Moral choice

[Eliot123]

Choice (1). May not be a noble thing to do but if it's about the person I love, well, they are kinda the most important person to me in the universe.

[Ciddy]

Realistically, I wouldn't accept the choices. I'd try as damn hard as I could to save everyone even if I were told it's impossible to do so. I'd probably end up dying myself trying to do that.

But if I'm absolutely forced to choose between, say, my brother or the 100 unknown people, I'd save my brother. I wouldn't hesitate either. I know that's the selfish answer, but it's likely how I'd react.

[Forfax]

The guilt of killing hundred poeple would consume me and i wouldn't be able to live with that.

The death of a loved one would consume me but i would be able to live with it.

I will go with the 2d option , the consequence of such on my back would destroy me , what if there was children?

[Deleted]

Not sure, I would like to say I would hope the person I loved would be a strong enough person to agree with me that their life is the same as any others. So 100 people being saved over them is the right decision.

But then I would probably be weak and save the person I loved.

[Duncanîdaho]

Choice (1). May not be a noble thing to do but if it's about the person I love, well, they are kinda the most important person to me in the universe.

There are 100 other people there that are most likely scene in the same way by another 100 people. So not only are you killing 100 people, you are causing the very thing you dread(the fear of loss of your favorite person on the planet) to another 100 on top of that. One hundred people gone, and another hundred give or take who's lives will never be the same. I get and understand the people who make that choice, I just wanted to mention that if it hasn't been said yet.

Personally I don't think I could live with doing that to those people and I don't think the person I would save would be able to get over it, or ever forgive me for it either. I'm going to have to say I'd save the hundred people, but who knows what I would do in the heat of the moment for a choice like that. I do believe though that this world would at least be a little bit better if people were as empathetic towards their fellow man as they are their own inner circle. This scenario is pretty much that tested to it's full extreme.

[Wikiy]

Actually it's a lot more in line with a sociopaths reasoning/behaviour to save the 100 people, sorry if that makes you upset.

Let me see, the definition of the word "sociopath" is anyone who's anti-social to the point that they're psychologically ill, and you honestly think it's more anti-social to save 100 people over 1?

It's great that you think so "well" about your loved ones, but I seriously doubt that. Would you want them to make that decision?

If my loved ones would honestly rather I save them, they're far too selfish for me and they don't deserve my love therefor they're not my loved ones therefor the hypothetical choice is even easier to make.

If being in love with someone requires I abandon my moral principles and leave logical thinking behind so I can be so emotionally infatuated to the point that I can't think straight, then I don't want to be in love. Is that really your definition of love?

[Elegiac]

I'd kill the person posing silly hypothetical ethical dilemmas. But really, it depends on the makeup of the 100 people (as in, who they are).

[Deleted]

Let me see, the definition of the word "sociopath" is anyone who's anti-social to the point that they're psychologically ill, and you honestly think it's more anti-social to save 100 people over 1?

I'd argue that sociopath doesn't have an exact definition, but I guess that's close enough. Yes it's more "anti-social" to save 100 unknown than one person you love, assuming that your mind works "normally" you'll have so much more empathy and care for the one loved person, while someone who doesn't have a person they love/doesn't have the same emphatic ability might make the decision on other merits (not that a sociopath would care a lot for the 100 people either).

If my loved ones would honestly rather I save them, they're far too selfish for me and they don't deserve my love therefor they're not my loved ones therefor the hypothetical choice is even easier to make.

If being in love with someone requires I abandon my moral principles and leave logical thinking behind so I can be so emotionally infatuated to the point that I can't think straight, then I don't want to be in love. Is that really your definition of love?

They are selfish because they value themselves and their loved ones over unknown people? That's human, and if you can't love someone because they reason like that you probably have some issues:P.

Yes, if you aren't prepared to 'sacrifice' a lot (and in all honesty, 100 unknown people doesn't have that high of a value to a person if it comes down to it) for them you aren't in love. Love is about being selfish, wanting what's best for that person (because this makes you feel good), no matter the cost. You are still thinking straight, you simply value things differently. Objectively two people might be worth the same (even if I'd disagree with that as well), but subjectively that's never the case, for anyone.

[Deleted]

The spirit of camaraderie is very important to me, I would save my friend as I would expect him to do the same for me.

[Zhangfei]

I'd argue that sociopath doesn't have an exact definition, but I guess that's close enough. Yes it's more "anti-social" to save 100 unknown than one person you love, assuming that your mind works "normally" you'll have so much more empathy and care for the one loved person, while someone who doesn't have a person they love/doesn't have the same emphatic ability might make the decision on other merits (not that a sociopath would care a lot for the 100 people either).

