: I am willing to sacrifice money and effort for global economic parity, but the problem is, sending 10 dollars to Etheopia is never going to solve the problem like people think it will. We need drastic political changes to effect anything, and until the large number of conservatives and greedy a**holes are waned, it will never be accomplished. The necessary movement will start with hard-left writers and politicians. I'd preffer not to be a politician, which is why I do actually plan on being a writer, one of many things I'd like to write about is my political philosophy which would hopefully do something to change peoples' minds. But until peoples minds are changed, nothing significant will happen. That doesn't let you off either. If everyone starts thinking like you, then everyone will sit home and write political philosophy about the need to change the world. They'll all have a marry time agreeing and everything will continue on as before. Somewhere, someone has to take action. You want action taken, don't complain about someone else when you aren't doing it either. As for political change, it's easy to imagine a utopia; much harder to create one. What do you want and how much are you willing to give for it?
_____________________ "With no relation to class or social background, whether it suits them or not, people yearn for a dream. Sustained by a dream, hurt by a dream, revived by a dream, killed by a dream. And even after being abandoned by a dream, it continues to smolder from the bottom of one's heart... probably until the verge of death. A man should envision such a lifetime once. A life spent as a martyr to the god named "dream." - Kentaro Miura

SparrowShadow
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 26, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 15

Posted 05/10/08 - 02:33 PM:	#18
Any father would choose their own child, now if I had a choice of one of my five children, the question arises "Is there a way I can give my life to save two, or save one and my own" now that would really be an aweful experience, and if there is a hell surely that's where I'd find it. Oh I'm a grandfather too so I could go on but you get the general idea.

Bustin Jell
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 10, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 1

Posted 05/10/08 - 07:59 PM:	#19
I agree with SparrowShadow. In all honesty, I would choose my own child instead of the other five every time, because that's what the question asks. But in reality, I would probably die trying to save all of them rather than saying "well I've saved my own kid, that's enough for me."

Lex
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 17, 2008
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 173

Posted 05/10/08 - 08:17 PM:	#20
5>1

WW_III_ANGRY
All knowing prick

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 06, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 70

Posted 05/11/08 - 07:44 AM:	#21
This is my world, not yours. I'd waste an infinity of children before my own, my wife, or anything else. I'm selfish. As are you. I'm for me and you're for you.

DoctorInWaiting
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 01, 2008
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 36

Posted 05/11/08 - 11:24 AM:	#22
WW_III_ANGRY wrote: This is my world, not yours. I'd waste an infinity of children before my own, my wife, or anything else. I'm selfish. As are you. I'm for me and you're for you. Exactly what I said, everyon is motivated by themselves and maximisation for their own gains. My last post explained why!
_____________________ "The Philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways, the point however is to change it" Marx and Engels "Freedom of conscience entails more dangers than authority and despotism." Michel Foucault Society is rebelled against if society condemns

HalcyonGlaze
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 30, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 48

Posted 05/11/08 - 11:29 AM:	#23
I'd save mine. I say it's permissible to do either though. Even if it's one, or the entire population of East Asia, it's permissible to save either.

Bronze
Sexiest Nihilist Alive

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 25, 2008
Location: Watertown, NY
Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 93

