Ask Your Question today
Is the survival of one person less, equal or more significant than the survival of the masses (and when I say masses I mean everyone else involved) This hypothetical scenario does not provide specificity into the type of person being sacrificed and moreover, the attitude of the masses is also adaptable.
I do not believe all people are equal. Not at all. For those who think all people are equal, is a person who rapes a baby then hangs its body in a closet for later fondling your equal? Just curious ya know. I voted kill 'em all by the way, and by all I only mean most.
thankyou for commenting and it is greatly appreciated. However, don´t you think the socio-economic inequality has something to do with some people´s lack in education and inability to think morally and therefore commit henous crimes like the one you stated? Is it not because of the pain and suffering billions of people world wide endure daily just to supply their families with food that crimes like the one you stated occur in the first place? Perhaps, the world first needs an attempt at social equality before a comment regarding the favor of inequality is justified.
I honestly would very much like to believe. It seems very reassuring and comforting to me. Unfortunately, I simply cannot believe in something that cannot be backed up with any evidence whatsoever.
Moreover, I think the Bible sometimes is a vile book. I mean, do you really believe that we are all BORN guilty, because a talking snake convinced a rib-woman to eat from a magical tree? Not only is that absurd, it is evil. Babies are innocent by definition.
Ha ha, great poll really. One of the better here, but that doesn't say much. I'll go with the person is equal to everyone else, so his/her rights are the same. Therefore, you can not hold one person hostage to everyone else, because you are trying to hold us all hostage. That was not one of your options. Terrorists hate that fact.
We are all equal, equal in worthlessness.
There is no such thing as a valuable person, all expendable, all mortal, all destructive.
And the biggest point that people miss is that there's no point to killing people. Getting rid of certain people to make the world better means nothing because we just die anyway, thus we can't enjoy this change for any length of time worthy of the effort.
JFK was killed, it was a big deal then, it means nothing now. What do I care if people litter? It screws the environment, but I won't be there to face the problems, neither will any of you. Just like every other problem, it means nothing because you'll all be dead soon.
Thinking that one person has qualities that elevate them above others is foolish and delusional. A doctor and a child molester will both fade into obscurity, forgotten forever, hence they ultimately mean nothing.
"Life has no meaning the moment you loose the illusion of being eternal."
- Jean-Paul Sartre
You're obviously an existentialist so why would you have any use for a consensus website like this?
It would be a great curse to think like you (or probably more accurately, the person you present yourself to be on this website): you're in a permanent existential crisis looking for macrocosmic meaning in the microcosm.
If we don't hold some personal qualities higher than others, there is nothing to strive for.
Why haven't you topped yourself yet? I'm not encouraging you, I'm just asking.
"You're obviously an existentialist so why would you have any use for a consensus website like this?"
Well you'd have to be dumb not too, it's infallible.
"you're in a permanent existential crisis looking for macrocosmic meaning in the microcosm."
You can't be in crisis if you believe in this existential theory, because it shows that there is NOTHING to worry about.
"looking for macrocosmic meaning in the microcosm."
It implies that I DON'T look for meaning, and know there is none. Everything you've said contradicts your claim to understand what i'm talking about, very strange.
"If we don't hold some personal qualities higher than others, there is nothing to strive for."
This only means something if you DON'T believe the theory. In my eyes it's not a valid point, it's a waste of time to strive for something that ends up being nothing one day soon. Life is short so don't waste it on work, don't waste it on worry. Live it for instant pleasure with a smile on your face and a song in your heart.
Killing yourself is also pointless under this theory, as living it means an enjoyable, guiltless, self indulgent life with little fear of death.
I'm not saying you're stupid. I suppose you make wildly incorrect assumptions because your mind isn't of "that type". Some people see more meaning in the truths of nothingness than in man made goals and values.
"We are all equal, equal in worthlessness."
I strongly disagree. Obviously, a child killer has less worth than an "average" person, thus we are NOT all equal. Moreover, the fact a child killer has less value than an "average" person, implies that some people are NOT worthless. Wrong again, but if you want to define yourself as wortlesss, fine by me.
"Getting rid of certain people to make the world better means nothing because we just die anyway, thus we can't enjoy this change for any length of time worthy of the effort."
The "short" time we CAN enjoy this change may still be quite valuable. Besides, by getting rid of certain people, you also prevent them from passing on their genes, which is something with a MUCH more lasting impact.
"What do I care if people litter? It screws the environment, but I won't be there to face the problems, neither will any of you. Just like every other problem, it means nothing because you'll all be dead soon."
We have a responsibility to pass the Earth on to our children in a good condition. What you say sounds EXTREMELY egotistical. I'm glad most people aren't like you.
"Thinking that one person has qualities that elevate them above others is foolish and delusional. A doctor and a child molester will both fade into obscurity, forgotten forever, hence they ultimately mean nothing."
True, they will both fade into obscurity, but you're implying that they're equal, when they CLEARLY are not. Who the hell would defend a child molester like that? You make me sick.
