Ethics question

[Wictorian]

Do you think if a person had to die to prevent humanity from extinction, would they be morally obligated to do it? And if they refused would it be ethical for other humans to force them?

[Spotty]

Isn't this just the trolley problem but increasing the stakes with every person in the world on the other track.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

[Wictorian]

1 minute ago, Spotty said:

Isn't this just the trolley problem but increasing the stakes with every person in the world on the other track.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

Kind of. I am emphasisizng on the view point of the individual though. 

[mahyar]

22 minutes ago, Wictorian said:

would they be morally obligated to do it?

yes

 

22 minutes ago, Wictorian said:

And if they refused would it be ethical for other humans to force them?

also yes

[8tg]

My life is not worth 7 billion others, nor would I have any defense for any other 1 person.

[tikker]

Welcome to the can of worms that is ethics. I used to hate this course, but it's actually kind of interesting now haha. One should be aware that there are multiple branches of ethics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normative_ethics

4 hours ago, Wictorian said:

would they be morally obligated to do it? And if they refused would it be ethical for other humans to force them?

I agree with @Spotty that this is just the trolly problem. It's about sacrificing one person to save several more, just with higher stakes (you vs. the world). From a consequential/utilitarian point of view, one reasons along the lines of the end justifying the means. In this case it would be "simple math" one sacrificial death in return for 7 billion lives. There are other concepts of ethics, like the deontological point of view which reasons from the action rather than the result. One may consider sacrificing oneself voluntarily a good deed, but do you think sacrificing a person is right? From this point of view it may be considered unethical for others to force them, because the act itself of sacrificing someone can be seen as a bad thing.

 

[TheOnlyKirst]

no, let humanity end

[WhitetailAni]

Yes, and if they say no duct-tape their arms and legs together.

[IkeaGnome]

What if we don't think about this just on a humanity scale. Would the earth be better off with one of us, or all of us? As a species the one should do it. For the rest of the species on earth, the one shouldn't.

[suedseefrucht]

On 9/30/2021 at 7:10 AM, Wictorian said:

Do you think if a person had to die to prevent humanity from extinction, would they be morally obligated to do it? And if they refused would it be ethical for other humans to force them?

Morally, it would be wrong to actively kill that one person. Rationally, it would be right.
 

It's important to understand: If humanity dies, it happend by nature. Nobody actively killed humanity.

But if you kill that one person, you actively killed it. 

 

It's just like this thought experiment, where a train is going to run over 5 people and you have the choise to switch the rails so it would just run over 1 other person. You never know, if that one person would change the world. So it would be morally connect, to do nothing. But rationally, 5 people have a higher chance to change the world...

[TheOnlyKirst]

15 hours ago, IkeaGnome said:

What if we don't think about this just on a humanity scale. Would the earth be better off with one of us, or all of us? As a species the one should do it. For the rest of the species on earth, the one shouldn't.

basically what I said, but smarter

[KKLawrence]

What if you're assumption is wrong and you end up killing a person for no reasen? I.e. like the middle ages, where the "witch" would have destroyed the village or smth so they killed her but it was just a normal woman.

 

If you're right in your assumption tho, then it comes to the viewpoint:

Are you the one Person? Then the question is: should I kill myself to save the world? Even tho they mostly do selfish stuff? Isn't my decision to live less selfish then their decision to kill me, if I don't sacrifice myself?

 

If you are a bystander: It would be wrong to interfere in their freedom of choice. But thats a very individualistic and western point of view. Other cultures and philosophies would prefer the well being of the many other then the well being of the few, therefore there wouldn't be that much of a question. But if you like Kant or the golden rule, then you probably wouldn't force them to kill themself or kill them yourself.

 

Many ways to look at that problem...

[Wictorian]

16 hours ago, KKLawrence said:

What if you're assumption is wrong and you end up killing a person for no reasen? I.e. like the middle ages, where the "witch" would have destroyed the village or smth so they killed her but it was just a normal woman.

