Moral Question

[Donkey]

Here is a philosophical moral question that I've been pondering. At first the answer seems obvious, but I'm not so sure that it is. Assume, for the purposes of the question, that any suffering is taken out of the equation.

Which of these is more immoral: to eliminate (kill) one half of humanity, or to eliminate (kill) the entirety of humanity (including oneself)?

[dilettante]

Here is a philosophical moral question that I've been pondering. At first the answer seems obvious, but I'm not so sure that it is. Assume, for the purposes of the question, that any suffering is taken out of the equation.

Which of these is more immoral: to eliminate (kill) one half of humanity, or to eliminate (kill) the entirety of humanity (including oneself)?

An intriguing question.

Just to be clear (I'm not sure if this changes my answer or not), when you say that "suffering is taken out of the equation", does that include the suffering of the survivors (if any) mourning the dead?

[Lily]

I have a question as well. Does "one half of humanity" include a mix of male and female of various ages?

[Daktoria]

Well killing is immoral in itself, so both are immoral, but if you had to choose one or the other, you'd obviously kill only half of mankind to make sure it could live on for another day.

[Donkey]

An intriguing question.

Just to be clear (I'm not sure if this changes my answer or not), when you say that "suffering is taken out of the equation", does that include the suffering of the survivors (if any) mourning the dead?
No. Suffering refers to that of those who perish: the people you are killing die with no suffering and no knowledge of their fate prior to the moment of death.
I have a question as well. Does "one half of humanity" include a mix of male and female of various ages?
Uh... sure. A "random sample" on a global level.

[Evangeline]

Donkey I think you need to see someone...

J/K

I guess it's better to kill everyone, that way no one suffers the loss of their loved ones.....

[Donkey]

Donkey I think you need to see someone...

I am seeing someone. And she's very beautiful and cooks me breakfast sometimes and we're about to go get shitcanned.


...


Oh.

;)

[Margot]

Here is a philosophical moral question that I've been pondering. At first the answer seems obvious, but I'm not so sure that it is. Assume, for the purposes of the question, that any suffering is taken out of the equation.

Which of these is more immoral: to eliminate (kill) one half of humanity, or to eliminate (kill) the entirety of humanity (including oneself)?

I've wondered this myself. Or, maybe it was more of a pondering than a wondering...

And at first I thought that the emotional suffering of one half of the population would constitute torture. Death is final, and it is terrible, and it is terrifying.

And then I thought, "death is final, and it is terrible, and it is terrifying", and I changed my tune. I know what I think is out there; but knowing what I think and knowing what really is are two different things. Maybe killing the entire population could send everyone to heaven- yay! But at the same time, maybe I'm right. Maybe I've just taken away over six billion one-time shots.

So I think killing everyone would be more immoral. Grief sucks, but if I'm right... The alternative isn't worth it. That risk is not worth it.

[Sucre]

The choice of Sophie was a dilemna much more difficult to solve than your question ...:)

Sophie was asked by the Chief of the concentration camp to decide which one of her children would be sent to death so that the second survives.

I do not remember how Sophie decides herself in the film... I know that for my part, I would have answered : "Kill us all."

Donkey, you can NOT take suffering out of your question. If there is no suffering, it is absolutely indifferent whether half the humanity or all the humanity is destructed.

[The Drunk Girl]

Here is a philosophical moral question that I've been pondering. At first the answer seems obvious, but I'm not so sure that it is. Assume, for the purposes of the question, that any suffering is taken out of the equation.

Which of these is more immoral: to eliminate (kill) one half of humanity, or to eliminate (kill) the entirety of humanity (including oneself)?

Assuming that suffering is taken out of the equation would mean that people have no feelings and emotions. If that is the case would there even be such a thing as morality?...Answering the question under these guidelines, I don't think it would really matter. If people are emotionless beings then it's not going to bother anyone. Society would have no reaction to what was being done.

[Michael]

Here is a philosophical moral question that I've been pondering. At first the answer seems obvious, but I'm not so sure that it is. Assume, for the purposes of the question, that any suffering is taken out of the equation.

Which of these is more immoral: to eliminate (kill) one half of humanity, or to eliminate (kill) the entirety of humanity (including oneself)?

If morality is found only in the motivation, then there is no difference at all.

[Donkey]

The choice of Sophie was a dilemna much more difficult to solve than your question ...:)

Sophie was asked by the Chief of the concentration camp to decide which one of her children would be sent to death so that the second survives.

I do not remember how Sophie decides herself in the film... I know that for my part, I would have answered : "Kill us all."

Donkey, you can NOT take suffering out of your question. If there is no suffering, it is absolutely indifferent whether half the humanity or all the humanity is destructed.

Assuming that suffering is taken out of the equation would mean that people have no feelings and emotions. If that is the case would there even be such a thing as morality?...Answering the question under these guidelines, I don't think it would really matter. If people are emotionless beings then it's not going to bother anyone. Society would have no reaction to what was being done.
Did you guys see my second post? The "no suffering" only means that the death is painless for the persons killed.

