To Die or Not

The Gnome

After much discussion and debate I've found the following question to provoke some interesting answers. To this end I shall put it you humble folk of After Hours.

Would you die for a cause knowing that the actions that resulted in your death would make the world in general a better place for those left behind (loved ones, family, friends etc)?

TomCo

Heh, No.

Deer

First of all I'd like to point out that that is the reason why a lot of people commit suicide. They genuinely believe that their loved ones lives would be better without them.

If I thought my daughter and family would be better off without me financially - no.

If in a clear mind I felt that my death would change their lives completely for the better then yes.

But I must point out that no family is better off without one person. Not in the slightest.

Pigman II

The number of people I would actually die for can be counted on the fingers of one hand so the idea of dying "for the world" doesn't really impress me.

Vokes

The Gnome wrote:

...would make the world in general a better place for those left behind (loved ones, family, friends etc)?

To what extent do you mean better?

The Gnome

Deer wrote:

First of all I'd like to point out that that is the reason why a lot of people commit suicide. They genuinely believe that their loved ones lives would be better without them.

If I thought my daughter and family would be better off without me financially - no.

If in a clear mind I felt that my death would change their lives completely for the better then yes.

But I must point out that no family is better off without one person. Not in the slightest.

I just have to say that I'm talking about dying for a cause (revolution etc.) and not suicide. I'm also talking about everyone one not just immediate relations living a better life.

Dragan

It would depend.

The "good" that could be done from my death, would that outweigh the "good" that i could do if i remained alive?

It's impossible to know.

And besides, a lot of it would depend on how many people i got to take out with me.;)

TomCo

You can't do anything by being dead, much better to be alive and make a difference.

The Gnome

SofaKing wrote:

To what extent do you mean better?

A large extent, free from social oppression or never going hungry again etc. Something big not just "Thank god he/she's gone, it's great!"

LadyJ

The Gnome wrote:

Would you die for a cause knowing that the actions that resulted in your death would make the world in general a better place for those left behind (loved ones, family, friends etc)?

Yes,if I was really,really old and very,very sick.

Dragan

The Gnome wrote:

A large extent, free from social oppression or never going hungry again etc. Something big not just "Thank god he/she's gone, it's great!"

To be honest, there would have to be a reason. Why would my death suddenly allow this paradise to exist for them?

You can't just say "because thats the result of your killing yourself"....that completely diminishes the whole ethical aspect of your question.

There has to be something bad, or something bad that needs doing. So what, you are dead....the whole idea of a family structure is that you would sacrifice yourself to ensure there safety.

justsomebloke

it if was something like them being free from social oppression ye sure, but if it was something like having longer lasteing batteries in the remote control then i would go with no

Deer

Surely this is the mentality of the suicide bombers etc? That by blowing themselves and innocent people up that they are helping a cause that will make THEIR world better?

The Gnome

Dragan wrote:

To be honest, there would have to be a reason. Why would my death suddenly allow this paradise to exist for them?

You can't just say "because thats the result of your killing yourself"....that completely diminishes the whole ethical aspect of your question.

There has to be something bad, or something bad that needs doing. So what, you are dead....the whole idea of a family structure is that you would sacrifice yourself to ensure there safety.

Well I'm trying to steer clear of any particular reason to avoid the pitfalls of "Well, I'd just do x, y and z and I wouldn't have to die." I'm saying that you are going to do 'something', this action will result in the betterment of humanity as a whole but it will also cause your death.

aidan24326

If it was for someone I love maybe. But this idea of dying 'for a cause' or 'for the world' doesn't do much for me. I don't believe in an afterlife so once you're gone that's it IMO. Not a whole lot you can do then only fertilise the graveyard. In any case wouldn't it be a bit vain and self-absorbed for anyone to think that their death could make any difference? Surely if you were that important you'd be more useful alive!

Dragan

Deer wrote:

Surely this is the mentality of the suicide bombers etc? That by blowing themselves and innocent people up that they are helping a cause that will make THEIR world better?

Two differences.

1) Innocent people - this is what i asked the OP to clear up, as yet no mention has been made of taking out anyone else, only yourself, but i feel this is hardly a moral issue for most. The assurance of a better life for there child would have most parents sacrifice a lot etc.

2) The difference between belief and knowledge - suicide bombers BELIEVE what they do will improve there cause.....in this scenario we would be acting on the absolutely knowledge that our actions would better the lives of others.

