POLL: Your Life vs the Life of a Random Person

Remove all ads!

I die, period.

 

They die. Except the first question. If I died first then I wouldn't have to watch the other person splatter everywhere

 

It's incredibly easy to say either of these things when you're secure in a comfy chair and with a drink in your hand, fairly certain that no one will kill you. I don't count on either of these actions (although I find the latter more admirable) being a sudden decision. And, of course, the former action entails severe psychological consequences, if not consequences of other sorts. I'd venture to say that none of you have done anything close to ruin another person's life, let alone be responsible for someone's death.

Sorry, but the only response I would buy is panicking.

 

I'm one of those altuistic fools within this world. I'm just dying to be a martyr, literally. People like me think the only route to meaning is that split second as you die in sacrifice.

I don't care how much better I am then that other person, I only maintain my superiority over them so long as I value their life more then my own.

Besides I'm one of those people who believes in the nobility of suicide (better death then dishonor and crap like that)... it's better that my life goes to something meaningful then simply goes (being suicide would be the only exceptable response effectively murdering someone else).

 

They die, I am the most important person in my life and until that changes there is no life I value higher than my own. Especially if I dont know them, a thousand strangers holds no greater value to me than a thousand ants in such a situation. As people have said, if you dont know people they dont exist.

Chev, this is a theoritical situation, why not play along instead of changing the situation put forth to be discussed?

 

They die, unless they are multiple people. I don't think one life is worth ten, a hundred, or a thousand. Unless they are criminals, in which case, they have broken the law and they don't deserve the rights they chose to ignore in the first place.

 

They die unless there are a hundred or a thousand that most die , still who knows what might happen , there are persons for who i would give my life ,some of them aren't even friends of mine but for a random person .....

 

I sincerely hope I would choose to die in all such cases. I have lived my life by the credo that my life carries no more inherent value than any other. Choosing to live at the expense of another's life would go against everything I believe. I say that I "hope" I would choose to die because I have never faced such a situation before. It is impossible to know how I would react.

 

So sad, too bad, random person. Bye bye, you die!

No guilt since one of us was going to die anyway although I would try to avenge said person's death simply because what the killer did was so horrible and evil.

From a legal point of view you have done nothing wrong either.

 

I would agree with the middle part of Abomination's post: try to make up for their sacrifice (or your giving up their life) in any way you can, although you won't be fully able to.

 

I wonder what a Moral Idealist would do in the situation...

A Moral Altruist would sacrifice himself.

A Moral Utilitarian would sacrifice whoever had less societal value.

A Moral Relativist would sacrifice the other person 9/10 times.

A Moral Irrationalist would sacrifice the other person and be indifferent to the so called moral implications of his actions.

A Moral Nihilist would sacrifice the other person and on top of that desire the power the person in control of the situation had.

But the Idealist... well his own moral philosophy wouldn't allow him to sacrifice himself or anyone else... perserve all that qualifies as "life" at all costs.

 

Ilmater's Suffering: nice summary, though I'd disagree with the nihilism thing. From what I've read of nihilism - they'd certainly sacrifice the other person, but the philosophy isn't actually power hungry, it just states that nothing has meaning, faith is crap, etc.

So I'd say they'd sacrifice the other person and have no guilt.

(and no, I'm not a nihilist - just read up on it one day when I ran into some people discussing it on a philosophy forum)

(and I'm not sure what you mean by 'idealist' - you can have high ideals and still be willing to sacrifice others as far as I can see, assuming that the ideal doesn't conflict with this. Bonus points if it somehow brings things closer to your ideal...)

 

the only reason I said they'd want the power the situation generated is because as you said nothing has meaning in nihilism. Nihilists have a knack for, on a relatively even playing field, or on one tilted towards themselves, pursuing what they desire regardless of the consequence. When life has no meaning (like to a nihilist exemplar) you might as well do whatever strikes your fancy without looking back as your actions won't matter in the end. Enjoy YOUR life and forget about how your actions effect others... nihilists make irrationalists look like humanitarians...

