Moral Questions

[Reinier]

A) You can prevent the death of 100 people by murdering a child. Do it?

B) You kill one rich executive, for which you get payd 4 million dollars. You give the money to Unicef (or whatever)
and save thousands of innocent people from lepra and malaria
Good or bad?

[PizDoff]

A) Who are these people? There is hunger enough in the world.

B) Is it an Enron or Bre-X executive?

[Reinier]

There are countries where people die because they cant afford a 5 dollar vaccination.

If I kill a person for 10 bucks, save a kid for 5, and have some food at the mall for the other five, am i wrong?

[PizDoff]

Well killing is wrong but sometimes people just get on your nerves.



Now if A) included some tyrants, some pedophiles and some rapists I would so kill them.

[rookiebldr]

Yes! Skip a meal and save a kid for 5.

[Gyno Rhino]

Utilitarian or Kantian. *yawn*

[Reinier]

Then should I skip a holiday and save 200?
should i just skip life altogether and save plenty?

[Reinier]

Originally posted by Gyno Rhino
Utilitarian or Kantian. *yawn*

So what? Why not ask about it?
If you think its boring, just dont post and dont go all holier than thou in here?

[Y2A]

A) It depends on who I am saving, if they are just 100 random people, no. If they are my family, friends, etc, then sure.

B) Do I get away with the murder? If yes, then I do it, and keep the money. I would then never work again, but give some of the interest money each year to help those people. Hell, if I wasnt gonna get caught, Id kill someone today for 4 mil.

[-TIM-]

:shoot::zipit:

I would never kill a peson intentionally.

[maverick]

Ohhhh!! I love moral and ethical questions.:D

Ok, what if by saving those 100 people and killing that one child, you deprive the world of something wonderful that one child could bring???


Rather than kill that one executive, we force every rich exec to live like someone on the lowest paying salary, and with no benefits, to show them the value of paying their employees(the ones who make the money for the company) better. After all, who really deserves to make millions of dollars?

[Brawl]

Maverick has the typical liberal response .

That executive makes millions because he generates millions in revenue . He also took all the risks involved like putting his whole life savings into his idea or slaving away far more than the normal guy could ever think of .

My brother does extremely well and it's because he had ideas and for 12 years he put his every waking moment hundreds of unpaid hours just on the thought that his idea would work . He invested money in attorney fees (business and patent) hundreds of hours into marketing and promotions for it all unpaid , so when it pays off he deserves EVERY penny of it .

Don't think so stupidly that if a rich guy wasn't rich you would automatically get some of it . You need to work for it bro .

[Reinier]

This is an entirely different debate, but still-
The richest 358 people in the world own the same amount of money as the poorest 2.5 billion people in the world

But logically there is noone in those 2.5 billion people, with the potential and work ethic of any of those 358 :rolleyes:

[GonePostal]

You are sorely mistaken if you think that most execs and upper management are choosen based mainly on preformance. There are some maybe many but not all and not the majority.

[Reinier]

And its not a liberal statement... I dont see where liberal even comes in. You could call it leftwing.

I dont think its leftwing tho. Id say its center, and people disagreeing are right. depends where you put the standard

[RG570]

I choose option C, killing 100 children and pocketing the 4mil.

[Reinier]

I love the honesty

[John0101]

This is a rewards vs loss ratio problem, and there is no right answer and it really depends on the social context that you were raised with.

[Delphi]

Originally posted by Reinier

B) You kill one rich executive, for which you get payd 4 million dollars. You give the money to Unicef (or whatever)
and save thousands of innocent people from lepra and malaria
Good or bad?

Those thousands of people live to reproduce another 20,000 people. They live in 3rd world countries where there is no hope for food or meaningful income. They live to reproductive age, produce another 50,000 offspring, and eventually die of starvation, AIDS, and some other diseases. The next generation does the same, and you eventually end with 150,000 people living miserable lives, spreading diseases, and dying of famine and AIDS.

Have you really accomplished anything by killing that rich executive?

[Reinier]

People all eat a lot and poop alot and then die. Have we really accomplished anything by living?

[Delphi]

So it's alright if I go over to Holland and kill you? :D

[Reinier]

Rather not.
I do think saying people in the third world shouldn`t be helped because theyll only produce people in a bad situation is a bit wrong.

By that reasoning, we would be helping the world by killing them all

[body]

Originally posted by Reinier
A) You can prevent the death of 100 people by murdering a child. Do it?

B) You kill one rich executive, for which you get payd 4 million dollars. You give the money to Unicef (or whatever)
and save thousands of innocent people from lepra and malaria
Good or bad?

