First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
Post Reply The Value of Life
5053 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Abyss
Online
Posted 1/14/16
I was talking with a friend last night about a mind game, something simple, yet compelling.

Say you had a choice, the choice is as follows:

There are two groups.
Group A is small, but they are bright, wanting to better themselves and progress to the future.
Group B is large, but they only drag down the others. They have no wish to better themselves, get an education,
better the world in any way, or truly benefit society.

An example of this would be... 1 Einstein/Earhart/Darwin/Newton or 1000 criminals and other undesirables.

You have the choice to save only one group. You can save the minority, or you can save the mass. What would you do?

I think all human lives are equal... yet I would choose the life of the productive citizen over all. They would help progress human kind. The resource effectiveness would be best with them.

Why did you choose the way you did?
Werina 
206694 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 1/14/16
Neither
598 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 1/14/16 , edited 1/14/16
Group A is the correct choice.



All men are not born equal. Whoever tells you that is lying. All man should deserve an equal opportunity to excel, to be happy and to use their comparative advantage. That is the truth.
28724 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / F / New Zealand
Offline
Posted 1/14/16
I couldn't make the choice in good moral conscience.
33510 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / U.S.A.
Offline
Posted 1/14/16 , edited 1/14/16
Group A

For the reason that I'm an asshole that happens to like progression.

Of course, if these are American criminals, then there's probably a couple hundred or so of the wrongfully accused in there so idk.
5053 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Abyss
Online
Posted 1/14/16 , edited 1/14/16

Happencheese wrote:

I couldn't make the choice in good moral conscience.


This is actually a thought game I had in one of my random classes at University. It had to do with the question of "Is human life always equal, or does one decide his own worth through actions?"

This thought process can also be stretched out to wars. Each side is right in their own eyes. Whose life is worth more also depends on where you are in the war.

Sadly life is made of broken morals.

Edit: On elaboration of the war I can give a bit of example. The life of one POW (Bowe Bergdahl), was traded for five leaders of the Taliban. Those leaders can now cause more harm for the cost of one POW. Was this worth it?
6804 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M
Offline
Posted 1/14/16 , edited 1/14/16
we choose to look at the differences instead of our similarities with each other.
why?


6628 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / England
Offline
Posted 1/14/16
I'd be in group B. I wouldn't care about killing myself though.
Bavalt 
22031 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Canada
Offline
Posted 1/14/16
Making the choice at all is immoral. I personally wouldn't make it unless they would all die if I didn't. If that was the case, it'd come down to whether or not group B intended on actively interfering with other people. I don't see anything wrong with not doing anything good, as long as you're not doing anything bad. B being the larger group, assuming they were just selfish and lazy, not mean-spirited and opportunistic, I'd go with them, as there's no guarantee that the difference in mindset between A and B is any indicator of which group would ultimately bring more benefit. People can change their minds, and a dedication to bettering the world doesn't mean achieving that, and vice-versa. More people are immediately happy when more people are saved, and the immediate is the only thing we can predict with any accuracy. Of course, if the people in group B didn't have any attachment to their lives, then I'd choose group A. There's no need to save someone who doesn't want to be saved.

Now, ideally, the best way would be to sit them all down and have them actually put in their two cents, and decide among themselves with me as a mediator, but I'm assuming interaction isn't allowed here.
5053 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Abyss
Online
Posted 1/14/16

Bavalt wrote:

Making the choice at all is immoral. I personally wouldn't make it unless they would all die if I didn't. If that was the case, it'd come down to whether or not group B intended on actively interfering with other people. I don't see anything wrong with not doing anything good, as long as you're not doing anything bad. B being the larger group, assuming they were just selfish and lazy, not mean-spirited and opportunistic, I'd go with them, as there's no guarantee that the difference in mindset between A and B is any indicator of which group would ultimately bring more benefit. People can change their minds, and a dedication to bettering the world doesn't mean achieving that, and vice-versa. More people are immediately happy when more people are saved, and the immediate is the only thing we can predict with any accuracy. Of course, if the people in group B didn't have any attachment to their lives, then I'd choose group A. There's no need to save someone who doesn't want to be saved.

Now, ideally, the best way would be to sit them all down and have them actually put in their two cents, and decide among themselves with me as a mediator, but I'm assuming interaction isn't allowed here.


As stated above, this is a choice between what makes a life valuable. Is it just being born and whatever horrible/good things you do.. it doesn't matter... or the latter in which your deeds make you valuable.

Morality isn't an issue here. One group will die or the other, you just have the say in who it will be. This is something that is seen all over the world, even texts such as the Bible (god didn't like the criminals, so he killed everyone but Noah and his wife/kids)(this is just an example everyone should know, why I brought it up).

This reminds me of an exercise I did in High School government class. You are in a post apocalyptic world. You have enough food to live for 1 year with 6 people. There are 10 people you want to take. Each have a specialty. One of them was a Doctor... but you had to take his pregnant wife too. Taking up 3 of the 5 you can take. The value of a life comes into play here. Others were such as Engineers, Scientists, Educators etc.

You would have to send some of the above to death. You can only save so many. Who will you save?
24273 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 1/14/16
Depends on the situation I'm in. In a survival situation, like we were all on the same crashed plane, I'd go with whichever group gave me the best odds at survival. Probably group B. Aggression is a important survival trait that is being bred out of our species, which is good thing in a civilized society, but it's something that'd save ourselves in the wilderness.
13618 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / Australia
Offline
Posted 1/14/16
I choose for both of them to die.
598 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 1/14/16 , edited 1/14/16
Of course your family and loved ones are most important to you, but in the over-all big picture the most important people are the doctors, and the engineers and the scientists. The people who will contribute more to society, their value is higher then others.

Evolution and Natural Selection would not work if every individual within a species was equal.

Group A must live in this case, i don't think it can be disputed, it's the best choice for the advancement of society.
Posted 1/14/16
I don't know...
7420 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 1/14/16 , edited 1/14/16
It's not even a choice for me.

Group A: they've earned it.
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.