A hypothetical dilemma?

Soul Winner

What would you do if you were faced with this hypothetical dilemma?

You find out tomorrow that a new scientific study has projected that caring and looking after the old, the weak, the feeble, the diseased, the poor, the mentally ill, the homeless, in short the burdensome of society, was going to cause the sure demise of the human race within 70 years?

That because we use up so much resources and spend so much time and money taking care of the weak and sick in hospitals and homes etc, that using up the resources of the fit in caring for the weak will result in the life force and strength being sucked out of the human race rendering itself weak, capable only of procreating more weak into society and less fit, spiraling down to a situation where there are only weak remaining and no fit left to take care of them resulting in death for all.

How would you personally view the weak and needy of society if this was an irrefutable and - should things continue as they are - irreversible outcome based on a valid and sound scientific projection on the future of the human race?

Would you:

A) Agree that we should never again care for people in need in order that the human race as a whole will survive and benefit in the long run?

Or:

Say 'to hoot with what science projects, I'd rather we died out as a race caring for the needy instead of surviving, because morally that is the right thing to do?'

Curious to know what your answers will be and why, giving that your answer can only be either A or B above.


If your answer is A, then what is the ultimate point of simply surviving in a world which treats its weak and needy in this way?


If your answer is B, then why would you allow your race to die out based on an inner sense of morality that is ultimately meaningless?

seanybiker

if ya dont help the sick then hospitals may aswell clothes. Loads of jobs lost. Then ex hospital workers will have no money to pay their bills, end up on the street (homeless) probably get sick from the elements.
Then since their is no hospitals to help sick people sure we may aswell close factories that make tablets. Hmm more people with no money out on the street and possibly sick.
Crime will more than likely go up. Then there will just be a mad world war and we will wipe ourselves out.
I'll go for option B thanks.

darjeeling

If the OP was too long to read, here's a boiled down version that retains the essence.

Are you a eugenicist?

A) Yes

No. Of course I still buy the whole eugenics argument, it's just I'm going to put my head in this sand.

Black Swan

Soul Winner wrote: »

You find out tomorrow that a new scientific study has projected that caring and looking after the old, the weak, the feeble, the diseased, the poor, the mentally ill, the homeless, in short the burdensome of society, was going to cause the sure demise of the human race within 70 years?

Are you resurrecting Social Darwinism by Spencer? (i.e., survival of the fittest)

Soul Winner wrote: »

That because we use up so much resources and spend so much time and money taking care of the weak and sick in hospitals and homes etc, that using up the resources of the fit

Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand?

I'd rather play name that tune, than to play yet another survival game.;)

Galvasean

Is option B (ie: letting EVERYONE die a slow crippling death) really the moral choice?

Soul Winner

seanybiker wrote: »

if ya dont help the sick then hospitals may aswell clothes. Loads of jobs lost. Then ex hospital workers will have no money to pay their bills, end up on the street (homeless) probably get sick from the elements.

Mere teething problems for a new baby society in the making.

seanybiker wrote: »

Then since their is no hospitals to help sick people sure we may aswell close factories that make tablets. Hmm more people with no money out on the street and possibly sick.

No more worrying about importing harmful expensive chemicals that treat symptoms instead of actually curing anyone.

seanybiker wrote: »

Crime will more than likely go up. Then there will just be a mad world war and we will wipe ourselves out.

Use the resources that once went into looking after the weak and needy to now look after the fit. Turn those hospitals into Universities, retrain the doctors and put all our resources into developing a gene which enables the human race to live longer on less natural resources, capable of generating its own energy needs from within that it would otherwise have gotten from without. Concentrate on using the earth's natural resources in a way that benefits both the human race and the earth at the same time.

seanybiker wrote: »

I'll go for option B thanks.

So would I

Soul Winner

Galvasean wrote: »

Is option B (ie: letting EVERYONE die a slow crippling death) really the moral choice?

No, the 'caring for the needy' part was. Read option B again.

Galvasean

Soul Winner wrote: »

No, the 'looking after the needy' part was. Read option B again.

It's not moral to help someone if you know it will hurt even more people.

edit: that is assuming you know of the outcome of course

darjeeling

Galvasean wrote: »

Is option B (ie: letting EVERYONE die a slow crippling death) really the moral choice?

I prefer:

C) Eugenics is bunk, and I'm not going to be persuaded by a piece of ludicrous red-top pseudoscience (do not show your working).

.

Soul Winner

Galvasean wrote: »

It's not moral to help someone if you know it will hurt even more people.

edit: that is assuming you know of the outcome of course

The dilemma assumes that we know the outcome either way. If this was the case then what would the higher moral choice be between A and B and why?