That's bullcrap. Do you think Mother Theresa was "more sociopathic" because she had a genuine sense of agape love? Saving 100 people who are most likely also loved would mean a person is acknowledging that love isn't a unique emotion only owned by one person.

[Deleted]

So far 212 people are selfish sociopaths.

You don't know what sociopathy is, don't you? Whenever I hear someone saying "selfish" in scenarios like this, I can feel the irony causing my blood to rush through my veins.

---------- Post added 2013-01-27 at 01:22 PM ----------

Let me see, the definition of the word "sociopath" is anyone who's anti-social to the point that they're psychologically ill, and you honestly think it's more anti-social to save 100 people over 1?



If my loved ones would honestly rather I save them, they're far too selfish for me and they don't deserve my love therefor they're not my loved ones therefor the hypothetical choice is even easier to make.

If being in love with someone requires I abandon my moral principles and leave logical thinking behind so I can be so emotionally infatuated to the point that I can't think straight, then I don't want to be in love. Is that really your definition of love?

But those 100 people that also wish to be saved aren't selfish for wanting to live at the expense of your loved one? Are you even listening to yourself?

You speak of logic, yet you are the one who is infatuated. The logical approach is to save the one close to you, not abide by some stupid moral code that doesn't make any sense, especially for an individual.

[Deleted]

That's bullcrap. Do you think Mother Theresa was "more sociopathic" because she had a genuine sense of agape love? Saving 100 people who are most likely also loved would mean a person is acknowledging that love isn't a unique emotion only owned by one person.

How is that what I wrote? I suggest that you read it again.

To humour you I guess I'll write a bit about Mother Theresa as well (just for the fun of it):P. When did Mother Theresa make that choice? If you 'love' someone (regardless of how/why) I'd argue that they aren't unknown people to you, and no one loves the entire world (even if they claim to), if you have equal feelings for every person I wouldn't call that love (if anything, inability to feel love).

Using a person who actually said that you first and foremost should focus on loving and valuing your own family (not 'everyone') as an argument in this context is quite amusing. She also stated that she was helping people for her own satisfaction, refused to give suffering people painkillers and said that abortion is beyond horrible. I'd argue that she was selfish (like all humans:P) and made decisions based on her own ideals without taking into account/understanding other peoples feelings (one could argue that we're getting closer to a sociopath here:P). She has done numerous other morally ambiguous things.

[Zhangfei]

To humour you I guess I'll write a bit about Mother Theresa as well (just for the fun of it):P. When did Mother Theresa make that choice? If you 'love' someone (regardless of how/why) I'd argue that they aren't unknown people to you, and no one loves the entire world (even if they claim to), I wouldn't call it love to have equal feelings for everyone.

Agape love is a tried and tested Christian doctrine. People DO feel it and DO act upon it. She moved halfway around the world to help thousands of people she'd never even met.

Using a person who actually said that you first and foremost should focus on loving and valuing your own family (not 'everyone') as an argument in this context is quite amusing. She also stated that she was helping people for her own satisfaction, refused to give suffering people painkillers and said that abortion is beyond horrible. I'd argue that she was selfish (like all humans:P) and made decisions based on her own ideals without taking into account/understanding other peoples feelings (one could argue that we're getting closer to a sociopath here:P). She has done numerous other morally ambiguous things.

Selfish means taking more than you deserve. Self-interest means obviously looking out for your own interests. Given that we are conscious of our own existence, we cannot separate ourself from our decisions. Please learn the distinction; of course we act in our self-interest, that's self-evident. It doesn't mean altruism or love doesn't exist.

I also love that you jumped on the example and spent a whole researching it; my argument could be applied to countless people who believe in agape love.

[oxymoronic]

I'd kill the person posing silly hypothetical ethical dilemmas. But really, it depends on the makeup of the 100 people (as in, who they are).

and tbh i cant think of a group that i would care about more than my wife - not even 100 white children.

[Wikiy]

I'd argue that sociopath doesn't have an exact definition, but I guess that's close enough. Yes it's more "anti-social" to save 100 unknown than one person you love, assuming that your mind works "normally" you'll have so much more empathy and care for the one loved person, while someone who doesn't have a person they love/doesn't have the same emphatic ability might make the decision on other merits (not that a sociopath would care a lot for the 100 people either).