 

If you're right in your assumption tho, then it comes to the viewpoint:

Are you the one Person? Then the question is: should I kill myself to save the world? Even tho they mostly do selfish stuff? Isn't my decision to live less selfish then their decision to kill me, if I don't sacrifice myself?

 

If you are a bystander: It would be wrong to interfere in their freedom of choice. But thats a very individualistic and western point of view. Other cultures and philosophies would prefer the well being of the many other then the well being of the few, therefore there wouldn't be that much of a question. But if you like Kant or the golden rule, then you probably wouldn't force them to kill themself or kill them yourself.

 

Many ways to look at that problem...

Also another thing I forgot to mention if that person would survive the extinction of humanity. If no, then you would probably sacrifice yourself because you’d die anyways. But we should assume he will.

[YellowJersey]

As a grumpy misanthrope, I say let humanity go extinct.

[Wictorian]

13 hours ago, YellowJersey said:

As a grumpy misanthrope, I say let humanity go extinct.

I am really shocked moderators allow these kind of comments.

 

< removed by moderation >

Edited October 2, 2021 by LogicalDrm

[WindirBear]

Morality is subjective. Some kill their unborn children, others can't fathom it.

[tikker]

< removed by moderation >

13 hours ago, Wictorian said:

Also another thing I forgot to mention if that person would survive the extinction of humanity. If no, then you would probably sacrifice yourself because you’d die anyways. But we should assume he will.

That's not such a clear cut statement. We aren't rational beings and act emotionally. In most cases that does not mean killing ourselves. It's against our nature, which is to survive at all cost. That's for example why drowning yourself is allegedly very hard to do, because your basic instincts to survive will simply take over. It's also very different now saying that one would sacrifice themselves to save the world all while sitting comfortably at home knowing the world isn't going to end tomorrow.

Edited October 2, 2021 by LogicalDrm

[IPD]

On 9/30/2021 at 1:10 AM, Wictorian said:

Do you think if a person had to die to prevent humanity from extinction, would they be morally obligated to do it? And if they refused would it be ethical for other humans to force them?

1. Morally, yes. 

 

2. Ethical, no.

 

Compulsory action is a hallmark of repressive regimes.  Normalizing such action is detrimental to morality as a whole.

 

p.s.

There's a great movie on similar themes called "The Philosophers".  It's worth a watch if this kind of stuff interests you.

[IPD]

5 hours ago, Wictorian said:

I am really shocked moderators allow these kind of comments.

 

Why should being a misanthrope be subject to moderator censorship?  Personally, I'm increasingly convinced that all other perspective OTHER than misanthropic ones are simply misguided views by people who haven't studied humanity and history enough.

[SansVarnic]

Ethics questions are all theory, I stand on realistic terms. Place me in the situation first then I'll make a decision, otherwise it hasn't happened, won't happen or is a figment of one's imagination. These type of questions are meant for who cannot make a decision, want to waste time, hesitate and so on so forth.

 

Knock the train off the track. Solved.

Edited October 2, 2021 by SansVarnic
Fixed my poor spelling

[Zusafek]

My answer is actually another question.  Is humanity worth saving?  After all, we are a violent species that causes major destruction to anything we come in contact with.  My personal answer would come when the choice had to be made. 

[LogicalDrm]

*** Thread cleaned ***

 

For sake of everyones mental capacity, lets keep this purely theoretical. Any examples of real world situation will end up with rather pointless and political, racial, ethnicial or religious debates. Which all are warning/suspension worth.

 

Next clean = lock.

[Bramimond]

Morality and Ethics are concepts used to make it possible to have a society. 

You shouldn't use them as chains to bind you, forcing you into self-sacrifice. You should make use of them, instead.

 

Asking whether or not something is moral, ethical or just is the wrong question. It is trapping yourself with what is used to enable a society. 

Ultimately morals, ethics and justice are just tools. 

 

If these tools are no longer useful to you or cannot be used, since it is you against the entire rest of humanity, you should discard them. 

