Tough Question for Religious Orientated People

[Az]

Enslaving? Raping? Destruction of family? You're taking a leap of faith here. The women I highly doubt would be enslaved, any more so than any other person in the community, just trying to survive. Most probable that they will be conferred with an exceptionally high status in the community, if not made the leaders. The breeding need not be forced (except the 1st woman) and it is just as likely if not more likely that the women will accept the responsibility and status given to them. And the familial concept would only change from nuclear/extended to communal, which already exists and isn't a bad one. It's found in many 'primitive' societies and that's what this would be. As for the males who've lost "breeding opportunities", well, in your scenario they lost them anyway, right?

I expect that this is what will happen over time, but I wonder how the conferred knowledge of modern times will filter through the generations.

[Agathon]

on the other question: do future generations count?

If they don't then we might as well destroy the environment for our own pleasure. But then why does the welfare of future generations matter any less than our own? One might as well say that the welfare of those in Africa matters less than our own.

But this masks the issue. We would only have obligations to future generations if they were likely to exist. As it stands, they are, since people are still having children. But what if everyone decided that they didn't want to have any more children - problem solved.

I don't think you can move from saying that we have moral obligations towards likely future existents, to a position that says we must propagate in order to ensure their existence. That would lead to an absurd view in which we were obliged to have as many children as we could in order to maximize the welfare of future generations (there being more of them to be happy).

So I suppose my position (which I haven't thought about as much as I would like) is that we only have rights to future generations as long as our own actions as a community are likely to ensure their being brought into existence.

So in Boris' case, there is no obligation to propagate, and no obligation to ensure the survival of the human race. But if we chose to be responsible for bringing new beings into the world, we have the obligation to make sure that we don't do things that would ensure them a life of misery, such as raping the environment.

I'm still not completely happy with this, but it's the best I can come up with right now.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Theben
What would it matter if you kept your morals since in the end no one will be left to care?

WHo said my reasoning was for the sake of my morals? It's not, it's so that the woman doesn't suffer and die if she doesn't want to. It's about alleviating the suffering of and preventing the death of a person who is alive and here as opposed to fictitious people who aren't even conceived yet.

There's context, and levels of benefit. I wouldn't allow 6 million jews to die if everyone else gets a free lottery ticket out of the deal, but if no one else ever had to suffer ever again, all the remaining 'evils' in the world were forever cured, and people lived to a ripe old age and etc. etc.- who knows?

I may be out on a limb, but one of the things I've seen used to justify genocide is that it will ultimately make the world a better place for more people. Certainly the Nazis thought so, and the people who advocate killing all Muslims as a means of ending terrorism do. Since nobody has the powers of prescience, who's to say they are wrong in thinking such?

How about you? What if you knew that if the woman was raped/child born, that 500 years from now, after struggling to get by and rebuild civilization, the human race flourished, and was more moralistic and "good" than before? Would you deny those thousands the right to exist, b/c of the welfare of one person?

It's a no-brainer for me. There is no "right to exist" for people who don't yet exist. If you believed such, I'd imagine you'd oppose birth control, condoms and abortion in all cases, wouldn't you? I do think, however, the woman has a right to do as she wishes to save her own life. She's not causing suffering to the men who are currently alive, and saying she's somehow causing future suffering would, of course, be absurd.

The potential for the human race to flourish and do moralistic good, while compeling in philosophy, simply doesn't matter two whits when it comes to dealing with people in the here-and-now and their suffering. And before accusations of short-sightedness start, it's one thing to make plans for a reasonable assumption of descendants who will most likely come along, but quite another to forcibly engineer their existence through detestable means that force pain and death on unwilling participants.

Whose to say, if we're going to conjecture as far as 500 years, that in 1 billion years a new intelligent species won't arise on Earth that will be moralistically superior to humans and surpass all we do, but only if we're out of the way so they can arise? Or should the value of "moralistic good" be confined solely to the human race?

In the scheme of a 15-billion year old universe with 200 billion galaxies, and probably uncountable forms of life, is the continuation of our species in this context so vital a thing to a person that it necessitates rape/murder? If so, at what point does one draw the line of commiting atrocities that may ultimately be good for the sake of mankind?

[Az]

Your problems lies in this assumption:

a position that says we must propagate in order to ensure their existence. That would lead to an absurd view in which we were obliged to have as many children as we could in order to maximize the welfare of future generations

That would imply the is some linear relation between the ammount of happiness/welfare and the amount of people. That's why family planning is extremely ethical ; it allows for a reasonable number of people in the next generation, that would be easily sustained, and well raised, unlike the chaotic upbringing of too many children, or it's contrast, the decision not to have children at all.