A) how do you know killing the child will save 100 people? does he has finger over a big bomb. and is threating to press it?
if yes. then yep he is threatening to murder innocent people so he will die.
but then that would not be murder as the law would permit this act? so you are killing a child instead. so i have not answered your question.
so my answer would be no then. i am confusing myself.

B) nope. if i wanted to save their life so badly i would work for charity organisation.

[Trent_Steel]

Heres a question.

Your life or 100 children?
No easy way out your going to have a very nasty death. What would you do?

[body]

i rather live.

for people who say that selfish, why are you on here, instead of spending time helping other people.

[Trent_Steel]

Me too, the will to live is bigger than the will to be nice. I would make an exception if they were my kids, but as I dont have any its not going to be a problem

[MrWebb78]

Originally posted by Reinier
A) You can prevent the death of 100 people by murdering a child. Do it?

B) You kill one rich executive, for which you get payd 4 million dollars. You give the money to Unicef (or whatever)
and save thousands of innocent people from lepra and malaria
Good or bad?


A) only if i was going to be one of the 100 people to die.

B) this is an endless circle, out of the thousand you save, you may eventually kill to save more.

[Alex.V]

A) No.

B) Bad.

[Alex.V]

Originally posted by Reinier
This is an entirely different debate, but still-
The richest 358 people in the world own the same amount of money as the poorest 2.5 billion people in the world

But logically there is noone in those 2.5 billion people, with the potential and work ethic of any of those 358 :rolleyes:

Here's an interesting question.


Eliminate those 358 and all their assets. What would happen to the world, to our way of life, to our world economy, to our overall happiness, health, and standard of living? I'd wager it might decline. Just maybe. A little. Actually, I'd bet it'd be catastrophic.

Now, eliminate those 2.5 billion poorest.

I'd bet there'd be the exact opposite result.


....

*gets fire extinguisher*

*runs like hell*

[MrWebb78]

i say we kill the 2.5 billion subhumans.

[Y2A]

Originally posted by MrWebb78
i say we kill the 2.5 billion subhumans.

:withstupi

[body]

Originally posted by MrWebb78
i say we kill the 2.5 billion subhumans.

well who are we going to employ to clean tiolets, make cheap stuff for the western world?

[ChrisH]

Originally posted by Reinier


So what? Why not ask about it?
If you think its boring, just dont post and dont go all holier than thou in here?


Its not holier than thou... If you don't extrapolate everything and make it complicated, it just comes down to utilitarianism vs rule based ethical theories (kant, most religions etc).

Direct utilitarianism is bull****. It implies that you are not only morally obliged to kill the kid, but you must kill the kid. Imagine stealing a book from a large book store. Its not going to affect the company at all, so the pleasure you recieve from reading it greatly outweighs the displeasure of the company. That means that you must steal the book, its the moral thing to do. Imagine if everyone did it. Ouch.

Its the exact same case with the second one. Utility vs rules.

I'd say:
1) No.
2) Bad.

Bear in mind im pretty damn right wing, so if the option was to kill some asshole for 100 decent people, i'd say hell yeah.
By 'some asshole' I mea the people who cause almost all the problems in society. The thieves, welfare abusers etc. The scum of society.

[MrWebb78]

Originally posted by body


well who are we going to employ to clean tiolets, make cheap stuff for the western world?

i personally clean my own toilet.

god damn that evil western world huh? i bet theyre the only a-holes in the world that want cheap production and to turn a profit.

[TheGimp]

Originally posted by body


well who are we going to employ to clean tiolets, make cheap stuff for the western world?

Robots

[GonePostal]

Both are bad.

I wouldn't do it for 100 children or for 4 million dollars.

But if the question was something like kill a child to cure AIDS or cancer, I think I would do it. It would be still be wrong but I would still do it and have to live with my choice.

[MixmasterNash]

Originally posted by ChrisH

Bear in mind im pretty damn right wing, so if the option was to kill some asshole for 100 decent people, i'd say hell yeah.
By 'some asshole' I mea the people who cause almost all the problems in society. The thieves, welfare abusers etc. The scum of society.

Like CEOs, televangelists, polluters, hypocritical rabidly right wing talk show hosts, and other hatemongers?

I with you! Damn corporate welfare queens.

[EdgeCrusher]

I agree with Belial in both posts.

[Reinier]

Originally posted by Belial


Here's an interesting question.


Eliminate those 358 and all their assets. What would happen to the world, to our way of life, to our world economy, to our overall happiness, health, and standard of living? I'd wager it might decline. Just maybe. A little. Actually, I'd bet it'd be catastrophic.

Now, eliminate those 2.5 billion poorest.

I'd bet there'd be the exact opposite result.


Why would it be so catastrophic to kill those 358?
Killing those 2.5 billion would have a worse effect from what i can see, we couldn`t make money over their back anymore.