The Gnome wrote:

this action will result in the betterment of humanity as a whole but it will also cause your death.

In that case then no way, "humanity as a whole" has a very short memory, and **** all appreciation of anything.

Don't give where it won't be appreciated.

The Gnome

Deer wrote:

Surely this is the mentality of the suicide bombers etc? That by blowing themselves and innocent people up that they are helping a cause that will make THEIR world better?

What Dragan said. I dont' want this to decend into a debate about suicide bombers. The action in this scenario could be anything.

Dragan wrote:

In that case then no way, "humanity as a whole" has a very short memory, and **** all appreciation of anything.

Don't give where it won't be appreciated

It's interesting that a lot of people are saying they would die if a loved one etc would benefit but once a larger group is included they say no. When I say humanity as a whole everyone you love and care for is included.

Just to clear up the point about other dying, in this scenario other may die but they are doing so willingly as you are.

aidan24326

Deer wrote:

Surely this is the mentality of the suicide bombers etc? That by blowing themselves and innocent people up that they are helping a cause that will make THEIR world better?

That's only part of it. Wouldn't you say the whole eternity in paradise thing is a motivating factor? The 72 virgins and all of that crap that some of them actually believe. What's even more fcuked up is that the families of some suicide bombers don't really mourn the death of the family member. They are seen as heroes. Very dead and very stupid heroes if you ask me.

Spastafarian

I might die for my country if we were being invaded. But only if it was definitley going to have a positive impact.
Not if I was volunteering to be part of a five man squad to take out an american aircraft carrier anchored off the coast of ireland primed to use it as a launchpad for a european invasion.

iFight

I probably wouldn't, unless it was someone who really meant alot to me. For 'humanity in general' I wouldn't as I can't see how one death could effect the world too much, so Id rather live, as someone else said, I dont believe in the After Life. I suppose if I was a Super Hero or something I might face a task that 'determines the fate of the universe', but unfortunately, Im not.

Dragan

The Gnome wrote:

When I say humanity as a whole everyone you love and care for is included.

The issue is that humanity is too large a scale. Humanity is someone i don't know, and if i did most likely someone i wouldn't like.

People relate to the "someone i know" issue because it is a small managable factor, thinking about however many billions of people are on this earth just makes the issue a bit diluted.

In short, there would be no individual face in your Jerry Brockheimer style montage.

robinph

So long as I got to go out in some spectacularly exciting manner then yes I would, otherwise stuff the rest of the world.

The Gnome

Dragan wrote:

The issue is that humanity is too large a scale. Humanity is someone i don't know, and if i did most likely someone i wouldn't like.

People relate to the "someone i know" issue because it is a small managable factor, thinking about however many billions of people are on this earth just makes the issue a bit diluted.

In short, there would be no individual face in your Jerry Brockheimer style montage.

I know what you mean and it's partly the point I was trying to bring across to the person I was originally having this argument with.

I disagree that there would be no face to it, if there is focus by the inclusion of loved ones then there could be many faces, your girlfriend, your husband, your sister, your father and so on.

Deer

The Gnome wrote:

What Dragan said. I dont' want this to decend into a debate about suicide bombers. The action in this scenario could be anything.

I was just thinking out loud really on that subject.

Okay. As much as I find it difficult to imagine myself dying and leaving my daughter here - no matter how good her life would be then my answer is yes. I would die to make things better for everyone else. I would just have to make sure that my family knew that it was for their own good because at the end of the day I think people are more concerned with their family unit then humanity as a whole.

Dragan

The Gnome wrote:

I disagree that there would be no face to it, if there is focus by the inclusion of loved ones then there could be many faces, your girlfriend, your husband, your sister, your father and so on.

Once again , and not to be picky, but the way you describe it is that you save your loved ones and humanity benefits as a result. This is relegating the effect on humanity as a whole to an afterthought, while still giving us the comfort of the knowledge of a safer family unit to drive us on.

I feel you would need to seperate the two points,

a) would you die to save your family but they would hate you for it and humanity would prosper.

b) would you live and have your family live, but humanity as a whole would suffer.

You can't have bait without a hook afterall. The option you give of "you die and everything is better for everyone" would be a yes answer for 90% of people if they were confronted with it.....but only if the option of them living would result in cataclysm for the rest of the world.