Idealism is easist to describe as pacificism, it's the same school of thought behind utopianism. Life has infinite value to an Idealist, any consequence is better then one that ends in the loss of life.

 

Not sure if I agree with your definitions - but then, I don't much feel like arguing

 

Nihilism, is in essence, the continuation of Nietszche's irrationalism. In irrationalism there is no god so man is free to create his own morality, though he needs power to enforce it (ironically, irrational morality is very humanistic, despite stripping humanity of any inherent value). Nihilism takes that step one further; since there is no god there is no morality. That's the way I've always understood Nihilism. I'm a philosophy major, but philosophy departments don't like to teach about nihilism so knowledge of the school comes from the bits that always seem to get tacked on to the study of irrationalism.

...why do I have the feeling I'm wandering into the land of "Off Topic"...

 

Hmmm...I chose "they die" for all the questions. Why? Because I'm a selfish jerk!

Would I feel guilty? Hell no! I didn't kill them...the dude with the laser did!

Now...if I were like 85 years old, and there were at least 10 or more people on the line, *and* there was at least a few attractive (and young) women in the group, I'd get some action from one or more of them, ensuring my bloodline would live on , and *then* I'd take the bullet...errr - death laser I mean.

 

Might be that I've got it wrong, but the way I understand Nietszche is that even if your morality is of your making it doesn't mean that other people are worthless. In each and every one of us is the potential to become something greater than what we are at the moment and we should try to achieve that potential at all costs.

However as I can be sure of only myself as a person trying to achieve my potential and be quite sure that most of the people are only trying to achieve comfort in their lives, it is easy for me to say that even a thousand people should die in my stead. Comfort has little value when trying to achieve perfection. This perfection may very well be unachievable, but pursuing it has more worth than pursuing private happiness.

Also I've come to the conclusion with Nietszche that even if there is no morality given from above, there is basic principles that all humans have in common, such as compassion for other people and other beings in general. This can be thought as the foundation of common morality. People also have their common beliefs, which tie them down and prevent them from achieving perfection.

Control over oneself and one's feelings is the main goal as I've understood it. Control is everything, but not necessarily control over others. So achieving power isn't needed.

 

Well, to be honest, I feel my time here on earth is over, in a way. I've done everything I would ever want, and if I knew death would come to me, I would not feel sorry for myself, but rather my girlfriend. I've learned to live for the day, and I'm pretty sure I could handle impendent death pretty well.

At least, compared to being responsible for someone else's death. No thanks, siree.

 

First off, I'd need to know more to reason properly. I know, random and all, but just hear me out.
1.) Are they a Christian
If no, I die. I'm going to eternal peace, they probably aren't, so I'll give them more time.
If yes:
2.) Are they married, dating, have kids, terminally ill, stuff like that.
I'd asses the relative values of our lives both to the world and to ourselves, then choose whichever was worth less.

But, since this is a random person and I don't know all that (I'm assuming I don't have time to ask), I would have to assume no to question #1 for two reasons.
1.) Odds are they aren't Christian.
2.) The choice is between sending me to heaven (100% if I die) and risking sending them to Hell (unknown, but way worse).
Therefore, I die on all counts.

 

Nietszche was heavy on the idea of master and slave distinction in his writings of "Beyond Good and Evil". He had his own view of what was important in others, but ultimately it was up to the master(s) of what morality was to be ensposed (so long as it wasn't slave morality; i.e. altruism). Nietszche valued masculinity, strength and the love of beauty... if you where a man without those characteristics tough luck and if you where a woman, well your value was dependant on your value to men (Nietszche was ever the sexist). Now guaranteed, Nietszche is no advocate of murder, but "slaves", those of us who aren't supermen, are tools to be used by the masters.

[ April 24, 2006, 19:06: Message edited by: Ilmater's Suffering ]