Zillah

We're saying that this study is irrefutably correct for the purposes of the hypothetical? Assuming yes:

Let the weak die.

And I'll call any man who says otherwise a murderous, selfish, short sighted fool.


Also, I find the fact that you ended up making this scenario sound like some butchered parody of evolutionary theory to be rather amusing.

If your answer is A, then what is the ultimate point of simply surviving in a world which treats its weak and needy in this way?

Because I think allowing billions of people die to indulge my short sighted sympathies is a wretchedly selfish thing to do.

Black Swan

Soul Winner wrote: »

the poor

Who are "the poor" in your hypothetical situation? In the real world, "the poor" can be quite diverse. Chronic street people are very different from workers and professionals that have become recently unemployed and lost their savings as a result of the current Great Recession? Would the recently unemployed that have temporarily joined "the poor" be eliminated?

Another example... There are a lot of university students that would fit "the poor" definition today given their limited or lack of income (including yours truly). Most of these students will pay off their student loans and evidence occupational mobility, and no longer be defined as "the poor" (i.e., there is a positive correlation between advancing education and increasing income). Would these students without rich parents be eliminated too?

In contrast, just think of those spoiled kids of rich parents, like George W. Bush, who would be spared not because they were the brightest, but only by accident of birth. Would the George W. Bush's of the world be spared in your hypothetical situation, just because they would inherit vast wealth from their rich families? This flies in the face of eugenics or survival of the fittest?

The Royal family in the UK would be spared, only because they are rich, not because they are best prepared to survive during severe hypothetical challenges to the human race?:rolleyes:

CerebralCortex

Soul Winner wrote: »

The dilemma assumes that we know the outcome either way. If this was the case then what would the higher moral choice be between A and B and why?

Soul Winner could you cut the moral dilemma crap and ask the question you really want to ask? How about that?

MatthewVII

1) There is no possible situation where this scenario could ever possibly arise

2) In the fantasy world where this could arise, the obvious choice is to insitute (A) until we had advanced enough (shouldn't take too long with focused scientific research) to successfully be able to take care of sick, weak etc without compromising society. It would purely be a transient measure

3) I think the real solution is to pray

Again, this question is ridiculous. Is this a retaliation to the "gay child" thread on the christianity forum?

robindch

Soul Winner wrote: »

If your answer is B, then why would you allow your race to die out based on an inner sense of morality that is ultimately meaningless?

Who on earth said that one's internal ethical sense is "meaningless"? And even if it were "meaningless" (whatever that means), what exactly does "meaning" have to do with ethical choices?

I find it amazing that religious people get so hung up so often on "meaning", frequently to the extent that it seems to be the only thing that matters to many of them.

Weird.

Stercus Accidit

Procreation licences.

Its much easier to get one if you are a citizen, rather than a civilian, and service would guarantee citizenship.

Would you like to know more?

pts

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

Procreation licences.

Its much easier to get one if you are a citizen, rather than a civilian, and service would guarantee citizenship.

Would you like to know more?

I'm doing my part.

Interesting idea in the Novel & Book though, that you earn certain rights, instead of being given them. I think some people value things more if they earn them.

kiffer

Well in Soulwinners hypothetical question the race is getting weaker because the "life force" is being drained away by the people he considers inferior and weak. The poor, the sick, and the old?

Since this is invocking mystical magikal life energy we can use such in our answer...
Step one, Get some crystals.
Step two, recruit 2000 followers male and female, drawn from a broad cross section of the worlds population and skill sets.

3, Find a large island (finding one big enough will be hard), isolate it from the life force drain (magik crystal power for the win) caused by the people SW seems to think we should worry about dragging us down...

4, Go live on the island for a few generations in secret untill the people on the main land have collapsed.

5, leave our Glorious utopia to reclaim the now vacant and verdent world...

Goduznt Xzst

I think you'll find that option A) is largely in use right now. Like it or not, the majority of us in the western world have the quality of life that we take for granted because we support those who exploit the weak, needy and misfortunate.

So I'd agree with A) I think humans, as we do right now, could easily turn a blind apathetic eye to those less fortunate if it meant ourselves and our family could survive. Heck we do it now because we are happy to pay the bare minimum for products, regardless for who at the bottom will suffer, over their "fair trade" counterparts. Ask yourself why we live in a world where a brand needs to actually advertise "fair trade" on its products like it is something special.

Soul Winner

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

Who are "the poor" in your hypothetical situation? In the real world, "the poor" can be quite diverse. Chronic street people are very different from workers and professionals that have become recently unemployed and lost their savings as a result of the current Great Recession? Would the recently unemployed that have temporarily joined "the poor" be eliminated?