There is no point in killing yourself for others. 

 

The entire dilemma only exists because people got too deluded by mere concepts and frame things in a deceptive way. But what does it matter whether an action is moral, ethical or just if your life is on the line? It doesn't matter at all!

 

Furthermore, the basis for everything is that you are alive. Towards that end, you use tools like justice to keep you alive for longer. It will always be moral, ethical and just for you to take actions to stay alive. It's not a crime to kill someone in self-defense. At least that's how it was last time I checked. 

 

But if you pit one against everyone else, everyone else will have the exact same justifications and it is looking pretty bad for that one guy. Still, killing yourself is never moral, ethical or just. If the one guy wins and everyone else dies, then he will be the winner. The winner is always right. A pyrrhic victory is better than a hero's death. 

[IPD]

5 hours ago, Bramimond said:

Morality and Ethics are concepts used to make it possible to have a society. 

You shouldn't use them as chains to bind you, forcing you into self-sacrifice. You should make use of them, instead.

 

Asking whether or not something is moral, ethical or just is the wrong question. It is trapping yourself with what is used to enable a society. 

Ultimately morals, ethics and justice are just tools. 

 

If these tools are no longer useful to you or cannot be used, since it is you against the entire rest of humanity, you should discard them. 

There is no point in killing yourself for others. 

 

The entire dilemma only exists because people got too deluded by mere concepts and frame things in a deceptive way. But what does it matter whether an action is moral, ethical or just if your life is on the line? It doesn't matter at all!

 

Furthermore, the basis for everything is that you are alive. Towards that end, you use tools like justice to keep you alive for longer. It will always be moral, ethical and just for you to take actions to stay alive. It's not a crime to kill someone in self-defense. At least that's how it was last time I checked. 

 

But if you pit one against everyone else, everyone else will have the exact same justifications and it is looking pretty bad for that one guy. Still, killing yourself is never moral, ethical or just. If the one guy wins and everyone else dies, then he will be the winner. The winner is always right. A pyrrhic victory is better than a hero's death. 

Careful.  You almost sound like an Objectivist...

 

[Jtalk4456]

On 9/30/2021 at 1:10 AM, Wictorian said:

Do you think if a person had to die to prevent humanity from extinction, would they be morally obligated to do it? And if they refused would it be ethical for other humans to force them?

1. Does killing that person prevent ALL future extinctions? Does it guarantee the remaining humans have a GOOD LIFE? How many humans are left? Given we're about to go extinct, thinking in terms of 7 billion population  vs 1 might be misguided. Maybe this is 10 vs 1. We have to determine what we are saving and how we define saving it

2. If the person does not sacrifice themselves, is extinction guaranteed or is the only guarantee that sacrifice will prevent extinction? How far in the future? Is this a Jesus dying for our sins millenia in the future in case the sun blows up or is the entirety of humanity about to be eaten by godzilla but there's a really tasty dude and if godzilla gets that person, godzilla will leave us alone? Parameters matter

3. How far are you willing to extrapolate? Does the sacrificial lamb have a family who will be devastated by the loss? Is humanity worth saving? Is Earth worth saving? What matters? What is EXISTENCE
4. You quickly delve into far more than a basic discussion on the end result vs numbers and efficiency vs the wonders of man and religion, insanity ensues

5. Personally, if assumed our race wasn't on the brink of extinction, but could die sometime in coming years and my sacrifice would prevent possible death later, I'd honestly not do it. I have 5 kids and a loving wife. Choosing to kill myself so a bunch of people I don't know are happy but the people I love are crushed, that's not worth it. If we're talking godzilla and I'm the tasty human, IDK, I'd like to think so because it would make no logical sense to say no and die anyways and know my kids will die, but again I'm choosing to take my kids father away vs choosing to huddle together and hug them as the race goes extinct. It makes no sense that being able to hug them would be preferable, but it's honestly taught to intentionally hurt children you've raised. I'd need to actually have the real situation to tell you what I would actually do.