Thats just me though.

fuzzywiggle

It's my birthday and I do not need to be thinking of such morbid things! Anyway I answered no!

KTRIC

If the world was going to change dramatically and become a war free paradise without hate and everyone loved each other if I topped myself this evening.

I'd say feck that, I'm not missing Top Gear on Sunday

Amazotheamazing

I take you've never seen the "Dead Zone" with Christopher Walken?

I probably would, better to live one day as a free man than a lifetime of a slave.

Dooom

Call me selfish, but ha! No.

ThrownAway

I don't believe in any sort of afterlife so no I wouldn't I wouldn't be up there looking down on the world and see the difference I have made. I guess it's a complicated question to answer.
Imagine if a insane murderer bursted into my house and said if you don't kill youself now I'll kill your whole family and let you live....in that case I'd probably kill myself because I couldn't live with the fact that I sacrafied my family just so I could stay alive.

Ruu_Old

A no from Ruu.

Joseph

TomCo wrote:

Heh, No.

rofl

PS: Deaddude agrees.

The Gnome

Dragan wrote:

Once again , and not to be picky, but the way you describe it is that you save your loved ones and humanity benefits as a result.

Exactly, so my next question would be. Is there any major difference between 'saving your loved ones and humanity benefits' and 'saving humanity and your loved ones benefits'?

Dragan wrote:

I feel you would need to seperate the two points,

a) would you die to save your family but they would hate you for it and humanity would prosper.

b) would you live and have your family live, but humanity as a whole would suffer.

I agree on some levels because my initial question could be broken down into a lot of varying questions.

But as I put it originally I purposely left out any judgement by those left (be they family or general public). You would be dead, your family could hate you because you died, they could love you because of what you have done for them, the public could love you for the same reason or they might not even know your name. You will never know, all you know is the world will be a much better place.

Dragan wrote:

You can't have bait without a hook afterall. The option you give of "you die and everything is better for everyone" would be a yes answer for 90% of people if they were confronted with it.....but only if the option of them living would result in cataclysm for the rest of the world.

I agree, but what if there was no disaster, what if you kept on just living knowing you missed your chance to improve things?

Dragan

The Gnome wrote:

Exactly, so my next question would be. Is there any major difference between 'saving your loved ones and humanity benefits' and 'saving humanity and your loved ones benefits'?

For me yes, putting one before the other emphasis the importance of it to you. Lets say family is first, this is basically selfish, you are more worried about your own family than the rest of humanity. If humaity comes first, then this is basically selfLESS because you are more concerned with the bigger picture that the obvious benefit to your own, and apparent benefit to the rest of the world.

At least, thats my take on it.

The Gnome wrote:

You will never know, all you know is the world will be a much better place.

Then yeah, straight way i would go for it....after you are dead thats it...your done. i would easily give up any benefit i could see for myself of being alive, for the total benefit towards humanity. It is not a question of anything for me other than scale. If i don't know then i have nothing to fear, and nothing to worry aboutl

The Gnome wrote:

I agree, but what if there was no disaster, what if you kept on just living knowing you missed your chance to improve things?

People do this everyday. But my point as above remains. I still maintain the option given is simple, because it's all good, with no bad. We die, so we don;t know any better but our last moments are filled with thoughts of the good we are doing.

As such, the choice is not difficult.

I am very much enjoying over conversation actually, one of the best i have had on here in a little bit, so cheers!

L31mr0d

If its a situation where i'm told that I have to choose who dies, myself or a loved one, i'd choose myself. You wouldn't feel alive inside knowing you chose to kill someone you loved rather than yourself. Like Dragan said, its better dying happy, knowing you are saving someone else.

If its on the matter of dying for my country in a conflict of some sort than no, I wouldn't put my life on the line to become a statistic. I would, however, die for my faith, thats not to say i'd kill for my faith, more so that if I was threathened with giving up my faith or dying, i'd choose to die. If you have a faith in God, you accept that life and death are relative, and that God is the only being that has control over who should live and who should die.

So my priorities would be for dying (what a weird topic?)
1. God
2. Loved ones
3. Humanity

whiskeyman

TomCo wrote:

You can't do anything by being dead, much better to be alive and make a difference.

Unless you're a rap artist..... you can still release stuff and watch your music sales rocket!

Chakar

Well it would depend but I would put my life on the line for the Republic of Ireland if we were invaded by a foreign force.