[Az]

Boris:

I may be out on a limb, but one of the things I've seen used to justify genocide is that it will ultimately make the world a better place for more people. Certainly the Nazis thought so, and the people who advocate killing all Muslims as a means of ending terrorism do. Since nobody has the powers of prescience, who's to say they are wrong in thinking such?

They were thinking they were building a better place ACCORDING TO THEIR JUDGEMENT OF A BETTER PLACE.

their target society was authoritarian and despotic, so that's a ****ing no brainer. Killing a billion people to stop terrorism is completely uncomparable, ethically.

It's a no-brainer for me. There is no "right to exist" for people who don't yet exist. If you believed such, I'd imagine you'd oppose birth control, condoms and abortion in all cases, wouldn't you?

No, as I explained above to Agathon.

I do think, however, the woman has a right to do as she wishes to save her own life. She's not causing suffering to the men who are currently alive, and saying she's somehow causing future suffering would, of course, be absurd.

once again, we return to that philosophical exersize: Is it morally ok to place a bomb with a time trigger set to 100 years, so that all the people that would be hurt aren't alive yet, just because they aren't alive yet?

The potential for the human race to flourish and do moralistic good, while compeling in philosophy, simply doesn't matter two whits when it comes to dealing with people in the here-and-now and their suffering.

I'd say that it's quite the opposite. The suffering caused by the death of that woman is irrelevant in the context of the lost human lives of the future.

And before accusations of short-sightedness start, it's one thing to make plans for a reasonable assumption of descendants who will most likely come along, but quite another to forcibly engineer their existence through detestable means that force pain and death on unwilling participants.

How is it so? Is it different just because it includes coersion? and if so, why?

Whose to say, if we're going to conjecture as far as 500 years, that in 1 billion years a new intelligent species won't arise on Earth that will be moralistically superior to humans and surpass all we do, but only if we're out of the way so they can arise? Or should the value of "moralistic good" be confined solely to the human race?

Now THAT'S pure conjecture, and there is no way you can know it.

In the scheme of a 15-billion year old universe with 200 billion galaxies, and probably uncountable forms of life, is the continuation of our species in this context so vital a thing to a person that it necessitates rape/murder?

In the scheme of a 15-bill universe, the continuation of our species may not be important what soever, but this is more true billions and billions of times for the life of that woman.

If so, at what point does one draw the line of commiting atrocities that may ultimately be good for the sake of mankind?

Nowhere. There is no such line. Either it's good, and then it must be done, or it's bad, then it shouldn't be done, with various degrees of goodness, and badness, and thus the urgency to prevent or help an event.

[Az]

Space reserved for penile enhancement commercials.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Azazel
Your problems lies in this assumption:

a position that says we must propagate in order to ensure their existence. That would lead to an absurd view in which we were obliged to have as many children as we could in order to maximize the welfare of future generations

That would imply the is some linear relation between the ammount of happiness/welfare and the amount of people. That's why family planning is extremely ethical ; it allows for a reasonable number of people in the next generation, that would be easily sustained, and well raised, unlike the chaotic upbringing of too many children, or it's contrast, the decision not to have children at all.

I'd assumed that as well, although I didn't make it clear. It seems evident to me that we could in fact support a far greater population at a lower individual standard of welfare, which would entail a greater aggregate welfare. If we are obliged to produce as much aggregate welfare as possible then we ought to be having more children. But on its own it seems absurd that we should be required to propagate at all.

Even if the case is only hypothetical it still appears absurd.

[Az]

But on its own it seems absurd that we should be required to propagate at all.

Why is that? 'cept the fact that you don't want to?

[GePap]

Perhaps getting ourselves into such a position in the first place would be a sign from the universe that our time has come and gone.

Thnink of the mighty coackroach empires that will follow our irradiated footsteps!

[Az]

ok, now you're just being silly.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Azazel
They were thinking they were building a better place ACCORDING TO THEIR JUDGEMENT OF A BETTER PLACE.

And this is different from you making your judgment of a better place how, exactly? Your "better place" is a world in which it's perfectly permissable to rape/kill people in the here-and-now for the sake of non-existent future people. The Nazis just made such things official government policy.

their target society was authoritarian and despotic, so that's a ****ing no brainer. Killing a billion people to stop terrorism is completely uncomparable, ethically.

So you think it's acceptable to kill a billion people right now to end terrorism, which may not, in the future, be responsible for killing close to that many people, or might be ended in the future by some different means that doesn't require such wholesale slaughter of innocents?

No, as I explained above to Agathon.

