Ethical question

[biteme]

You are captured by evil people. You must choose between your death and the person closest to you. The death will be the most painful, slow death imaginable. Who do you choose?

 

[anabolicmd]

You are captured by evil people. You must choose between your death and the person closest to you. The death will be the most painful, slow death imaginable. Who do you choose?

I choose you are an idiot.

 

[Code]

I'd choose to die.

 

[Silent Method]

I'd choose to die.

 

[plornive]

You are captured by evil people. You must choose between your death and the person closest to you. The death will be the most painful, slow death imaginable. Who do you choose?

The death of the person closest to me. It would be awful to know that person died. I am selfish and independent, though.

Such a thing would be liberating while agonizing.

 

[biteme]

Re: Re: Ethical question

The death of the person closest to me. It would be awful to know that person died. I am selfish and independent, though.

Such a thing would be liberating while agonizing.

At least you're honest. There's no way I could choose my child. But that would suck to die a horrifying death.

 

[primetime21]

I would probably go with killing myself. but who knows what our reactions would be withthe "gun to our heads."

 

[plornive]

I think if a person was somewhat submissive or subordinate to the other person, he/she would be more likely to die for him/her.

 

[biteme]

I would probably go with killing myself. but who knows what our reactions would be withthe "gun to our heads."

Good point. Some might chicken out. A gun wouldn't be painful compared to other methods. How about being chopped up slowly with a machete? I just wonder when it comes right down to it, how many would have the courage to make that decision.

 

[Tiervexx]

I don't even trust the person closest to me

But I don't have much fear of death or pain even when I am happy. It is as if I simply was born without much of a drive for self preservation. So i would die.

 

[plornive]

Re: Re: Re: Ethical question

At least you're honest. There's no way I could choose my child. But that would suck to die a horrifying death.

I can understand dying for one's child. That, to me, is noble. Dying for anyone else seems masochistic. Then again, I relate a lot of things to sadism and masochism.

 

[ajtomasi]

even if they killed you slowly the shock would knock you out or make you numb to any pain.

But if you did let them kill you, what will they do to the person closest to you? How do you know they won't kill or anally rape them?

 

[hellboy]

I'd kill them.

 

[gonelifting]

If I`m going to die, AND IT WOULD BE ME, I`m taking one or two fuckers with me. At least I`ll die trying. BASTARDS. I`m fuckin PISSED just thinking about it. FUCK

 

[Lumberg]

This is a very good question. They would have to read my mind to see who was most important to me though because even I don't know.

I don't have kids so I'm with plornive on this one. Fuck dying.

I had this conversation with my friends one day only much more watered down. I have this theory that I have to be happy in order to make other people happy. The easiest way to make other people happy is to be happy yourself and have a smile on your face. SO there is no point in subordinating my happiness to the happiness of others, especially if I don't know them.

SO anyway I asked my friend, if you had a choice between delivering a punch to a completely random stranger, or being punched yourself, which would you choose? He and my other friend both responded with "I would choose to be punched." I think that's crazy. Moreover, they think I am crazy because I would choose to punch.

I am a known quantity. I know I am a good person and have the ability to spread happiness. The stranger is an unknown quantity. I think that there is no way of knowing for sure but overall what is best for the world is to punch the stranger. To decide to be punched shows a level of self-loathing that I do not understand. It's almost like you are selling yourself short.

Does this make sense? plornive?

 

[Imakarum_Mirabilis]

I'd need to know what would happen to the other person after I chose death.

 

[danielson]

i;d save the 1 million people

 

[biteme]

Here's a tough one that I've posted b4.

You have the choice of saving 1 million people from death or 1 loved one. Once again, for me, if it's my daughter, 1 million people will have to die.

 

[Code]

Here's a tough one that I've posted b4.

You have the choice of saving 1 million people from death or 1 loved one. Once again, for me, if it's my daughter, 1 million people will have to die.

Save the loved one. There's only one "loved on" for me, my daughter.

 

[from zero]

Here's a tough one that I've posted b4.

You have the choice of saving 1 million people from death or 1 loved one. Once again, for me, if it's my daughter, 1 million people will have to die.