[Delphi]

Those 2.5 billion aren't contributing anything. They're in the slow process of dying of starvation/disease. They're not employed.

[Reinier]

Yeah I guess even those making almost no money working cheap labour there are above the 2.5 bill.
But what would be so catastrophic about losing the billionaires?

Entirely regardless i find it rather sick to value a man by how productive he is

[Delphi]

I don't think Belial is saying the billionaire has more value as a person. Just has more value as far as the economy is concerned.

You're being way too altruistic.

[Exnor]

It's hypothetical so I refuse to answer :p

[pusher]

I don't think Belial is saying the billionaire has more value as a person. Just has more value as far as the economy is concerned

Productiveness is economic value, not wallet size, capital is not the most important imput. Those billions of people could be more valuable in this world if all those billions in assets owned by the few would be used to provide them with the opportunity.

[Reinier]

Originally posted by Exnor
It's hypothetical so I refuse to answer :p

I see a future in politics for you

[Reinier]

Originally posted by Delphi

You're being way too altruistic.

How can one be too altruistic?

[Reinier]

Originally posted by ChrisH

Direct utilitarianism is bull****. It implies that you are not only morally obliged to kill the kid, but you must kill the kid. Imagine stealing a book from a large book store. Its not going to affect the company at all, so the pleasure you recieve from reading it greatly outweighs the displeasure of the company. That means that you must steal the book, its the moral thing to do. Imagine if everyone did it. Ouch.


It will effect the huge company. Theres a chance theyll be short of that one book some time and miss a bit of profit.
By doing this you may not necessarily be affecting them, but you are increasing the chance they are affected.

[AllUp]

Hehe, what if the CEO's child that would have been born # years later Has his dads funding, becomes a scientist, and eventually invents the cure for cancer?

Lol that would mean your bloodlines would forever be tainted as 'The lamers that killed a CEO and Prevented the cure for cancer for a measely 4mil." Which in the big picture is peanuts.

Yeah, that could suck. :(

[ChrisH]

It was just an example of how direct utilitarianism is crap. Seriously, is a BIG book store chain going to miss ONE book? It doesnt matter anyway, because as I said, their displeasure is greatly outweighed by the pleasure someone might get from stealing and reading the book. That means they must do it, because utilitarianism is the greatest happiness for the greatest number.

[TheGimp]

Originally posted by Delphi
Those 2.5 billion aren't contributing anything. They're in the slow process of dying of starvation/disease. They're not employed.

I agree. Burn them to power the robots.

I have it all figured out.

[Reinier]

Originally posted by ChrisH
It was just an example of how direct utilitarianism is crap. Seriously, is a BIG book store chain going to miss ONE book? It doesnt matter anyway, because as I said, their displeasure is greatly outweighed by the pleasure someone might get from stealing and reading the book. That means they must do it, because utilitarianism is the greatest happiness for the greatest number.

I dont think its necessarily outweighed. maybe nobody will suffer any noticeable amount, but thousands of people will suffer a little.

[Reinier]

Originally posted by AllUp
Hehe, what if the CEO's child that would have been born # years later Has his dads funding, becomes a scientist, and eventually invents the cure for cancer?

Lol that would mean your bloodlines would forever be tainted as 'The lamers that killed a CEO and Prevented the cure for cancer for a measely 4mil." Which in the big picture is peanuts.

Yeah, that could suck. :(

Why would he try and find the cure for cancer, which he wouldn`t be allowed to patent and would end all treatment profits for cancer, if he can look for medicine that slows the process down and costs a lot of money. nothing like blackmailing the terminally ill out of their last pennies is there? Same thing for AIDS

[ChrisH]

if its not noticable how are they affected?

[ChrisH]

Lets say the company loses £5 profit. Out of a few million or something. Thats less than 0.00001% and honestly I don't think it would affect a thing. Like how McDonalds had their first ever loss last year at 268 million or something. One person buying 5 burgers wouldnt have made any difference.

So it doesnt affect the company at all, but the person who steals the book gets the pleasure of reading the book. According to direct utilitarianism, he MUST steal the book, its the moral thing to do.


This is only an analogy and its just to say that direct utility doesnt work.
That analogy is water tight theres no point arguing about it, it just points out a big flaw in utilitarian theory if you take it to extremes.

[Alex.V]

Originally posted by pusher


Productiveness is economic value, not wallet size, capital is not the most important imput. Those billions of people could be more valuable in this world if all those billions in assets owned by the few would be used to provide them with the opportunity.

lol. I'm well aware that the question I posed can be rephrased and reassessed with any number of hypotheticals and addendums to create unlimited justifications for either choice. But it was an immediate comparison of direct impact, in reference to a major indicator of human welfare and progress (the world economy).