"Life has no meaning the moment you loose the illusion of being eternal." - Jean-Paul Sartre."
I don't think I'm eternal. Neither do I think life has a meaning in general. Yet, I DO endeavor to give my life a PERSONAL meaning and I'm succeeding too.
You probably think quoting Sartre makes you sound "deep" or something. Well, I think you just sound rather immature and conflicted. Good luck growing up.
"Obviously, a child killer has less worth than an "average" person, thus we are NOT all equal."
You don't mean any more to me than a child killer so equality must be opinion or whim, NOT fact.
"The "short" time we CAN enjoy this change may still be quite valuable. Besides, by getting rid of certain people, you also prevent them from passing on their genes, which is something with a MUCH more lasting impact."
That's correct, but you overlooked the most important part. My theory indicates that I don't care about what happens after I'm dead, and thus this "MUCH more lasting impact" means nothing to me.
"I don't think I'm eternal. Neither do I think life has a meaning in general. Yet, I DO endeavor to give my life a PERSONAL meaning and I'm succeeding too."
I got to this part and realised you were just a stupid drone. You give your life a PERSONAL meaning because you're weak. You even inform me that you are succeeding as though it's worthy of praise. I see no value in it, nor do I need it.
"You probably think quoting Sartre makes you sound "deep" or something. Well, I think you just sound rather immature and conflicted. Good luck growing up."
No YOU think that, YOU think you know my intention. I quote him for utilitarian reasons,but that would be obvious to you if you weren't a mindless gimp.
"You don't mean any more to me than a child killer so equality must be opinion or whim, NOT fact."
I'm sure to YOU I indeed don't, so that's subjective. That does indeed imply equality is an opinion, but I think that this "opinion" should be so ingrained into everyone as to make it virtually a fact. It isn't in you, which is just sad in my view. In the grand scheme of things (objectivity), I - as a non-child killer - thus am superior to a child killer. So are you BTW (assuming you haven't killed a child), although personally you don't mean anything to me either. I think you're superior to a child killer, but if you want to insist on your own worthlessness, be my guest.
"You give your life a PERSONAL meaning because you're weak."
So you don't? That's almost guaranteed to make a person unhappy. Even the life of Ne'er do well, your partner in crime, has a personal meaning (the pursuit of carnal pleasures).
PS: You've once said that you have a "broader" sense of morality (unlike Ne'er do well, who doesn't have one at all) and that you certainly think that there are things that are wrong. Could you please elaborate on that? If you don't think killing children is wrong, what in the world DO you think is wrong?
Maybe life is not eternal, however, isnt it moral to at least make life a little more splendorous for everyone inhabiting the same inevitable fate. Maybe heaven doesn´t exist, but if we work together as a unified species without borders then surely we can create heaven here on Earth. Afterall is that not why we are here, to bask in each others love rather than hatred?
True, but my point of my view is that all things can be held up as equally worthless OR valuable.
Everything is even, so you can put as much in, or take as much off; it's all inconsequential in the sphere of existence.
The term "moral relativist" could be applied to me in a sense, however people frequently mistake my views as being "nihilistic" in context. I assure you they are not. People can put meaning to their lives, so long as they remember it's illusion.
Many times when people go through a sudden midlife crisis it's their subconscious "catching up" with the realisation of my theory as it were. The illusion is shattered and they either go off the rails with contempt for their blindness, or beat their mind back into "drone like" submission and carry on with life as they had before.
These are my views as I see the world so I don't expect others to agree, and expect even less to understand. I'm starting to get to the point where I want to write a book on this theory of mine.
I dislike that way of looking at equality. Equality has nothing to do with how useful you are to the rest of the world, but is rooted in the fact that - as far as we can observe - all people are equally conscious and equally sentient, and thus our lives are equally valuable *to ourselves*. We all have, I believe, a right to be alive and that right is equal in all people because life is worth an equal amount to everyone (that amount being 100%; the entirety of worth, the entirety of existence). That right is in no way dependent on how much we contribute to everyone else's, and certainly not dependent on immeasurable concepts like "character, ability or power".
That's not directed primarily at you, by the way. It's just my thoughts.
This is sort of like a train scenario I once heard in which you either divert the train and let somebody tied to the tracks die or let the train continue its course and kill all the passengers. In truth, neither is "morally acceptable" but if both parties are innocent, then I would always choose to save the masses. If the masses are "evil" and the individual isn't, well... then it depends on a lot of other factors.
It's not acceptable within the Judaeo-Christian ethos even though it sounds logical and even moral. Given such a scenario, we'd have to find some kind of compromise or alternate solution. Ironically, this very phenomenon has occurred many times in Western history. Human experimentation, esp by Mengele, the Nazi doctor, is an example. Same with drug tests on human volunteers. Remember how all those blacks were given shots of syphilis back in the forties? The CIA has also done some awful experiments that sacrificed individuals in order to gain some military and political advantage over the enemies of the state.