[dilettante]

It's really a very deep question, but I think I have my opinion on it nailed down now.

Short version: It's worse to kill everyone.

Long version:

Michael raises a good point about motivations. When judging the morality of an person or a person's choices, I think motivation is determinative. However, in this case I assume we're just judging the outcomes and not the morality of an individual making the choice.

I can certainly see the argument that killing only half the population would be worse because it would lead to mass suffering, whereas killing everyone would (in your scenario) lead to none. And if the morality (goodness/badness) of a situation were determined by the amount of suffering alone, the choice would be clear: kill everyone at once.

However, I don't accept that suffering alone is the sole determining factor. If it were, then we would have to conclude that killing everyone painlessly was preferable to killing no one at all, since simply letting people live leads to more human suffering than instant species extinction does. We must consider more than just the quantity of suffering when determining the value of life.

In part there is the hope of future joy, beauty, and love. Losing a loved one is a terrible experience and leaves an eternal scar, but it is not (or should not be) the end of joy in life. Widow(er)s remarry, orphans grow up and live their lives, and grieving parents, though they never forget, have more children, love them dearly, and find joy in sharing their lives.

And in part I believe in the essential sacredness of life. The intentional killing of another person is intrinsically evil, regardless of whether or not it causes suffering. It may, perhaps, be a justified evil in dire circumstances, but it is an evil nonetheless. Painlessly killing someone that no one will ever miss or mourn for is still wrong.

That's my take on it, anyway. Good question, Donkey. What's your view?

[Leprechaun]

The real question is - moral by whose measure?

[Donkey]

The real question is - moral by whose measure?
By those answering I would imagine.

[Leprechaun]

By those answering I would imagine.

So basically it's like asking......do you prefer yellow or pink?

[dilettante]

So basically it's like asking......do you prefer yellow or pink?

Not at all.

A closer analogy would be, "Which of these colors is closer to yellow?" Your answer will depend on (1) The definition of "yellow" you accept and operate under and (2) The way you perceive and mentally process colors.

Similarly, in this case, your answer should depend upon (1) The definition of "immoral" you accept and operate under and (2) The way you perceive the understand the two alternatives.

In both cases the answer depends in part on your culture and in part on genetics. But neither question is necessarily about preference.

[Daktoria]

Why do emotions matter here in defining morality?

For example, what's the difference in giving everyone in the world a piece of candy or just half the world a piece of candy (envy and obesity aside)? I don't see anything particularly moral in either act although both would certainly reciprocate plenty of gratitude.

[Donkey]

That's my take on it, anyway. Good question, Donkey. What's your view?

I don't know. I'm not convinced by the arguments that say it is worse to kill everyone, but I also don't advocate the argument that it is not. My uncertainty is based in an assumption: the collective mortality of humanity (that is, we will eventually cease to exist as a species). This is so apparently true that I accept it as inevitable fact, and have no moral objection to it.

On the other hand I hold violence, especially killing and especially murder, to be deeply immoral. But morality, to me, is interdependent on the context of humanity. Is realizing, in one fell, sanitary and humane swoop, the inevitable (assumed) demise of humanity immoral? I'm less certain.

[Daktoria]

...On the other hand I hold violence, especially killing and especially murder, to be deeply immoral....

Do you believe this because violence is painful, because violence is coercive, or both?

[drgoodtrips]

It's more immoral to eliminate all of humanity...


Because I say so.

[drgoodtrips]

Why do emotions matter here in defining morality?

Is there morality without emotions?

[Lily]

Here is a philosophical moral question that I've been pondering. At first the answer seems obvious, but I'm not so sure that it is. Assume, for the purposes of the question, that any suffering is taken out of the equation.

Which of these is more immoral: to eliminate (kill) one half of humanity, or to eliminate (kill) the entirety of humanity (including oneself)?

Since you did not specify who would be doing this killing, I shall make up a scenario. If I were to be given the choice by some power; that is, if the decision was forced upon me and was mine alone, I would opt for killing half of humanity. Here's why: I'm a human animal, and as such I have a vested interest in the continuation of my species. It's really that simple. There is no question of a moral right or wrong in my answer, only a question of survival.

[drgoodtrips]

Since you did not specify who would be doing this killing, I shall make up a scenario. If I were to be given the choice by some power; that is, if the decision was forced upon me and was mine alone, I would opt for killing half of humanity. Here's why: I'm a human animal, and as such I have a vested interest in the continuation of my species. It's really that simple. There is no question of a moral right or wrong in my answer, only a question of survival.

So then, aren't you ducking the question, Lily? :angel:

[Daktoria]

Is there morality without emotions?

Yes, even if all sentient life died in an instant, morality would still exist through axioms; the only reason we care about emotion is because it serves as internal phenomenological feedback for interpreting axioms through maxims.