Save the loved one.

 

[velvett]

I'd negotiate.

 

[Imakarum_Mirabilis]

I'd easily kill a million. Most people are only there to create a base of the lowly that builds up to the peak of a pyramid that represents the mighty.

 

[plornive]

This is a very good question. They would have to read my mind to see who was most important to me though because even I don't know.

I don't have kids so I'm with plornive on this one. Fuck dying.

I had this conversation with my friends one day only much more watered down. I have this theory that I have to be happy in order to make other people happy. The easiest way to make other people happy is to be happy yourself and have a smile on your face. SO there is no point in subordinating my happiness to the happiness of others, especially if I don't know them.

SO anyway I asked my friend, if you had a choice between delivering a punch to a completely random stranger, or being punched yourself, which would you choose? He and my other friend both responded with "I would choose to be punched." I think that's crazy. Moreover, they think I am crazy because I would choose to punch.

I am a known quantity. I know I am a good person and have the ability to spread happiness. The stranger is an unknown quantity. I think that there is no way of knowing for sure but overall what is best for the world is to punch the stranger. To decide to be punched shows a level of self-loathing that I do not understand. It's almost like you are selling yourself short.

Does this make sense? plornive?

I like the "known quantity" analysis. My consciousness is the only thing I can verify. I also agree with your "self-loathing" comment. I totally agree with you.

From an outside perspective, selflessness changes nothing. Either way, someone is going to die. It might as well not be me.

 

[Lumberg]

Either way, someone is going to die. It might as well not be me.

That's my argument in a nutshell.

 

[atlantabiolab]

This is a very good question. They would have to read my mind to see who was most important to me though because even I don't know.

I don't have kids so I'm with plornive on this one. Fuck dying.

I had this conversation with my friends one day only much more watered down. I have this theory that I have to be happy in order to make other people happy. The easiest way to make other people happy is to be happy yourself and have a smile on your face. SO there is no point in subordinating my happiness to the happiness of others, especially if I don't know them.

Being happy aids in affecting the emotional state of others, for others do not like to be surrounded by unhappy people, but being a selfish animal, you act good towards others, not for altruistic reasons, but because you selfishly derive pleasure from the happiness of those you act upon. When you realize that acting "good", -doing good acts, giving gifts, saying pleasant things, -rewards you with the pleasure of seeing and knowing others' happiness, then acting "good" no longer is conceived as a chore or inconvenient. You realize that the act is the means to the end, pleasure.

You must act to derive pleasure from life, it is not an innate state.

SO anyway I asked my friend, if you had a choice between delivering a punch to a completely random stranger, or being punched yourself, which would you choose? He and my other friend both responded with "I would choose to be punched." I think that's crazy. Moreover, they think I am crazy because I would choose to punch.

Your decision is made from emotion, not ethics. It is similar to the way animals exist. You don't want the pain of the blow, but this has nothing to do with what is "good", for your decision has made you "bad", by becoming the person who is commiting an immoral act. To prevent personal pain, you have become an inflicter of pain.

I am a known quantity. I know I am a good person and have the ability to spread happiness. The stranger is an unknown quantity. I think that there is no way of knowing for sure but overall what is best for the world is to punch the stranger. To decide to be punched shows a level of self-loathing that I do not understand. It's almost like you are selling yourself short.

You cannot be a "good" person by commiting "bad" actions. Ethics and morality are derivations of actions, not your opinion of yourself. Each person IS a known quantity, they have known rights, of which you would be violating if you choose to be the deliverer of pain. If each person were not equal, then our system of law is based on lies, and then we could all, with impunity, act towards others in any manner we wished. Your concept allows for all manner of corruption and evil to spread, all for the sole purpose of reducing personal discomfort.

To decide to be punched is the ethically correct answer, for you retain the authority of moral law by not becoming a criminal to reduce your personal discomfort. By taking the blow, you have the authority of moral law on your side, which in a society that respects the rule of law, permits you to take actions against the immoral person, with the full force of society on your side.

