Philosophy Now Forum

A special case of does the end justify the means? I favor it to preserve humanity (a case that arose recently in a milder form is isolating those that may have contracted Ebola).

What do you think?

PhilX

To respond, I'll quote:

"No future triumph or metamorphosis can justify the pitiful blighting of a human being against his will." Peter Zapffe

I despise positive utilitarianism. People are always too willing to move forward, off the backs of others. It may be true that the world owes the individual nothing (though we were all brought into this world at someone else's behest), but it is also true that the person you would sacrifice for your own benefit, owes you nada, least of all their blood.

But in the case of isolating a contagious patient, that's fine. It's hardly comparable to the thread title, however you may disagree. Unless of course that person is contagious and roaming free to wreck havoc on others. Then the imposition is on others from them, and should be stopped.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:A special case of does the end justify the means?

People have, for a very long time, had the notion of a trade-off arrangement with nature, fate, the spirit world, or whatever. If I give them something I value, they'll give me the girl. Or make it rain. Or forget that I fired 28 people just before Christmas. The notion of buying off the gods goes way back. Also in the same baggage is the notion that, if something bad happens to another person, it can't happen to me - as if there were some limit on misfortune and suffering.

It never worked - not even once, in all of human history. But that never stopped people upping the ante.

I favor it to preserve humanity

How sure are you that humanity ought to be preserved? The dinosaurs weren't, and that's to our benefit. Suppose our extinction benefits a future species that's even more handsome and clever?

a case that arose recently in a milder form is isolating those that may have contracted Ebola

And killing them? Seems to me, quarantine of highly infectious patients has always been sound policy. But once you've got them isolated, you're supposed to give them water, food and medicine. That's a rule.

Skip,

You said the dinosaurs weren't preserved which is true. However I'm selfish and a human being which is my concern so I favor humans over animals, particularly extinct ones.

PhilX

Is this person George W. Bush?

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Skip,

You said the dinosaurs weren't preserved which is true. However I'm selfish and a human being which is my concern so I favor humans over animals, particularly extinct ones.

PhilX

Had the dinosaurs been preserved at the cost of whatever the sacrifice du jour was, you wouldn't be here to show off your selfishness. Similarly, if I preserve humans, the next big thing won't get here. It's not up to me to decide which is best (though I strongly suspect it's not us.)

And sacrifice doesn't work any more than torture does.

Skip wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Skip,

You said the dinosaurs weren't preserved which is true. However I'm selfish and a human being which is my concern so I favor humans over animals, particularly extinct ones.

PhilX

Had the dinosaurs been preserved at the cost of whatever the sacrifice du jour was, you wouldn't be here to show off your selfishness. Similarly, if I preserve humans, the next big thing won't get here. It's not up to me to decide which is best (though I strongly suspect it's not us.)

And sacrifice doesn't work any more than torture does.

How do you know? If humans survived many challenges, I believe they'd survive the dinosaurs too.

PhilX

Humans hadn't been invented at the time of the dinosaurs - nor for quite a long while after. (The Flintstones is inaccurate.) The only reason mammals got a turn at dominion was a wide open ecological field, entirely dinosaur-free. The only way the next dominant species gets a chance to develop is if we get out of the way.

Skip wrote:Humans hadn't been invented at the time of the dinosaurs - nor for quite a long while after. (The Flintstones is inaccurate.) The only reason mammals got a turn at dominion was a wide open ecological field, entirely dinosaur-free. The only way the next dominant species gets a chance to develop is if we get out of the way.

1) Humans were not "invented"
2) I think PhilX knows humans did not co-incide with dinosaurs. He meant something else, obviously.
3) Mammals were around a lot longer than you think, co-existing with dinosaurs for 100 million yeas. They were probably better equipped to survive the catastrophe of 65 million years ago because of better thermo regulation and size.
4) Your last sentence is probably correct. But it is likely that we are going to evolve into that next dominant species - or maybe designed rather than have to wait on the vicissitudes of natural selection.

No is the simple answer to the question and I say that for two reasons. Firstly if I did kill someone I would be morally responsible for it and that is not something I would ever knowingly do less in self defence or as an act of utilitarianism as it violates my own moral code. And secondly there is nothing to fear in death that is inevitable any way so why not experience it when an opportunity presents itself and so end all suffering from that point onwards ? So it is rather strange how our species assumes life to be the default position with out actually thinking the same of death as well

Every soldier, freedom-fighter, executioner, police officer, capital crime trial jury, prosecutor and judge accepts the responsibility for making that sacrifice, every day, for much, much less than the salvation of the human race. What's the big deal?

Hobbes' Choice wrote: 1) Humans were not "invented"

Yes they were. By humans. That's how they became so very unique, precious and special as to require their very own Meaning and Purpose.

2) I think PhilX knows humans did not co-incide with dinosaurs. He meant something else, obviously.

Then he should have said something else.

3) Mammals were around a lot longer than you think, co-existing with dinosaurs for 100 million yeas. They were probably better equipped to survive the catastrophe of 65 million years ago because of better thermo regulation and size.

Right. But they weren't dominant.

4) Your last sentence is probably correct. But it is likely that we are going to evolve into that next dominant species - or maybe designed rather than have to wait on the vicissitudes of natural selection.

Congratulations.

Skip wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote: 1) Humans were not "invented"

Yes they were. By humans. That's how they became so very unique, precious and special as to require their very own Meaning and Purpose.

2) I think PhilX knows humans did not co-incide with dinosaurs. He meant something else, obviously.

Then he should have said something else.

3) Mammals were around a lot longer than you think, co-existing with dinosaurs for 100 million yeas. They were probably better equipped to survive the catastrophe of 65 million years ago because of better thermo regulation and size.

Right. But they weren't dominant.

4) Your last sentence is probably correct. But it is likely that we are going to evolve into that next dominant species - or maybe designed rather than have to wait on the vicissitudes of natural selection.

Congratulations.

Who says the dinosaurs were dominant? Just because they are big. Is that your argument?
Tell that to the bacteria that have more species, variations, and numbers; can be found in more habitats than any other living thing and can adapt to the most extreme conditions.

Skip wrote:Every soldier, freedom-fighter, executioner, police officer, capital crime trial jury, prosecutor and judge accepts the responsibility for making that sacrifice, every day, for much, much less than the salvation of the human race. What's the big deal?

So they kid themselves.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Skip wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote: 1) Humans were not "invented"

Yes they were. By humans. That's how they became so very unique, precious and special as to require their very own Meaning and Purpose.

2) I think PhilX knows humans did not co-incide with dinosaurs. He meant something else, obviously.

Then he should have said something else.

3) Mammals were around a lot longer than you think, co-existing with dinosaurs for 100 million yeas. They were probably better equipped to survive the catastrophe of 65 million years ago because of better thermo regulation and size.

Right. But they weren't dominant.

4) Your last sentence is probably correct. But it is likely that we are going to evolve into that next dominant species - or maybe designed rather than have to wait on the vicissitudes of natural selection.

Congratulations.

Who says the dinosaurs were dominant? Just because they are big. Is that your argument?
Tell that to the bacteria that have more species, variations, and numbers; can be found in more habitats than any other living thing and can adapt to the most extreme conditions.

To add to this argument, the lowly amoeba have been around for a very, very long time. Now where are the dinosaurs?

PhilX