Another example... There are a lot of university students that would fit "the poor" definition today given their limited or lack of income (including yours truly). Most of these students will pay off their student loans and evidence occupational mobility, and no longer be defined as "the poor" (i.e., there is a positive correlation between advancing education and increasing income). Would these students without rich parents be eliminated too?


In contrast, just think of those spoiled kids of rich parents, like George W. Bush, who would be spared not because they were the brightest, but only by accident of birth. Would the George W. Bush's of the world be spared in your hypothetical situation, just because they would inherit vast wealth from their rich families? This flies in the face of eugenics or survival of the fittest?

The Royal family in the UK would be spared, only because they are rich, not because they are best prepared to survive during severe hypothetical challenges to the human race?:rolleyes:

No the 'poor' in this hypothetical scenario would be anyone who would serve as a drain on society. Like Welfare recipients who put no effort whatsoever into finding work, don't involve themselves in any other extra curricular activities whilst in the process of looking for work, that would benefit society in other ways. You know, leaches.

Soul Winner

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Soul Winner could you cut the moral dilemma crap and ask the question you really want to ask? How about that?

I asked it the best way I could, hypothetically. Sorry if that is not good enough for you.

Soul Winner

MatthewVII wrote: »

1) There is no possible situation where this scenario could ever possibly arise

Then you are in disagreement with Goduznt Xzst because he states:

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

I think you'll find that option A) is largely in use right now. Like it or not, the majority of us in the western world have the quality of life that we take for granted because we support those who exploit the weak, needy and misfortunate.

MatthewVII wrote: »

Again, this question is ridiculous. Is this a retaliation to the "gay child" thread on the christianity forum?

I haven't even read that that thread so no.

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

So I'd agree with A) I think humans, as we do right now, could easily turn a blind apathetic eye to those less fortunate if it meant ourselves and our family could survive. Heck we do it now because we are happy to pay the bare minimum for products, regardless for who at the bottom will suffer, over their "fair trade" counterparts. Ask yourself why we live in a world where a brand needs to actually advertise "fair trade" on its products like it is something special.

As bad as we are today in how we treat the unfortunates of this world we are a far cry from option A in my hypothetical scenario. My simple question was what you would choose between A or B and why. So far only Zilah and Seanybike were courageous enough to answer it.

CerebralCortex

Soul Winner wrote: »

...My simple question was what you would choose between A or B and why. So far only Zilah and Seanybike were courageous enough to answer it.

And the mystery continues. Usually you use a hypothetical situation(ftr it isn't even possible) to illicit a certain behaviour a person/persons exhibit. Why are you asking these rigid questions and why in the A+A forum? If you take our responses they should indicate that we of no belief in the supernatural are quite conscientious which is beside the point. Also in reality as its already been pointed out both are immoral, but if we dig deeper it isn't hard to understand why you would think B is the better option suggesting that the questions are setup to support your particular pov*. Whats new?


*Hallo! It couldn't be more Christian and God fearing.

MatthewVII

Soul Winner wrote: »

Then you are in disagreement with Goduznt Xzst

Well his point is not that no one cares for anyone weak, more that the strong and the clever take advantage of the weaker and less organized. That isn't the same as leaving them to die. It's just an observation that the strong are always at an advantage from a variety of perspectives and the weak suffer because of it to varying degrees. What you are suggesting is just letting sick people die, which doesn't really make sense, since ill people, once properly managed, can get back to contributing to society, so really its in society's interest to keep them supported.

Soul Winner

robindch wrote: »

Who on earth said that one's internal ethical sense is "meaningless"? And even if it were "meaningless" (whatever that means), what exactly does "meaning" have to do with ethical choices?

You tell me. What does meaning have to do with your ethical choices? I have mine but what meaning is their in choosing option B in a purely naturalistic world? I'm not saying that there is no meaning in a purely naturalistic world view, I just find it difficult to see what meaning there could be in a world without ultimate meaning and without God there is no ultimate meaning IMO. If you think there is then I want to know what it is. If meaning itself has no meaning to you then what is it in life that you value or hold dear? Surely these things have meaning to you at least?

robindch wrote: »

I find it amazing that religious people get so hung up so often on "meaning", frequently to the extent that it seems to be the only thing that matters to many of them.

Weird.

I find the other way around even more weird. If there is no such thing as meaning then what is the point of it all? Should things even have a point? I'm not for a minute suggesting that only religious people have meaning in their lives, I don't think that at all. Many people who don't hold any religious views at all still find meaning and purpose in life. But what your saying to me is that meaning itself doesn't mean anything. I really do not follow what that is suppose to mean to me. Without an ultimate purpose as to why we are here I fail to see how we can see ourselves as anything other than bacteria like creatures in a meaningless universe.