 

[biteme]

Being happy aids in affecting the emotional state of others, for others do not like to be surrounded by unhappy people, but being a selfish animal, you act good towards others, not for altruistic reasons, but because you selfishly derive pleasure from the happiness of those you act upon. When you realize that acting "good", -doing good acts, giving gifts, saying pleasant things, -rewards you with the pleasure of seeing and knowing others' happiness, then acting "good" no longer is conceived as a chore or inconvenient. You realize that the act is the means to the end, pleasure.

You must act to derive pleasure from life, it is not an innate state.

I do not agree. Sometimes doing what is best for others may cause you pain, not pleasure. And besides, everyone benefits from a selfless person.

 

[atlantabiolab]

Re: Re: Ethical question

The death of the person closest to me. It would be awful to know that person died. I am selfish and independent, though.

Such a thing would be liberating while agonizing.

Since the purpose of living is to "be" happy, this action acts counter to this idea. You save your life, by intentionally handing over your most valuable possession to death. So you have killed a major source of your happiness and compounded it with the lifelong realization that you enabled it.

This is irrationally selfish.

 

[atlantabiolab]

Being happy aids in affecting the emotional state of others, for others do not like to be surrounded by unhappy people, but being a selfish animal, you act good towards others, not for altruistic reasons, but because you selfishly derive pleasure from the happiness of those you act upon. When you realize that acting "good", -doing good acts, giving gifts, saying pleasant things, -rewards you with the pleasure of seeing and knowing others' happiness, then acting "good" no longer is conceived as a chore or inconvenient. You realize that the act is the means to the end, pleasure.

You must act to derive pleasure from life, it is not an innate state.

I do not agree. Sometimes doing what is best for others may cause you pain, not pleasure.

Since you did not elaborate, I must assume you are still on topic, which is dealing with preventing physical pain or inflicting physical pain. I do not talk of promoting the "good" in reference to purely physical pleasure, but mainly the cognitive sense of right and wrong. Sometimes accepting the physical pain promotes my emotional pleasure, for I value the protection of the other over the value of my own pleasure. This is the foundation of parenting. I value providing for another person, my child, more than leaving him to his own abilities, in order to pursue purely personal aims. This former decision gives me greater emotional and rational pleasure than the latter, which is purely physical.

If we used the idea of acting only in order to promote physical pleasure, then we would have to accept rape, incest, theft, physical assaults, murder, etc., for each one of these have attached situations of promoting one's physical pleasure or protecting one from physical discomfort. We do not accept these acts as "good" for we do not consider the fact that one may derive pleasure or prevent one's harm from them; we look at the implications of the acts on the recepients who are being deprived their happiness.

And besides, everyone benefits from a selfless person.

Except the selfless person. This is why altruism is irrational, it does not the promote the happiness of the moral agent, it makes him the slave of humanity.

 

[biteme]

I do not agree. Sometimes doing what is best for others may cause you pain, not pleasure.

Since you did not elaborate, I must assume you are still on topic, which is dealing with preventing physical pain or inflicting physical pain. I do not talk of promoting the "good" in reference to purely physical pleasure, but mainly the cognitive sense of right and wrong. Sometimes accepting the physical pain promotes my emotional pleasure, for I value the protection of the other over the value of my own pleasure. This is the foundation of parenting. I value providing for another person, my child, more than leaving him to his own abilities, in order to pursue purely personal aims. This former decision gives me greater emotional and rational pleasure than the latter, which is purely physical.

If we used the idea of acting only in order to promote physical pleasure, then we would have to accept rape, incest, theft, physical assaults, murder, etc., for each one of these have attached situations of promoting one's physical pleasure or protecting one from physical discomfort. We do not accept these acts as "good" for we do not consider the fact that one may derive pleasure or prevent one's harm from them; we look at the implications of the acts on the recepients who are being deprived their happiness.




Except the selfless person. This is why altruism is irrational, it does not the promote the happiness of the moral agent, it makes him the slave of humanity. [/B][/QUOTE]

You said earlier that the selfless person benefits by feelings of happiness for sacrificing for others?

 

[biteme]

Gotta go workout arms. Read reply when I get back. Adios.

 

[DcupSheepNipples]

You are captured by evil people. You must choose between your death and the person closest to you. The death will be the most painful, slow death imaginable. Who do you choose?