That explanation didn't relate to what I said, as I was refering to Theben's statement of a supposed "right to exist" for yet-to-exist people. If you believe in family planning as such, then you don't believe in this "right to exist" for the non-existant.

once again, we return to that philosophical exersize: Is it morally ok to place a bomb with a time trigger set to 100 years, so that all the people that would be hurt aren't alive yet, just because they aren't alive yet?

How is this relevant? Is there any need in the here-and-now to set a bomb with a time trigger for 100 years later? Will it somehow alleviate suffering today to plant a bomb like that? What a ludicrous scenario.

Regardless, it's answered by Agathon, in that there is a difference between regard for those you reasonably expect to be there and one's you do not. See below.

The potential for the human race to flourish and do moralistic good, while compeling in philosophy, simply doesn't matter two whits when it comes to dealing with people in the here-and-now and their suffering.
[/q]I'd say that it's quite the opposite. The suffering caused by the death of that woman is irrelevant in the context of the lost human lives of the future.

THERE ARE NO LOST HUMAN LIVES OF THE FUTURE. How can you make an argument based on people who don't exist yet and whom you have NO WAY OF KNOWING will exist? This is simply stupid. The suffering of the woman IS MOST relevant in this context, because there are no rights of people who don't exist! You're arguing a fundamentally rights-based philosophy now without even realizing it, as your core argument is that there is some "right" for these potential people to exist!

How is it so? Is it different just because it includes coersion? and if so, why?

It's different because in the latter you're forcing an outcome that wouldn't ordinarily apply for the sake of people who don't exist yet (and probably won't), while the former situation involved taking a position that the future life is going to be there regardless of your actions, so it's morally better to take that into consideration.

Now THAT'S pure conjecture, and there is no way you can know it.

You don't know it, and since it's happened once, there's no reason to assume it won't happen again, is there? Especially since animal life won't have to start from scratch again. We're only talking about the extinction of humans, not everything. Hell, considering there are chimps, bonobos and gorillas out there, I'd say it'd be more likely than not within the next few hundred million years--won't even need a billion.

But even if not--so what?

In the scheme of a 15-bill universe, the continuation of our species may not be important what soever, but this is more true billions and billions of times for the life of that woman.

Which has no bearing on my argument, as it is based on the suffering of people in the hear-and-now, not in the distant future for non-existant beings. It's you who've decided to play the "future generations" game, so I'm just taking your argument to its (absurd) limits.

Nowhere. There is no such line. Either it's good, and then it must be done, or it's bad, then it shouldn't be done, with various degrees of goodness, and badness, and thus the urgency to prevent or help an event.

Except you've made no case as to why the continued propagation of the human species in this case is a "good" that warrants the woman's murder/rape in contrast to potential "good" that could result if it doesn't happen. Her ending humanity, as it were, might just as well prevent the suffering of untold millions. After all, let's say her death gives rise to the birth fo 10 billion humans, and of those 6 billion lead horrible, nasty lives filled with suffering and they die in agony, cursing the day they were born. Wouldn't it be in the best interests of the majority, then, that the woman shouldn't give birth to their terrible suffering? So then 4 billion happy innocent non-existing potential people will be "eliminated," but it will be for the ultimate good of the 6 billion miserable non-existing potential people who then don't have to suffer. Wouldn't this be perfectly logical for you?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Azazel
ok, now you're just being silly.

I am sorry, but I find the notion that left with 11 people, one of them a woman, that there MIGHT be a chance to save mankind, so we should allow for the possible violent rape of 1/11th of mankind silly myself.

If mankind goes from 6 billion to 11, sorry guys, we lost, we are done- stick a fork in us. Just let the last 11 people on earth try to have nice ends to their horrid lives (what else can you say of people who are unlucky enough to survive the utter fall of man?)

[Az]

And this is different from you making your judgment of a better place how, exactly? Your "better place" is a world in which it's perfectly permissable to rape/kill people in the here-and-now for the sake of non-existent future people. The Nazis just made such things official government policy.

A)It's permissable to rape/kill people, under VERY VERY special consequences. These are those VERY VERY rare, VERY dire consequences. Just like it's legal for the president to order to shoot down a plane full of civilians, if he knows it's about to crash into a skyscraper, for example.
B) This will actually be the case only if they'll accept utilitarian ethics. They might as well accept some other ethics, or develope a moral theory based on a deity, or whatever.

So you think it's acceptable to kill a billion people right now to end terrorism, which may not, in the future, be responsible for killing close to that many people, or might be ended in the future by some different means that doesn't require such wholesale slaughter of innocents?

