A hypothetical dilemma?

coffee_cake

Soul Winner wrote: »

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.

lol?
with god there is no ultimate meaning, you're some deity's plaything, fit for nothing more than mindless worship, grats.

darjeeling

Soul Winner wrote: »

You do realize that choosing option A will mean living in a world where the weak and needy are totally rejected and not cared for all the time. Could you really live in a world like that? This is not a criticism just an honest question and a way of clarifying what choosing option A entails.

Do we recognise a human right to life? Yes
Do we recognise a human right to be conceived? No (though the Pope may have something to add on this).

This leads me towards B, though that's also simply the reality of how we do and ever will behave, meaning this is our best hope of ensuring our species' survival.

We've evolved to prioritise our blood relatives over the 'greater good of humanity' - that's how evolution works. If one person decided to try to go against this, others wouldn't, and the 'altruist' would end up getting suckered - it's the prisoner's dilemma again. The only way to prevent people helping their needier relatives survive would be to make it illegal: tear up human rights and ruthlessly enforce a law that many feel is wrong. So now you have authoritarianism, which stifles creativity, ties up huge numbers in snooping and policing, and makes people miserable and ill. And this is going to improve the chances of humanity's continued survival? That was the original 'scientific' claim, wasn't it?

To summarise - the likelihood of humans going on existing into the future (option A) is greatest when you have societies that allow cooperation and mutual help (option .

Mickeroo

Soul Winner wrote: »

You do realize that choosing option A will mean living in a world where the weak and needy are totally rejected and not cared for all the time. Could you really live in a world like that? This is not a criticism just an honest question and a way of clarifying what choosing option A entails.

Yea i understand, but either option would involve the weak and the needy dying,at least with option A the fit still get to live. Instead of condemning both I'm only condemning one group.

Personally the thought of living in a world where the needy and weak are rejected repulses me and i'm not sure i could do it, that doesn't make it the right choice in this situation. Sacrifice for survival.

Zillah

I find it baffling how complicated this thread has gotten.

coffee_cake

Zillah wrote: »

I find it baffling how complicated this thread has gotten.

to summarise: hypothetical dilemmas are silly, god is the answer to everything, etc

Zillah

Actually to be honest I'm a little irked at all of the people arguing and struggling against the criteria of the hypothetical. It was constructed to reveal your opinions in regard to a particular principle. Trying to redefine the scenario or arguing that it wouldn't happen is utterly irrelevant. Answer the question within the criteria defined or don't bother getting involved.

darjeeling

Zillah wrote: »

Actually to be honest I'm a little irked at all of the people arguing and struggling against the criteria of the hypothetical. It was constructed to reveal your opinions in regard to a particular principle. Trying to redefine the scenario or arguing that it wouldn't happen is utterly irrelevant. Answer the question within the criteria defined or don't bother getting involved.

Well, what was the principle then? Was it whether the continuation of our species through distant future generations of people should be prioritised over the welfare of the living? If so, I don't agree, as indicated in my last post. You seem to take a different line on what the principle is though:

Zillah wrote: »

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.

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

Who are these billions who are dying? Presumably people who are already walking around and not their unborn descendents, who would actually be spared from dying if our premature extinction stopped them being conceived in the first instance.

So if we've different opinions on what the principle was, maybe there's a problem with the whole question.

marco_polo

Zillah wrote: »

Actually to be honest I'm a little irked at all of the people arguing and struggling against the criteria of the hypothetical. It was constructed to reveal your opinions in regard to a particular principle. Trying to redefine the scenario or arguing that it wouldn't happen is utterly irrelevant. Answer the question within the criteria defined or don't bother getting involved.

The far fetched dilema is loaded so that you also have to accept the assertion that life is meaningless without the existence of absolute morality.

If it is you accept that it is life was pointless just because it is going to end in a years time, then what is the difference in accepting it is also pointless if it ends in a billion years. To the Universe that is hardly any time.

A - By the way

Zillah

My understanding of the initial scenario was this: We know for sure that continuing to support the elderly, sick and poor of the world (for simplicity sake, let's say those who consume more taxes than they generate) will result in the rapid collapse of human society, resulting in the extinction of our species. The billions dying are those that are alive now, and those that will be born between now and our extinction.

