Are all lives are equal, and therefore they must be weighed equally?

[Hisholyness]

If millions of people died right now in another continent, hell, in another city in my country, I would be like "That sucks huh" for a couple minutes, then go on with my life.

When family, friends and loved ones die (or even pets), it takes months if not years for it to heal.

Sometimes, it never heals. I can't imagine the pain of losing sons and daugthers.

So yeah.

You, a single person, cannot understand it. Now multiply that across 333,333 other people that aren't you. Pluralism is what we're arguing here.

[Elba]

Yes. If all lives are equal than 10 lives are more equal than one life.

While I'm fairly utilitarian, I don't believe all lives are equal.

Should we start harvesting random people's organs? Kill one save ten.

[Elba]

No, they're not. If it was possible to save my family by millions dying, I'd let the millions die.

Two scenarios.

If you would save your family by passively standing by and letting millions die I would do nothing.

If you would save your family by actively killing millions I would stop you from saving your family.

[GennGreymane]

MFW Thanos is the most expensive trolley meme. He was random and indiscriminate.

[Elba]

Active killing outside self defense is wrong. In the trolley scenario doing nothing is the only moral choice. Pulling the lever is murder.
The one person has as much a right to live as the 5 people.

[Sunseeker]

Should we start harvesting random people's organs? Kill one save ten.

I mean, I guess if Frank somehow has all the matching parts for 10 people, and we're certain those 10 people will be "saved" by Frank's organs, than yeah you could take my argument that far.

But I think your question applies more to my second point than my first.

For example: we should not harvest a skilled physicist's organs against their will to save the lives of 10 fry cooks. The social value (among other things) of those 10 fry cooks is simply too much lower. But if one fry cook could save 10 scientists? I can't say I'b be able to dispute that, even if I was the fry cook in question. Yeah, it sucks personally, and people aren't rational actors in these sorts of situations, but if we were then trade my life to save 10 scientists? Done and done.

Killing randomly is inefficient (and therefore, against utilitarianism). We should be killing that of which we have excess to save that of which we have little.

[ManiaCCC]

I mean, I guess if Frank somehow has all the matching parts for 10 people, and we're certain those 10 people will be "saved" by Frank's organs, than yeah you could take my argument that far.

But I think your question applies more to my second point than my first.

For example: we should not harvest a skilled physicist's organs against their will to save the lives of 10 fry cooks. The social value (among other things) of those 10 fry cooks is simply too much lower. But if one fry cook could save 10 scientists? I can't say I'b be able to dispute that, even if I was the fry cook in question. Yeah, it sucks personally, and people aren't rational actors in these sorts of situations, but if we were then trade my life to save 10 scientists? Done and done.

Killing randomly is inefficient (and therefore, against utilitarianism). We should be killing that of which we have excess to save that of which we have little.

Are you sociopath by any chance?

Not a single example of yours does make any sense or is justifiable.

[xcitng]

Anyone who tells you they weigh all lives equally is lying to you. Usually trying to manipulate you into sacrificing yourself so they don't have to sacrifice anything they care about.

I would kill every last one of you to save any one of my children. Brutal and ugly truth.

I would do the same with no issue.

[Poppincaps]

That is really only up to the person being sacrificed to decide. We could imagine some grand example but how about a real one? 10 people need organs right now and you're a match for all of them. You can be killed and have your organs harvested and all of them will live. Should you have to do it? I believe absolutely not. Should you do it? Honestly, that's up to you, but only you should get to decide that. No one else.

I will say this, if you are willing to kill someone for the greater good, then you must also be willing to sacrifice yourself for the greater good. Or else, you're the ultimate form of hypocrite.

- - - Updated - - -

Anyone who tells you they weigh all lives equally is lying to you. Usually trying to manipulate you into sacrificing yourself so they don't have to sacrifice anything they care about.

I would kill every last one of you to save any one of my children. Brutal and ugly truth.

Would you though? It's easy to say that you'd kill someone who was endangering your child. I think the majority of people would. But would you murder someone if, say your child needed an organ or they'd die? Someone who's done nothing to you, your child, or anyone for that matter?

[Sunseeker]

Are you sociopath by any chance?

Not a single example of yours does make any sense or is justifiable.

No, they make complete sense and are highly justifiable. You just disagree with the justification.

It's a good thing I'm not asking for your opinion on this, and that it's all hypothetical anyway.

[Player Twelve]

wtf?? 4 to 6 people at the price of millions??

Sure, those millions of people don't matter to me, I don't care about them.

[Player Twelve]

"Sure, those millions of people don't matter to me, I don't care about them."

There's a surprise, the far right poster is verifiably sociopathic.

Go get banned again.

[Pum]

No they are not, firstly is the emotional factor, you will care about people around you more than starving children in Africa. If it save a family member of yours but 50 starving African children would die, I believe many people would let the children die.
.

I would imagine the decision would be much more difficult if you said 50 children in the town/village/city where you live.

[Elba]

No, they make complete sense and are highly justifiable. You just disagree with the justification.

It's a good thing I'm not asking for your opinion on this, and that it's all hypothetical anyway.

Nah, that's straight up sociopathy.

Sure, those millions of people don't matter to me, I don't care about them.

No surprise, really.

[Sunseeker]

Nah, that's straight up sociopathy.

I'm sorry you can't admit you're a less valuable human than some other people.

[Player Twelve]

Nah, that's straight up sociopathy.



No surprise, really.

[Elba]

I'm sorry you can't admit you're a less valuable human than some other people.

Thanking for making my point for me.

[ManiaCCC]

No, they make complete sense and are highly justifiable. You just disagree with the justification.

It's a good thing I'm not asking for your opinion on this, and that it's all hypothetical anyway.

Can you tell me how it does make sense in your mind? because I can't see it. What you wrote is thinking of a child (or sociopath).. not an adult. Unless there is something more what you didn't write.

[Elba]

-SNIP-

Oh, I love that one. Goldie.

[Sunseeker]

Can you tell me how it does make sense in your mind? because I can't see it. What you wrote is thinking of a child (or sociopath).. not an adult. Unless there is something more what you didn't write.

If all lives are of equal value (1), then ten 1's are more valuable than one 1. This is simple math. The idea that 1 life has an infinite value is silly. If the value of Bob is "invaluable" then the value of everyone else is also "invaluable" and therefore makes the measure of "invaluable" meaningless.

You guys are getting hung up on if what I suggested is moral or ethical. I never argued it was either. I argued my answer was practical.

Lets spice things up a bit: What if I told you that if we killed Dylan Roof (a known murderer), we could use his organs to save 10 people? Would you do it then?