[dilettante]

On the other hand I hold violence, especially killing and especially murder, to be deeply immoral. But morality, to me, is interdependent on the context of humanity. Is realizing, in one fell, sanitary and humane swoop, the inevitable (assumed) demise of humanity immoral? I'm less certain.

People also inevitably die, but surely that's no justification for the murder (even painless murder) of an individual. Why should it be different for billions of individuals?

And personally, I think it's a mistake to view it in terms of "species". The "human species" is a cold, mentally constructed, abstract unit. What we're really talking about are billion of individual humans. "Extinction" sounds so neat and clinical next "mass murder."

[Lily]

So then, aren't you ducking the question, Lily? :angel:


I suppose one could come to that conclusion, but I truly don't see it as a moral issue. As I stated, I see it as a question of survival of the human race. Then again, one might say that morally I believe it would be "wrong" to exterminate the human race, but I don't ascribe any morality to the decision.

[Michael]

I suppose one could come to that conclusion, but I truly don't see it as a moral issue. As I stated, I see it as a question of survival of the human race. Then again, one might say that morally I believe it would be "wrong" to exterminate the human race, but I don't ascribe any morality to the decision.

You appear to hold the survival of the human race as a moral imperative. That is morality.

[Korimyr the Rat]

The survival of the human species, or the descendants of the human species, is a moral imperative. Killing half is infinitely preferable to killing all.

The argument could even be made that killing half of the species-- and then allowing many more to die from the consequences of losing half-- would be good for the long-term survival of the species.

[Michael]

The argument could even be made that killing half of the species-- and then allowing many more to die from the consequences of losing half-- would be good for the long-term survival of the species.
I'm not so sure about this. We do have a historical example of this phenomena in Western Europe in the 1350s where over the period of a half-dozen years approximately one third of Western Europe was wiped out.

The results were not very pretty at all. In many ways, this event killed the influence of the Church and fostered an environment of decadence and increased violence (what matters at all if you are going to be wiped out tomorrow?).

Collective morality certainly did change between the years 1300 and 1400, but not in a way that one might call an 'improvement'.

[The Drunk Guy]

Here is a philosophical moral question that I've been pondering. At first the answer seems obvious, but I'm not so sure that it is. Assume, for the purposes of the question, that any suffering is taken out of the equation.

Which of these is more immoral: to eliminate (kill) one half of humanity, or to eliminate (kill) the entirety of humanity (including oneself)?
I'll take the Ra's al Ghul answer --- Humanity is a cancer eating away the world and, as a cancer, every last morsel must be destroyed to prevent regrowth.

[Lily]

You appear to hold the survival of the human race as a moral imperative. That is morality.

Is it? Or is it a base instinct for survival of the species with no morality attached? If one is faced with imminent personal danger, we have one of two biological responses, fight or flight. In a circumstance where one's life is being threatened, does one stop to consider the moral questions of taking another's life if it means saving one's own? I don't think so. In the second scenario, the OP asks me to not only eliminate the entire human race, but to eliminate myself as well. Wanting to preserve my life means I must choose to eliminate half the human race, instead. The need to continue the species would lend even more weight to that decision.

[Michael]

Is it? Or is it a base instinct for survival of the species with no morality attached? If one is faced with imminent personal danger, we have one of two biological responses, fight or flight.
Humans are not simple animals, ergo, that's a false dichotomy designed to remove 'morality' from the equation.

Humans always have the third option to 'manipulate' the situation to remove the fight-danger and/or avoid the necessity of flight.

Thus, if you are human, moral choice is always available. Humans can in fact choose to not-fight and not-flee.

In a circumstance where one's life is being threatened, does one stop to consider the moral questions of taking another's life if it means saving one's own? I don't think so. In the second scenario, the OP asks me to not only eliminate the entire human race, but to eliminate myself as well. Wanting to preserve my life means I must choose to eliminate half the human race, instead. The need to continue the species would lend even more weight to that decision.

I guess the OP question comes down to the question of the morality of killing one's self.

As you correctly noted, the question requires that particular self-choice and then applies it to the rest of the human species.

[Lily]

Humans are not simple animals, ergo, that's a false dichotomy designed to remove 'morality' from the equation.

Humans always have the third option to 'manipulate' the situation to remove the fight-danger and/or avoid the necessity of flight.

Thus, if you are human, moral choice is always available. Humans can in fact choose to not-fight and not-flee.

I guess the OP question comes down to the question of the morality of killing one's self.

As you correctly noted, the question requires that particular self-choice and then applies it to the rest of the human species.


In that case, I choose the Kobayashi Maru option; that is, I find the OP of weak moral character for even suggesting such options and execute him on the spot, thus saving all of humanity.

So there. :)

[Michael]

In that case, I choose the Kobayashi Maru option; that is, I find the OP of weak moral character for even suggesting such options and execute him on the spot, thus saving all of humanity.

So there. :)
I think that would be the most moral solution to the question. ;)