I suppose that those who would have been born post-extinction should we not have become extinct are a factor to consider, in the sense of wanting our species to continue into the future, but I'm not even factoring those into my response; dooming all those currently alive and soon to be alive is enough for me.

Perhaps Soul Winner can clarify: I presume the majority of people alive currently would suffer premature deaths as a result of this hypothetical over-consumption/unwise use of resources?

Zillah

marco_polo wrote: »

The far fetched dilema is loaded so that you also have to accept the assertion that life is meaningless without the existence of absolute morality.

No I don't think so. The initial scenario makes no value judgements. It presents a hypothetical (if admittedly far fetched) scenario and asks you which of two options your response would be.

The follow up questions imply Soul Winner's views on the matter, but you're fully capable of presenting your own opinion or justification, as I did.

marco_polo

Zillah wrote: »

No I don't think so. The initial scenario makes no value judgements. It presents a hypothetical (if admittedly far fetched) scenario and asks you which of two options your response would be.

The follow up questions imply Soul Winner's views on the matter, but you're fully capable of presenting your own opinion or justification, as I did.

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?

I believe it is implied by this statement.

Zillah

Then contest the statement, what's the big fuss about?

"I would go with option B, however blah blah blah". Certainly doesn't require five pages of contrariness.

Doctor DooM

Soul Winner wrote: »

You do realize that choosing option A will mean living in a world where the weak and needy are totally rejected and not cared for all the time. Could you really live in a world like that? This is not a criticism just an honest question and a way of clarifying what choosing option A entails.

I would also choose A.

In this hypothetical, the weak and needy will die slightly later anyway.

Good thing we will never have to live in that world though, as the hypothetical is ridiculous in the extreme, and loaded to make the pragmatic look bad.

Doctor DooM

Who defines weak and who defines poor, btw?

Seems to me that person would need to be completely uncorruptable or the whole thing falls apart anyway.

Stercus Accidit

Caring for people, empathy, is an evolutionary trait, it has served us so well we dominate the globe, now, an issue that we never encountered, hence havn't evolved our empathy to deal with, is our huge success could lead to our downfall due to a lack of resources.

But our other evolved skill at play, is logic.

If we have to let the weak die to continue as a species, failing the plethora of other tactics we could use (my starship troopers moment was quite serious), then yes, we would take the logical step, ignoring empathy, and continue the human race, rather than go extinct.

Down the line obviously we would find a solution other than that, but heck, there would be war quite literally, long before we all starved out, and survival of the fittest, most technologically advanced, and nuclear of nations is a given.

pH

Good thing we will never have to live in that world though, as the hypothetical is ridiculous in the extreme, and loaded to make the pragmatic look bad.

Crikey, isn't all this fairly pointless?

Isn't is really easy to come up with "hypothetical" dilemmas such as "OMG the human lifeforce is dying out and it's scientifically proven that the only way of replacing it is to rape babies ... YOU NON-BELIEVERS WHAT WOULD YOU DO?"

Zillah

pH wrote: »

Crikey, isn't all this fairly pointless?

Isn't is really easy to come up with "hypothetical" dilemmas such as "OMG the human lifeforce is dying out and it's scientifically proven that the only way of replacing it is to rape babies ... YOU NON-BELIEVERS WHAT WOULD YOU DO?"

The original hypothetical obviously represents something of interest to Soul Winner, and so is not pointless. You creating random irrelevant hypotheticals is completely pointless, yes, well done. I'll try one: "If bongo drums turned out to be the cause of global warming, would you take and destroy your five year old's bongo drum!?" We can do this all day and it still has no bearing on the original post.

SDooM wrote:

Who defines weak and who defines poor, btw?

Is indulging in the spirit of the hypothetical really that difficult? You have to be able to grasp what Soul Winner is getting at, fill in the irrelevant blanks yourself.

Doctor DooM

Zillah wrote: »

Is indulging in the spirit of the hypothetical really that difficult? You have to be able to grasp what Soul Winner is getting at, fill in the irrelevant blanks yourself.

I did exactly as you asked, I answered the question then went BUT...

I don't think that blank is irrelevant, tbh. I think it's important. But thats just my opinion.

pH

Zillah wrote: »

The original hypothetical obviously represents something of interest to Soul Winner, and so is not pointless.

You may choose to believe that I guess.

Galvasean

Was just thinking, maybe letting the human race die off would be more moral... what with them killing the world with pollution and whatnot.