Posted 05/17/08 - 06:14 PM:	#24
jaoman wrote: How do you measure the suffering? I, for example, have never been able to quantify it. Wouldn't want to, either. Can you imagine the 911 call operator working with a sufferingometer or something? “Please wait, ma'am. The suffering you are experiencing after your rape rates only 2 out of 5 on my equipment. You might still be in shock. I'll set you down for medium urgency and an available officer will arrive as soon as one can be spared. Thanks for your patience!” That just gives me chills. Who are you to tell me how much I'm suffering? Maybe I love my child enough that my suffering will be proportionally worth any other six parent's suffering. You don't know. I thought I said that this question is assuming your value for your child is equal to thier value for thier children. I apologize if I didn't say that before. That's one of those goofy things about parents. They ALL arrogantly claim they love thier child more than anyone else loves thiers. This is absurd bull**. So, what do you do? Well, you fall back on numbers. You insist that you are not reducing lives to mathematics, Bronze, but that is exactly what you are doing. Five suffering parents in corner A and one suffering parent in corner B. A > B, therefore: choose B. You even bypass the children who will be doing the living and dieing. They aren't important to you, apparently. If your value for your children is not significantly greater or less than thiers, then yes it does indeed break down into numbers. I don't care about principles. I don't care about morality. Then why are you debating this on a philosophical ethics board if you don't care about that stuff? Do you care about logic? I care about people. That's incredibly hypocritical. Aren't you the one who said you'd sacrifice the population of East Asia for your one child and that you were admittedly selfish? You imply that my suffering is the same as that of each of the five other parents and that my joy at having my child survive is also the same. Well, it's not. They only get to find out that their child has lived or died. I get to actively save or kill my child. That has a lot of weight. How 'sad' you would feel at your childs death would vary based on how he or she died? And doesn't the fact that you saved 5 children redeem any feelings of sorrow at all? And I get to experience my child's life for however long he lives with me and then whenever he so deigns to be inconvenienced by visiting his cranky old daddy. That's people, man. That's life and joy for a long time. That's worth way, way more than the immediate suffering of five, actually ten, others and all their assorted relatives. Again this is complete disregard for human empathy, logic and it's utter selfishness. If everyone shared your outlook we would live in a comparetively dystopic wasteland. I'm not sure we would have advanced much further than the bronze age. You can, of course, reverse it and say that they have similar statistics behind them, only multiplied by five. But that again would be an appeal to numbers, and I insist it to be a lousy way to treat human beings. Lousy way to treat humans? I'd rather be treated like number than be sacrificed along with countless other people for some greedy ass to save his one child. That sounds suspiciously like an excuse. You want to be consistent, subtract everything from your paycheck but the minimum needed to cover food and lodgings, all of it if you are supported by someone else, and give that to the Red Cross or any other organization involved in helping the unfortunate. Small donations aren't going to solve anything. We need drastic political changes. The only reason I would be hesitent to donate my money in our current economic system is because it would be in vain. The people who are in need can't just be helped 'temporarily', we need a system that actually completely funds aid and programs permenetly. Other than that, I haven't spent my money on materialistic s* either, I have saved it all. The only thing I've spent with my money is food, and 5 CDs. The CDs themselves are material, granted, but the music itself is much more than that. I'm saving my money for either college or a vehicle. I don't think either of those things are peticularly selfish/materialistic things. Education is priceless and we all need vehicles to get around. But given a system that actually organizes collected funds, absolutely I'm all for it. Sell your laptop, sell your playstation, sell all you luxuries and donate that money as well. If you want to sacrifice your future for a group of strangers, don't let me stop you. But don't try to pass the burden of that sacrifice on to me. That's just hypocrisy. The only things I own personally is my 5 CDs. Everything else in my house is parents and I can't sell them. The only things In my house I use is my computer for homework, writing, music and talking to people on the internet about philosophy since no one I know IRL seems to care or know anything about it. I don't watch TV, I rarely play video games anymore. That doesn't let you off either. If everyone starts thinking like you, then everyone will sit home and write political philosophy about the need to change the world. No, we vote too. And I said the change will start with writers and politicians. Politicians make policy, policy is what we need to change this world. They'll all have a marry time agreeing and everything will continue on as before. Somewhere, someone has to take action. You want action taken, don't complain about someone else when you aren't doing it either. Expressing political views is extremely importaint, and is certainly an 'action'. I said I was going to be a writer, you don't believe writers do anything to change the world? As for political change, it's easy to imagine a utopia; much harder to create one. What do you want and how much are you willing to give for it? I'm not speaking of a utopia i'm simply speaking of a world that is better.
_____________________ Why is the word 'dictionary' in the dictionary? If you need to know how to spell it, the word is right on the cover, if you need to know what the definition of 'dictionary' is, you wouldn't exactly know to look in a dictionary would you?

Bronze
Sexiest Nihilist Alive

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 25, 2008
Location: Watertown, NY
Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 93

Posted 05/17/08 - 06:28 PM:	#25
If the original question is getting boring to you, I have another one. Say you have more than one child. A psychopath breaks into your house, knocks you out and ties you up. You are completely fastened to a chair, you come to and the psychopath has your kids also tied up. He tells you he is conducting an experiment. He tells you that you have 10 minutes to choose one child that will be killed, and the rest will be unharmed, and then he will leave. If you do not chose a child in that time frame, he kills all of them and then leaves. The children are tied up directly in your presence, but are facing away from you so you can't make eye contact. They are also gagged so they cannot communicate with you. For the sake of avoiding semantics, you know for a fact that no one will come into your house within the next 10 minutes, if you have a wife or husband, they too are are knocked out but in a different room or something. You live relatively far away from your neihbors so yelling for help isn't going to do anything. Also, he is a famous murderer and you are certain he is serious. A. If the kids have nothing covering thier ears, and will thus be aware of what the psychopath asked you to do and what your decision would be, how would you deside? Could you choose a child to sacrifice for the sake of your other kids, would you do this to prevent ALL of them from being killed? B. If the kids were deafened with ear muffs and would not be aware that you had to choose which one was killed, would your decision be any different?
_____________________ Why is the word 'dictionary' in the dictionary? If you need to know how to spell it, the word is right on the cover, if you need to know what the definition of 'dictionary' is, you wouldn't exactly know to look in a dictionary would you?

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.