You explore what you would do or you choose not to. If you take the later you miss the importance of the problem. — I like sushi
Looks more like you’re avoiding the problem rather than facing it. — I like sushi
You recuse yourself and the human race ceases to exist. Good job ;) — I like sushi
OK, so that's what the point is not. I thought you were going to tell us what the point is.The point is not to answer this in your head. It is not to... — I like sushi
It is possible that a person could have no prejudices — DingoJones
have been through such scenarios in my head and gone to some very dark places by adjusting and tweaking them once I arrived at a difficult choice. — I like sushi
would you like to comment ln the kind of thoughts that ran through your head? — I like sushi
Yes. I think most people would conclude that it is morally preferable to not kill one billion innocent people. Most people see killing a person as far worse than not saving one. How else can one explain the low rates of donation to life-saving charities like Oxfam?What? Are you saying people would prefer EVERYONE to die? And exactly how is picking who you want to survive better than picking who you’d want to die? That is EXACTLY the point! Don’t you see?? — I like sushi
I don't see that it makes any sense to talk about the entire human race, since there is no remotely likely scenario in which any of us would have to make that decision. It's not ethics, but fantasy.We’re talking about the entire human race not simply one life over another. — I like sushi
Because both are loaded questions containing a presupposition. But the presupposition in the first - that we would kill an innocent person - is false for most people, whereas the presupposition in the second - that we would try to save somebody - is not.If you prefer to approach the problem from a “who should we save?” rather than a “Who should we kill?” proposition then why is this?
I don't see that it makes any sense to talk about the entire human race, since there is no remotely likely scenario in which any of us would have to make that decision. It's not ethics, but fantasy. — andrewk
But the presupposition in the first - that we would kill an innocent person - is false for most people, whereas the presupposition in the second - that we would try to save somebody - is not.
This is the scenario:
The human race will die unless a billion people are killed tomorrow. You are the world leader and have to decide who dies.
You are NOT allowed to use any form of lottery system. — I like sushi
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.