A great number of people do survive. There may be an overpopulation in some places on the planet as well as limited resources. But ethics will always be based on securing, supporting and promoting survival. Because simply this what life wants: to keep on as long as it can and in as much a better condition as it can.if a great number of people survive, it seems inevitable that they will lead low-quality lives. — baker
But ethics will always be based on securing, supporting and promoting survival. — Alkis Piskas
Hence, eventually: zombies.
But there's much more to "survival" than that. I might talk about it in some other post ... (I don't want to overload this one.)
But there's much more to "survival" than that. I might talk about it in some other post ... (I don't want to overload this one.)
— Alkis Piskas
By all means, do tell. — baker
I am not sure what do you mean with "zombie scenario", why do you keep talking about zombies and what does this have to do with anything here ...How is it possible to ensure the survival of many without risking a zombie scenario, ie. one where people are living low quality lives, and live just for the sake of living, with no greater purpose? — baker
Moral Ends. When you come across someone in need whom you could help at no cost, you are morally required to have as your end the alleviation of his or her need. When several strangers are equally needy and in all relevant respects alike, you are morally required to consider equally important your ends of the survival of each.
My thoughts exactly! :cool:It too often leads to the tyranny of the masses where a minority, even just of one, must suffer for the benefit of a greater number. — gloaming
ceretis paribus clause — Banno
I find the linked paper by Tom Dougherty to be a rather persuasive paper on why the numbers should count. — Camille
When I say "survival", I don't mean survive just as a body, i.e. "stay alive" or escape danger or death. Although in cases of sickness, threat, war, etc. it might mean just that, as a priority. There is another kind or level of survival beyond that, once that has been secured: "well-being". Happiness and pleasure are also two essential elements in human life. (In animal life too, if you just replace "happiness" with "satisfaction". Also ) But these are still very basic and common to everyone. Their opposite, "misery" and "pain", are leading towards death. There's a whole scale of survival here at work.
Yet, "survival" has a much broader meaning. It pertains to our financial situation, our relation with another person of the opposite sex --including sex itself-- our existence as fathers, employees, members of a group, citizens and human being in general. We need to survive from all these aspects too. Failure to do so, might not mean death, but it could mean poverty, separation or divorce, being dismissed from our job or group, and so on, as parallel and opposite situations of the above.
In short, we are surviving on a scale in various aspects of our life. — Alkis Piskas
How is it possible to ensure the survival of many without risking a zombie scenario, ie. one where people are living low quality lives, and live just for the sake of living, with no greater purpose?
— baker
I am not sure what do you mean with "zombie scenario", why do you keep talking about zombies and what does this have to do with anything here ...
ethics will always be based on securing, supporting and promoting survival — Alkis Piskas
The central element and purpose of ethics based on "major good for the greatest number" is survival: the purpose of life. — Alkis Piskas
Purpose is missing from the package of life. Life comes with a command: "Live!". It is to us to make a good use of it. For our benefit.
(P2) The deaths of the five would not be worse than the death of the one.
I am looking for insight into proving the implausibility of P2. — Camille
I see, OK.The concept of zombies concisely illustrates the futility of living merely for the sake of living. — baker
This can be true in certain cases. Making a lot of children can and does sometimes produce financial problems for the family. But the purpose of, the intention behind making a lot of children, is not for "major good" for more persons. It can be for more happiness for the parents, indifference (not considering the problems such "overproduction"), no contraceptive measures (for various reasons), religion ("Be fruitful and multiply"). etc. There's a irony here, that can be evidenced by seeing poor families --even whole poor areas-- making more children than rich ones. In that case, I would consider such a behaviour even "immoral" or lack or morality at best. I have not made children, for various reasons. One of them was that I could not stand bringing a new life that could be unhappy or suffer from physical problems (abnormalities) or indulged in street drugs (so frequent a phenomenon today), etc. Of course, and fortunately so, relatively few think that way. Otherwise, our race would be extinct! :smile:The greater number of those who survive, from some point on, the lesser the quality of their lives, due to limited natural resources. — baker
The principle based on "greatest number" does not automatically mean produce as many lives as possible, as I explained above. That's why I think that overpopulation (that we are witnessing in a lot of areas of the world today) is actually a product of lack of morality, even maybe immorality. See, "greatest number" and "major good" work together, as I have already mentioned earlier in this thread. I will also add here that the intention of making good or avoiding harm is what counts. Not by accident or in any other way. The poor-multi-child-family example I gave above shows that. The Bible says "Be fruitful and multiply". It doesn't "back it up" with well-being. It doesn't take into consideration "lives of poor quality" that you mentioned. That's why, for me that command-like statement lacks morality. (But of course, it's not the fault or a weakness of the Christian God. He did not write the Bible.)with such ethical principles as you state above, how do we avoid the scenario in which a great number of people do survive for some duration of time, but they live lives of poor quality? — baker
Because we'll be healthier and happier! :smile:Purpose is missing from the package of life. Life comes with a command: "Live!". It is to us to make a good use of it. For our benefit.
— Alkis Piskas
How is it for our benefit? — baker
No, I haven't. But see, I would have then to read a whole bunch of literature to find out what it is all about. This would not be me. (But who cares?)I am not sure if you have read the original paper by Taurek, — Camille
OK.Additionally, I believe a lot regarding the different theories and their beliefs on maximization are rather common knowledge, and not needed in further detail the beginning of the paper. — Camille
Thanks! :smile:Nonetheless, I see your frustration. — Camille
The greater number of those who survive, from some point on, the lesser the quality of their lives, due to limited natural resources.
— baker
This can be true in certain cases. Making a lot of children can and does sometimes produce financial problems for the family. — Alkis Piskas
Of course. But you have talked about overpopulation, which is what I understood from "The greater number of those who survive, from some point on, the lesser the quality of their lives" ... Doesn't procreation increase the number of those who survive? Anyway, let's close this subject, if you agree.The topic is about the survival of already existing people, not about producing new people. — baker
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.