Goduznt Xzst

this thread reminds me of this video:

The Colbert Reports DOOM BUNKER

if you want to know what he's parodying, check out Glenn Becks War Room, a man who would be funny if he wasn't so dangerous.

pts

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

this thread reminds me of this video:

The Colbert Reports DOOM BUNKER

if you want to know what he's parodying, check out Glenn Becks War Room, a man who would be funny if he wasn't so dangerous.

Ha ha Colbert is such a legend!

mewso

c) Train monkeys to look after the elderly.

kiffer

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.

Hum... my answer was pretty much 'A', but worse, I've used the Ark model saving only a few (thousand) people from the collapse.
Even as hypothetical situations go it doesn't make much sense, why would humans die off with in 70 years? Running out of resources?

No matter how hard we try to take care of the 'weak' and the sick they will be the first to go as we run out of resources thus eliminating the 'problem'...

We may get knocked back to the stone age (figuratively speaking) but some people will survive even if it's just the Amish and some tribesmen in the amazon.

If I'm forced to take a pure A or B stand point then I'll say B if you mean population collapse for believable but hypothetical reasons, because frankly it will inevitably lead to A once a sufficient number has died off due to the resource short fall ... Civilization may collapse but Humans won't die out from a mere resource short fall (it'll be one or more of the following: plague (natural or artificial), grey goo scenario, massive asteroid impact, massive volcanism, and so on.)

Soul Winner

Thank you one and all for all your replies. I know it is a stupid and unrealistic scenario but the replies where interesting all the same. I thought the Zilah and Darjeeling clash was interesting though, just like the right to life debate.

The post wasn't put up in order to catch anyone out or anything, just something that popped into my head to do. I suppose I just wanted to see what people who don't believe in absolutes would do in such a scenario, the thinking is not as universal as I thought. If I didn't believe in God or the supernatural then I'd probably go with option A.

Also I think it is quite interesting to see people who don't believe in the supernatural putting their faith (figuratively speaking) in the proclamations of scientific research. Reminds me of religious people believing in a doom and gloom prophecy prior to which they must act in a cetain way in order to avoid it coming to pass. Again this wasn't the purpose of the thread either, just an interesting latter observation. Anyway thanks guys.

MatthewVII

Soul Winner wrote: »

Also I think it is quite interesting to see people who don't believe in the supernatural putting their faith (figuratively speaking) in the proclamations of scientific research..

Scientific research doesn't require faith to believe in. That's what makes it scientific.

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

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.

oh those poor :rolleyes:

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

Also I think it is quite interesting to see people who don't believe in the supernatural putting their faith (figuratively speaking) in the proclamations of scientific research.

Could that be possibly that you don't understand the difference between personal proclamations about the supernatural (I saw a ghost!/I speak with God!/I feel the world is going to end tomorrow!) and scientific research (we have accurately modelled a photon and here is all the research and data and you can, if you want to, do the same thing we did and you should come up with the same results)

darjeeling

Soul Winner wrote: »

Thank you one and all for all your replies. I know it is a stupid and unrealistic scenario but the replies where interesting all the same. I thought the Zilah and Darjeeling clash was interesting though, just like the right to life debate.

Was there a clash? How exciting! And how did I miss it?
We had different ideas of what you were asking. Is that what characterises the 'right to life' debate?

Soul Winner wrote: »

If I didn't believe in God or the supernatural then I'd probably go with option A.

Does a belief in a god who created humans to fulfil some divine plan not mean you think humans ought to survive long enough to see it through? Could not an equally valid religious case be made for keeping humans - who, if memory serves, were instructed by God to 'be fruitful and multiply' - surviving as a species?

Soul Winner wrote: »

Also I think it is quite interesting to see people who don't believe in the supernatural putting their faith (figuratively speaking) in the proclamations of scientific research.

I think that was because they were only following orders. Your scenario premised that the science was correct and asked, given that, what was the right course of action. Some people went along with you, others (including me) stepped outside your scenario and said they would see the scientific claims as unsound.

Soul Winner

MatthewVII wrote: »

Scientific research doesn't require faith to believe in. That's what makes it scientific.

I know but once given the evidence from the research then you either proceed on the basis of that evidence or not. If you do then you are acting in faith on the basis of the evidence. At some point you must act in faith.