What about being empathetical towards the 100 people? Saving them says nothing about not being empathetical towards the loved one, it just says the person who'd take that choice has an empathetical range that reaches beyond their own nose.

They are selfish because they value themselves and their loved ones over unknown people?

I wouldn't have issues with them valuing themselves and me over one random unknown person. But, 100? Unknown people are still people and they still matter to other people as much as me and my loved ones matter to each other, and when you take 100 of them into the equation, it's a landslide victory for saving them instead of my loved one, at least for me.

That's human,

There is no such thing as a human condition. "That's human" is an argument people use to justify their own beliefs by saying it occurs naturally in the whole human species. This poll is obvious evidence that there's nothing human (i.e., naturally right), about saving 1 over 100 or 100 over 1.

and if you can't love someone because they reason like that you probably have some issues:P.

I don't have issues, I just wouldn't want to love such a universally self-centered selfish person. Would you love someone who'd rather have someone save them than save a billion people? If the answer is no, then we're on the same page and you should be able to understand me, and if the answer is yes... well, that's just extra proof for me why rationality is superior to emotion.

Yes, if you aren't prepared to 'sacrifice' a lot (and in all honesty, 100 unknown people doesn't have that high of a value to a person if it comes down to it) for them you aren't in love. Love is about being selfish, wanting what's best for that person (because this makes you feel good), no matter the cost. You are still thinking straight, you simply value things differently. Objectively two people might be worth the same (even if I'd disagree with that as well), but subjectively that's never the case, for anyone.

That's your definition of love. By all means, feel free to be in love the way you want, but don't go around telling me I'm not in love and that I don't know true love and whatnot just because I'm not willing to sacrifice what makes me me for love.

Love isn't about finding someone you just happen to like and then completely changing yourself to cater to them. It's about finding someone you agree with enough to not require a complete character change for the relationship to work.

[Nerevar]

Beloved one, of course. This is real life, not a movie, where you become a hero through one sacrifice to save many.

[Wikiy]

But those 100 people that also wish to be saved aren't selfish for wanting to live at the expense of your loved one? Are you even listening to yourself?

They are selfish, but there are 100 of them. So I have 100 selfish people to save that don't care about me or 1 selfish person that does care about me. In that scenario, I'd easily save the 100 because I wouldn't care much for someone that is selfish because they wouldn't really be my loved one. If that loved one wasn't selfish, they'd understand why their life is worth less than the lives of the 100 and I'd still save them, although less easily in that scenario.

You speak of logic, yet you are the one who is infatuated. The logical approach is to save the one close to you, not abide by some stupid moral code that doesn't make any sense, especially for an individual.

I could go on about how your moral code is stupid as well. However, just spouting that out without any argumentation is silly. So don't do that.

As for it not making sense for an individual. Why should I only care about myself? Why should I abide by an ethical code that caters to the individual? We live in a society. There's a reason I'm a social democrat.

[PizzaSHARK]

Beloved one, of course. This is real life, not a movie, where you become a hero through one sacrifice to save many.

For me, it's just that 100 people ain't enough. Sorry, my loved ones are worth far more. I might feel a pang of conscience once we hit, like, 25,000.

[Deleted]

Agape love is a tried and tested Christian doctrine. People DO feel it and DO act upon it. She moved halfway around the world to help thousands of people she'd never even met.

I also love that you jumped on the example and spent a whole researching it; my argument could be applied to countless people who believe in agape love.

I just did for my own amusement, since your response hardly had anything to do with my initial statement. Agape love isn't the same as 'normal love', that you chose to call it love doesn't matter. If someone feels 'normal love' and 'agape love' they'll put the person they love normally way higher (I'd personally call what they feel for that person love, and for the others something else). You can't even imagine how much I believe in 'tried and tested Christian doctrine':P

Selfish means taking more than you deserve. Self-interest means obviously looking out for your own interests. Given that we are conscious of our own existence, we cannot separate ourself from our decisions. Please learn the distinction; of course we act in our self-interest, that's self-evident. It doesn't mean altruism or love doesn't exist.

This is the first answer I got when I googled "selfish definition": devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others.

That you chose to call this self-interest instead doesn't make a difference, everyone human is selfish, and being selfish is the actual reason behind altruism/love.

[Deleted]

No, it's logic because it's based on the pleasure principal and prima facie duties. Quite explainable...

No its not. It works best on that basis because then people are not trying to ensure consistency with their previous answers and so contaminating their real reaction, but thats a limitation of the scenario, not an explaination.