I choose the person closest to me! Sorry anabolicmd but it looks like you will have to be disemboweled!

 

[anabolicmd]

Re: Re: Ethical question

I choose the person closest to me! Sorry anabolicmd but it looks like you will have to be disemboweled!

With a good sword and a six pointed mace I can take out a villagefull of those savages.

 

[atlantabiolab]

You said earlier that the selfless person benefits by feelings of happiness for sacrificing for others?

If he performs his services for the promotion of his own pleasure, i.e. doing good deeds to many for the purpose of deriving pleasure from these deeds, then he is not "selfless", but "selfish". The term "selfish", as that of "pride", has been irrationally demonized by religion and various ideologies. There is nothing wrong with "rational selfishness", the promotion of my personal pleasure, as long as the actions required do not infringe upon the rights of others or clashes with morality/ethics.

The concept of altruism is that of acting to towards the benefit of all, save yourself. All actions must be for the self-interest of others and not oneself.

 

[Lumberg]

Being happy aids in affecting the emotional state of others, for others do not like to be surrounded by unhappy people, but being a selfish animal, you act good towards others, not for altruistic reasons, but because you selfishly derive pleasure from the happiness of those you act upon. When you realize that acting "good", -doing good acts, giving gifts, saying pleasant things, -rewards you with the pleasure of seeing and knowing others' happiness, then acting "good" no longer is conceived as a chore or inconvenient. You realize that the act is the means to the end, pleasure.

You must act to derive pleasure from life, it is not an innate state.



Your decision is made from emotion, not ethics. It is similar to the way animals exist. You don't want the pain of the blow, but this has nothing to do with what is "good", for your decision has made you "bad", by becoming the person who is commiting an immoral act. To prevent personal pain, you have become an inflicter of pain.



You cannot be a "good" person by commiting "bad" actions. Ethics and morality are derivations of actions, not your opinion of yourself. Each person IS a known quantity, they have known rights, of which you would be violating if you choose to be the deliverer of pain. If each person were not equal, then our system of law is based on lies, and then we could all, with impunity, act towards others in any manner we wished. Your concept allows for all manner of corruption and evil to spread, all for the sole purpose of reducing personal discomfort.

To decide to be punched is the ethically correct answer, for you retain the authority of moral law by not becoming a criminal to reduce your personal discomfort. By taking the blow, you have the authority of moral law on your side, which in a society that respects the rule of law, permits you to take actions against the immoral person, with the full force of society on your side.

I could kinda see that. But what if the choice was, either you die or some random person dies?

 

[plornive]

Re: Re: Re: Ethical question

Since the purpose of living is to "be" happy, this action acts counter to this idea. You save your life, by intentionally handing over your most valuable possession to death. So you have killed a major source of your happiness and compounded it with the lifelong realization that you enabled it.

This is irrationally selfish.

I see all of your points. But I still disagree because I have a different set of premises --- a completely different paradigm. In reality, I don't feel bad after being selfish. And I do feel bad after being selfless. And I don't always think in "good" vs. "bad". One can also think of ethics in the context of social functionality or individual functionality. Not everyone is wired with your moral circuitry.

You talked past me and Lumberg without even addressing or acknowledging our premises.

 

[plornive]

Re: Re: Re: Ethical question

Since the purpose of living is to "be" happy, this action acts counter to this idea. You save your life, by intentionally handing over your most valuable possession to death. So you have killed a major source of your happiness and compounded it with the lifelong realization that you enabled it.

This is irrationally selfish.

The person that is closest to me is not my most valuable possession. I doubt it will ever be that way, but acknowledge that it is possible.

On a smaller scale, I have gotten over any past mistakes I have made. And I have gotten over losing people I cared about --- in fact it made me stronger, smarter and more confident. It has been truly liberating to be released from a relationship before, although it has been painful.

 

[Spartacus]

how do you guys make any progress in the gym while smoking all this weed?

 

[Heahy Minister]

There's always another choice.

 

[Yarg!]

I would yell shanidigans towards the evil people then go into fetal mode and cry. Eventually I will die for my love one.