Soul Winner

CerebralCortex wrote: »

And the mystery continues. Usually you use a hypothetical situation(ftr it isn't even possible) to illicit a certain behaviour a person/persons exhibit. Why are you asking these rigid questions and why in the A+A forum? If you take our responses they should indicate that we of no belief in the supernatural are quite conscientious which is beside the point. Also in reality as its already been pointed out both are immoral, but if we dig deeper it isn't hard to understand why you would think B is the better option suggesting that the questions are setup to support your particular pov*. Whats new?

Its a simple bloody question. A or B? I know you are constrained by the hypothetical scenario which is why it is structured that what. I want to know what you would choose if this scenario were true and why, jeeeeze...

bou

One pedantic point: You can never be faced with a hypothetical dilemma. You are faced with it or not.

The hypothesis is based on shaky ground. It looks like a very middle class hypothesis.

How do you become poor and a drain on society? Be born into a poor family with no resources to train you. Get marginalised from the start so you think that society has it in for you and you will get what you can from society without any regard for that society. The moral values of that society are meaningless to you since it couldn't care less about you. You and your lack of productiveness are part of the society that produced you.

How do you get sick and a be drain on society? Well, you could have bad genes or some small but vital thing goes wrong. It happens across all strata of society. You could suffer an illness for a multitude of reasons. If you are rich, chances are it will be identified and corrected early. If you are poor, you'll probably die early from it. If you are poor you will likely have greater chance of various illnesses due to poor nutrition (related to education also which is also dependent on social class), harder working conditions and less opportunity for healthy activities.

The economics of the current world order depends on there being poor people. Get rid of the poor people and the world order collapses anyway.

You will probably be old and sick one day.

Maybe we should aim for a Spartan society where the weak looking babies are thrown into the local ravine and boys taken into military training camps, adults waging war on neighboring groups. They of course needed a slave population to support their society. I understand their society collapsed after a couple of hundred years due to falling population. Odd that.


Answering the hypothesis, I'd say, no, lets re-model society in a more equitable manner and give the ecosystem a chance to aprticipate too.

Soul Winner

MatthewVII wrote: »

What you are suggesting is just letting sick people die, which doesn't really make sense, since ill people, once properly managed, can get back to contributing to society, so really its in society's interest to keep them supported.

Yes again this is my point. The hypothetical research has shown conclusively that looking after the sick and the weak (whether they can be made better again or not) is having a detrimental effect on society and within 70 years it will result in death for all unless the fit put all their efforts into looking out for the fit and using valuable resources to make sure that the fit propagate fitness instead of wasting resources caring for the weak.

Dades

Soul Winner wrote: »

I just find it difficult to see what meaning there could be in a world without ultimate meaning and without God there is no ultimate meaning IMO.

What is the ultimate meaning with God? I never quite got that one.

I do see meaning in both of the options, however.

Option A, means you fully grasp the severity of the situation.

Option B, means you don't. Instead you will allow the human race die out, including the sick, old, young and healthy. Our planet will continue to revolve around the sun, and cats will rule the earth until the next asteroid.

Goduznt Xzst

Soul Winner wrote: »

Then you are in disagreement with Goduznt Xzst because he states:

No he isn't. I was saying the principle of your options was already in use, but the specifics are ridiculous and implausible. I agree with MatthewVII in regards to the possibility of your specific scenario ever actually arising

Soul Winner wrote: »

My simple question was what you would choose between A or B and why. So far only Zilah and Seanybike were courageous enough to answer it.

*cough*

Goduznt Xzst wrote:

So I'd agree with A)

For the same reasons as Zillah, and also because it is in our nature to do whatever we must to exist. It's simply game theory. If you give a human the option of self-interest or morality, most humans will choose self-interest. People make these choices, subconsciously, all the time. You are aware of the starving people in the world, yet your self-interest wants to give you an enjoyable night out drinking or at the movies and to pay for an expensive meal afterwards with friends. Your self-interest outweighs your knowledge and ability to provide food for others who are dying from starvation. You detach your morality from this burden by prioritizing your own existence and interests above all others.

The strong will take advantage of the weak. Regardless of how appalling this may sound, we openly support it with our way of life.

darjeeling

Soul Winner wrote: »

Its a simple bloody question. A or B? I know you are constrained by the hypothetical scenario which is why it is structured that what. I want to know what you would choose if this scenario were true and why, jeeeeze...

That's right! Just answer, yes or no, are you still beating your wife?

However, I think if letting the elderly, sick, weak etc go to the wall was so crucial for the continued survival of our genes, we would have evolved to find it the moral thing to do. And the holy books we'd have written for ourselves would reflect just that.

.