Also the usual family blah blah..

Unearthly

Hands up who wanted to be Bruce Willis at the end of Armageddon

\o.:(

The Gnome

KTRIC wrote:

I'd say feck that, I'm not missing Top Gear on Sunday

Top Gear? You sicken me.

Dragan wrote:

For me yes, putting one before the other emphasis the importance of it to you. Lets say family is first, this is basically selfish, you are more worried about your own family than the rest of humanity. If humaity comes first, then this is basically selfLESS because you are more concerned with the bigger picture that the obvious benefit to your own, and apparent benefit to the rest of the world.

At least, thats my take on it.

Again, exacty. So people, who even believe they are being selfless by saving their family/loved ones are ultimatly selfish in their goals. This is why I find it so interesting, even when people make the choice to die they can still be selfish. A concept, I think, many in the world don't grasp.

Dragan wrote:

Then yeah, straight way i would go for it....after you are dead thats it...your done. i would easily give up any benefit i could see for myself of being alive, for the total benefit towards humanity. It is not a question of anything for me other than scale. If i don't know then i have nothing to fear, and nothing to worry aboutl

If you could know, whould it change you mind?

Dragan wrote:

People do this everyday. But my point as above remains. I still maintain the option given is simple, because it's all good, with no bad. We die, so we don;t know any better but our last moments are filled with thoughts of the good we are doing.

As such, the choice is not difficult.

I wouldn't say it's all good. There's a very real possibilty that those you left behind will be devasted by you loss. I would agree that some people make the choice to not make a difference everyday but very few of those choices are on the scale I'm talking about.

Dragan wrote:

I am very much enjoying over conversation actually, one of the best i have had on here in a little bit, so cheers!

Me too

TomCo

whiskeyman wrote:

Unless you're a rap artist..... you can still release stuff and watch your music sales rocket!

So true, the next 2Pac album feature Biggie should be out any day now.

Dragan

The Gnome wrote:

If you could know, whould it change you mind?

I do not think so, but it would make me see things differently, and make me spend my last few moments being bitter if i thought they would not appreciate it. I would like to say that i am above such a reaction but i am only human afterall. Even if i knew, and if that knowledge was that no one would care, i would like to think that i would still be able to do what needed doing.

Then again, if i am tested that way tomorrow, then maybe i will buckle, though i would like to think i would not!!

The Gnome wrote:

I wouldn't say it's all good. There's a very real possibilty that those you left behind will be devasted by you loss. I would agree that some people make the choice to not make a difference everyday but very few of those choices are on the scale I'm talking about.

Once again, i would look at it as being a case of scale. I have no doubt that my parents, family and friends would miss me, at least i hope they would!!! However, better to deal with my death than whatever destruction the world would endure other than that.

Death is as much a part of life as anything else, i would think that most of the people i know are well adjusted enough to see that, and while my death would sadden them, i do not think it would devastate them. I have no doubt that it would feel that way at the time, but they would mend, because they would all sit around thinking how pissed i would be at them for not getting on with things.

The know that should i ever go without being able to say goodbye to think of me fondly, treat each other right and LIVE for fu*k sake!!!!

Compare that with dealing with the entire mass destruction on mankind, in whatever form that should take....and i think the economies of scale are pretty clear!!!!

The Gnome

Dragan wrote:

Then again, if i am tested that way tomorrow, then maybe i will buckle, though i would like to think i would not!!

Very true, ultimatly we can say what we like but we'll probably never know what we'd all really do... until the revolution is at hand...

Dragan wrote:

Once again, i would look at it as being a case of scale. I have no doubt that my parents, family and friends would miss me, at least i hope they would!!! However, better to deal with my death than whatever destruction the world would endure other than that.

Ok, lets modify the scenario slighty. Say the current situation of the world is bad, a war for example, the war could end at any time and things could eventually sort themselves out but then again maybe not. Now you have the "Choice", will you take it and die or wait and see? Again the betterment of life is certain but now the possibility of disaster isn't.

Dragan wrote:

Death is as much a part of life as anything else, i would think that most of the people i know are well adjusted enough to see that, and while my death would sadden them, i do not think it would devastate them. I have no doubt that it would feel that way at the time, but they would mend, because they would all sit around thinking how pissed i would be at them for not getting on with things.

