THE BOX

[JKDS]

40million could do that though. People were saying that about 1million for themselves in that 1mill or 100mil thread

[Penneywize]

40million could do that though. People were saying that about 1million for themselves in that 1mill or 100mil thread

Ya maybe. I mean people in africa live on cents a day, so you could technically "save" their lives by depositing 10k or whatever in their banks released in intervals and have them set for like 50 years. Whether that is actually saving one's life is arguable though.

What if you murder 1 person, then save the lives of like 9 or 10 other people. You're still tried for murder, right? 10 good deeds don't take away the fact that someone died because of you. That's why I feel this is a moral question more than anything.

[surviva316]

What if you murder 1 person, then save the lives of like 9 or 10 other people. You're still tried for murder, right? 10 good deeds don't take away the fact that someone died because of you. That's why I feel this is a moral question more than anything.

I disagree with a lot of your views of causality throughout this thread, but that is more so just opinion. I do think the comparison you make in this quote is just flat out wrong, though. The actual murder itself would have to be the cause of saving 9 or 10 lives for it to be a comparable situation.

Also, whether or not someone should be jailed for doing on action or another is irrelevant to whether or not it is moral for someone to take that action.

Also:

Is it morally justifiable for someone to take the life of another under the uncertain pretense of being able to save the lives of others?

Are you a complete pacifist? If you are, that's cool, but if you believe that war is justifiable, then what better justification could possibly exist than the pretense that it will save the lives of others?

[Penneywize]

The actual murder itself would have to be the cause of saving 9 or 10 lives for it to be a comparable situation.

I'm not sure about that; the scenario we're presented with is pressing a button to receive money. The use of that money has some possibility of 'saving lives'. So you are "killing" one person and then later "saving" others. Conversely, is it right to kill a rich person and use his money to feed starving children? I know, it's a stretch, but take a look at what is being proposed and advocated by many in this thread.

Also, whether or not someone should be jailed for doing on action or another is irrelevant to whether or not it is moral for someone to take that action.

Maybe, but it's debatable.

Are you a complete pacifist? If you are, that's cool, but if you believe that war is justifiable, then what better justification could possibly exist than the pretense that it will save the lives of others?

Not at all - I actually work in national defence. I just can't really equate the given situation with the concept of war. There are so many other elements in play; power, dominion, sovereignty, way of life. This can't reasonably be compared to what we're looking at here, in my opinion.

[surviva316]

I'm not sure about that; the scenario we're presented with is pressing a button to receive money. The use of that money has some possibility of 'saving lives'. So you are "killing" one person and then later "saving" others.

The important thing is that there is a causal relationship between the two. I know that you think that this relationship is too tenuous for it to justify the murder for you, but that's a different discussion (the one you've been having in most of the rest of the thread). Once you prove that the relationship is too tenuous, then you can make this comparison to lock down the argument, but everyone on the other side of the aisle still disagrees with you on that point, so that's the focus at the moment.

Conversely, is it right to kill a rich person and use his money to feed starving children? I know, it's a stretch, but take a look at what is being proposed and advocated by many in this thread.

This is the comparison that I don't think is a stretch at all. This is the exact same thing, imo. The only fact that this is different is that there might be a hazier connection between you and the murder itself if you're pressing a button rather than shooting someone in the face.

But based on my other responses in this thread, you might guess I don't care about this consideration of what feels like it's more direct than what. All actions that result in a 100% probability of someone dying (who had a normalized goodness/expected longevity remain/etc) are equal on a sociatal-scale. There might be a difference on an individual scale because of PTSD type stuff, but anyway.

Maybe, but it's debatable.

Irrelevant's the wrong word, but it's insufficient to prove anything. We'd have to get into that debate in a different thread because it's its own can of worms.

Not at all - I actually work in national defence. I just can't really equate the given situation with the concept of war. There are so many other elements in play; power, dominion, sovereignty, way of life. This can't reasonably be compared to what we're looking at here, in my opinion.

I'm not sure that those other elements in play (which are all basically just quality of life considerations) are better justifications for taking life than saving lives themselves. Or even that saving some life+causing some freedom in some other lives+improving the way of life of some other lives can be better than just saving a shit ton of lives. In other words, if you save 1,000 lives, make for a free lifestyle for 10 milli people and improve the lifestyle of 100 milli people, I can't possibly see an argument that says that it isn't better to save the lives of 110,001,000 people.

Basically, it might result in several good things, but we're still talking about saving lives plus some other things that are no more valuable than saving lives. So you might argue that the war saves (or improves the lives of) 100 million people, so it's worth killing x because you save SO MANY PEOPLE. So then we've established that you have a price.*

So what's your price? 2 lives saved for every 1 life taken? 10:1? 1,000:1? Etc.

*I of course am under the assumption that I don't have to argue that war's causal relationship with those potential results you listed isn't any more direct than in this scenario. Shooting a German soldier in the 40s gives an incremental (VERY small) increase in the chance that your side wins the war, which means that your side can get Germany to shut down concentration camps, which will inevitably save a ton of lives. I don't see how this is any more direct than buying a life-time supply of food for someone who would otherwise die of starvation.