No I am not, why would I be? Where's the utility in killing a billion people to mitigate a threat ( muslim extremist terrorism), that has killed only a very small number of people. And I am skipping the other "small" consequences: the depreciation of the value of human life by the public, the trauma, and the destruction of the soul for all of those people who will be executing this monstrosity, etc. etc.

THERE ARE NO LOST HUMAN LIVES OF THE FUTURE. How can you make an argument based on people who don't exist yet and whom you have NO WAY OF KNOWING will exist? This is simply stupid. The suffering of the woman IS MOST relevant in this context, because there are no rights of people who don't exist!


You're arguing a fundamentally rights-based philosophy now without even realizing it, as your core argument is that there is some "right" for these potential people to exist!

I've never claimed there is a right for those people to exist. I've said that their welfare and their happiness should be taken into consideration as well, just as the value of the people that exist today is taken into consideration. That's why we shouldn't destroy the enviroment ( a good example by agathon).

It's different because in the latter you're forcing an outcome that wouldn't ordinarily apply for the sake of people who don't exist yet (and probably won't), while the former situation involved taking a position that the future life is going to be there regardless of your actions, so it's morally better to take that into consideration.

How does that change the value of the non-existing people. In both cases they don't exist YET. in one of the cases, there certainty they'll exist is much lower than in the other, still there exists such possibility. You might as well say that there is a chance that the future's people will be wiped out by a meteor, so we don't have to nothing to accomodate them. The only difference between those two cases is a difference in percentages, and no matter how small the chance for the humanity to survive, it will still be by far larger than the welfare of that person that has to die to save humanity.

You don't know it, and since it's happened once, there's no reason to assume it won't happen again, is there? Especially since animal life won't have to start from scratch again. We're only talking about the extinction of humans, not everything. Hell, considering there are chimps, bonobos and gorillas out there, I'd say it'd be more likely than not within the next few hundred million years--won't even need a billion.

But even if not--so what?

Then the amount of utility will decrease. btw, I still claim that utility only applies to human beings, not to sentient beings, generally, since only human beings have a concept of ethics.

Which has no bearing on my argument, as it is based on the suffering of people in the hear-and-now, not in the distant future for non-existant beings. It's you who've decided to play the "future generations" game, so I'm just taking your argument to its (absurd) limits

The limits aren't absurd. If you prefer the here-and-now, you're short-sighted, and are wrong. If you base your arguement on the uncertainty that these people will be born, then, as I've explained, nothing is certain.

Except you've made no case as to why the continued propagation of the human species in this case is a "good" that warrants the woman's murder/rape in contrast to potential "good" that could result if it doesn't happen.

Because Utility will encrease: more humans that are more happy for more time is good.

Her ending humanity, as it were, might just as well prevent the suffering of untold millions. After all, let's say her death gives rise to the birth fo 10 billion humans, and of those 6 billion lead horrible, nasty lives filled with suffering and they die in agony, cursing the day they were born. Wouldn't it be in the best interests of the majority, then, that the woman shouldn't give birth to their terrible suffering? So then 4 billion happy innocent non-existing potential people will be "eliminated," but it will be for the ultimate good of the 6 billion miserable non-existing potential people who then don't have to suffer. Wouldn't this be perfectly logical for you?

Only the problem is for most people, utility is still positive. The number of people who are better off dead is very small: the extremely sick individuals who want euthanasia come to mind. This is true even for the poorest countries. Did you know that 30% of all Indians consider themselves COMPLETELY satisfied with their lives?

[Az]

I am sorry, but I find the notion that left with 11 people, one of them a woman, that there MIGHT be a chance to save mankind, so we should allow for the possible violent rape of 1/11th of mankind silly myself.

Well, it's caused by the silliness of the woman. It's her complete disagreement to reproduce that has left me with no choice. Oh, and that "1/11th of humanity" is a worthless argument.

If mankind goes from 6 billion to 11, sorry guys, we lost, we are done- stick a fork in us. Just let the last 11 people on earth try to have nice ends to their horrid lives (what else can you say of people who are unlucky enough to survive the utter fall of man?)

we lost? we are done? we lost to whom? and what's the point of giving up? what do you think you'll get? a consolation prize? This is esp. silly if you consider there IS a chance left. might as well make the best of it.

[Az]

Oh, and another thing, Boris:

How is this relevant? Is there any need in the here-and-now to set a bomb with a time trigger for 100 years later? Will it somehow alleviate suffering today to plant a bomb like that? What a ludicrous scenario.

That's not ludicrous. That's the point. It's a BAD thing to do. but is it immoral to this now to people who aren't born yet?