The know that should i ever go without being able to say goodbye to think of me fondly, treat each other right and LIVE for fu*k sake!!!!

True and at this level I suppose the dilemma become far more personal. Some peoples families wou;d be devasted by their loss no matter what and others proud of the sacrifice.

L31mr0d wrote:

I would, however, die for my faith, thats not to say i'd kill for my faith...

This is another interesting perspective, can I ask why you'd die but not kill?

Dragan

The Gnome wrote:

Ok, lets modify the scenario slighty. Say the current situation of the world is bad, a war for example, the war could end at any time and things could eventually sort themselves out but then again maybe not. Now you have the "Choice", will you take it and die or wait and see? Again the betterment of life is certain but now the possibility of disaster isn't.

Ah, another curve ball. I would look at that me giving my life could stop the war early, even if it is just a second early....but with that second i could willingly give my life and save the life of an innocent who would not die otherwise then it would be worth doing.

I am not trying to be a saint here, it should be noted that i would also kill another person, were the same result guaranteed.

Lothaar

I have always maintained (to myself) that in a situation like this I would unquestioningly sacrifice myself. Now, if me dying made things worse for my loved ones - but better for the rest of humanity - I would have a different perspective. There's a school of thought that says there is no such thing as altruism, that even the greatest sacrifice is motivated by 'selfishness' (eg protecting your family, your blood/genes). If my family and loved ones were to suffer from my death, then I would rather live.

Dyr

I'm sure i would, i mean i'll sacrifice myself for my team mates when im playing DOD and that's pretty much the same.

The Gnome

Dragan wrote:

Ah, another curve ball. I would look at that me giving my life could stop the war early, even if it is just a second early....but with that second i could willingly give my life and save the life of an innocent who would not die otherwise then it would be worth doing.

I am not trying to be a saint here, it should be noted that i would also kill another person, were the same result guaranteed.

[Voice=German Psychoanalyst]Very interesting.... [/Voice]

Black Swan

Depends on a lot of things, some of which most of you would not spend a lot of time pondering when it happened. For example, you're watching the telly, someone breaks into your house and assaults your child.

"Help! Help! Dad! Mom! Scream! Cry!"

Response A: "Well, let's see..." Parent observes child getting beaten, pulls at chin. "Should I rescue my kid... hummmmm... Well, if I do, I might get hurt or even die... hummmm... Then again, I love them and could not live a happy life knowing that I let them be hurt or die... hummmm... What should I do?"

Response B: "Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!" Parent immediately counter attacks not thinking about their own safety.

Lothaar

Doing it because you couldn't live with yourself if you *didn't* is a disgrace, IMO. You're only considering the effect it has upon you.


On the subject of parents' reactions: let's say somebody was about to shoot your child. Would you throw yourself in front of them to take a bullet? Even if you knew the gunman had more bullets and could still shoot your child?

The Gnome

Blue_Lagoon wrote:

Depends on a lot of things, some of which most of you would not spend a lot of time pondering when it happened. For example, you're watching the telly, someone breaks into your house and assaults your child.

"Help! Help! Dad! Mom! Scream! Cry!"

Response A: "Well, let's see..." Parent observes child getting beaten, pulls at chin. "Should I rescue my kid... hummmmm... Well, if I do, I might get hurt or even die... hummmm... Then again, I love them and could not live a happy life knowing that I let them be hurt or die... hummmm... What should I do?"

Response B: "Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!" Parent immediately counter attacks not thinking about their own safety.

As I said it's not a single life or a few lifes that at involved.

Deer

I was watching a certain movie on Sunday with a hangover regarding earth being attacked by aliens. One of the characters was in the exact same situation as the one your proposing and ended his life and saved humanity. He was a parent and left his children behind.

With regards to world at war, stay and see how things happen or end your life now - are you proposing that at any point that you choose to die that the war will be over?

Because if it's a wait and see situation and you can make your choice at any time I think I'd wait and see.

The Gnome

Deer wrote:

I was watching a certain movie on Sunday with a hangover regarding earth being attacked by aliens. One of the characters was in the exact same situation as the one your proposing and ended his life and saved humanity. He was a parent and left his children behind.

With regards to world at war, stay and see how things happen or end your life now - are you proposing that at any point that you choose to die that the war will be over?

Because if it's a wait and see situation and you can make your choice at any time I think I'd wait and see.

For that example it was 'make it then or never' situation.