Do the ends justify the means?

[Ncik666]

I've done some thinking and heres my question. We'll take a really far out example first:
1) If you had to kill one child to save all life in the Universe (including us) could you do it?
2) If you had to kill one child to save all life on Earth could you do it?
3) If you had to kill one child to stop all disease and give humans eternal life could you do it.
4) If you had to kill one child to save a bus load of other children (at least 20) could you do it?

My motive here is to see how far people might go. My answers to all of these are yes. I wouldn't go further than 4 though. I have always believed in the many over the few,
I was wondering what others thought on this subject.

[Determined1]

I'd like to throw another scenario into the mix, this got me into a VERY heated discussion with some"we are the world" freak, I once worked with.
2 children are drowning, the closer child a neighbor , the farther child your own. The question, who do you you save?
My answer,right wrong or otherwise, MINE!
If that means I'm gonna burn, then so be it!

[melikio]

I'd like to throw another scenario into the mix, this got me into a VERY heated discussion with some"we are the world" freak, I once worked with.
2 children are drowning, the closer child a neighbor , the farther child your own. The question, who do you you save?
My answer,right wrong or otherwise, MINE!
If that means I'm gonna burn, then so be it!

There is a difference (in my mind) betwen letting someone die, and actually taking the life of another.

And in the scenario you give, we can't truly say how many would react (even ourselves). Calmly, from behind this keyboard, we can think it through logically... but presented with the situation in reality, many people would simply be freaked out, and react according to their instincts and/or emotions.

BTW, what is a "...we are the world freak..."? (As you see it.) Are you implying that people should not care about others, or what?

-Mel-

[Greatest I Am]

Discrimination, like most things can have a positive and a negative side.
To discriminate for positive reasons is allowed. In this drowning scenario, the choice is made not on a negative discrimination against the closer soul but for a positive feeling towards the further and to me this situation is OK because it is driven by love and not any negative feelings.

Regards
DL

[Determined1]

Actually no, i have dedicated my life to helping others, I work in child abuse and mentor teen CSA/rape victims. What i am completely honest about is that NEVER would I save another if they're a chance in hell of saving my own. And yes, there is no doubt in my mind that posed with this reality, though it would haunt me, i would not think before following through on this statement. Frankly if more parents felt this way my job would become non existant. As for "we are the world freaks", it goes like this, don't kill the mice, whales , wolves, or freakin' trees, BUT, bury your head in the sand when it comes to a child being hurt or living through hell. I come from dysfunction and choose to fight it every day, so I have neither the time nor frankly the "give a crap" to hear excuses given by weak, no spined, forgive and forget, leave it to God, christians. First look at the truth within you before you judge another, I for one am able to see the truth in who I am.(BTW, I meant this generally, not directly to you.)
Blessings!

[melikio]

Determined1,

I see your points (although I might voice them somewhat differently); I generally tend to feel the way you describe things.

I don't see animals/plants as being more important than people, but realize without them, we'd surely perish from the earth. We should never minimize the importance of very ecosystem which supports life on this planet. That is, while I believe people are highly important, we cannot pretend that our spaceship (earth) does not deserve direct attention as well.

Being gay and having suffered because of it, I can relate somewhat to your dedication to those children who have suffered. People reach out to others in different ways; still, none of us can rescue the world (by ourselves), hopefully we will all do our part.

I am not as straightforward in my approach as you seem to be, but I try to be meek (not weak); I have power and potential that I control (including how I say what I say). Forgiving others takes deep strength, that many people do not often realize; and I can assure you that some who appear to be "weak", are easy misread at times. There can be strength in anger that is properly applied, but without great skill and wisdom, anger can easily become destructive.

No, I don't advocate weakness in people, but I do encourage that they balance what is negative within them, by putting on LOVE. Otherwise, the world is full of nothing but an overabundance of overzealous, hyper-activated, militant individuals; who would hurt others as soon as help them. I've seen people go after homosexuals while putting anger, pride and zeal ahead of LOVE, and have witnessed countless circumstances where more damage than good was done in the people they thought they were reaching.

I definitely respect your views; I approach life in a fairly straight-on way myself... but as much as I sometimes want to SLAM others, I also know the value of being gentle where I can be (with the hearts of other human beings). It's not being weak, it's being careful to not ADD FUEL to a potential fire.

(Still, I ain't perfect; not by any means.)

-Mel-

[Determined1]

Thanks Mel, you seem to be a wise person. And now I understand your other post completely! LOL
I'm a very passionate person, and truly not trying to be angry or daunting, that is just the way i talk and type i'm afraid! LOL
I do agree almost completely with everything you say there must be a balance within our world, but ,care as much for others as we care for the other problems in ouroutside world!

[Flail]

Machivellian?

[gbh]

I'm a little late in this one, but I could not do it...not to a child, especially. I know that if I chose to kill a child even if it meant the lives of many others, I might as well substitute myself, for I could never live with the deed...mathematically or religiously...it is more a question of ethics and conscience.

This reminds me of a short story I once read in class by Le Guin entitled "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas," where one child was sacrificed for the many.

From wikipedia:

In the story, Omelas is a utopian city of happiness and delight, whose inhabitants are smart and cultured. Everything about Omelas is pleasing, except for the secret of the city: the good fortune of Omelas requires that an unfortunate child be kept in filth, darkness and misery, and that all her citizens know of this on coming of age.

Some of them walk away; the story ends "The place they go towards is a place even less imaginable to us than the city of happiness. I cannot describe it at all. It is possible it does not exist. But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas."

[Greatest I Am]

I'm a little late in this one, but I could not do it...not to a child, especially. I know that if I chose to kill a child even if it meant the lives of many others, I might as well substitute myself, for I could never live with the deed...mathematically or religiously...it is more a question of ethics and conscience.

This reminds me of a short story I once read in class by Le Guin entitled "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas," where one child was sacrificed for the many.

From wikipedia:

In the story, Omelas is a utopian city of happiness and delight, whose inhabitants are smart and cultured. Everything about Omelas is pleasing, except for the secret of the city: the good fortune of Omelas requires that an unfortunate child be kept in filth, darkness and misery, and that all her citizens know of this on coming of age.

Some of them walk away; the story ends "The place they go towards is a place even less imaginable to us than the city of happiness. I cannot describe it at all. It is possible it does not exist. But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas."

Not to doubt your good intentions and position but I know that actually being placed in one of the stated scenario, most would do the right thing.

No one would sit by feeling sorry for their moral position when there are (not a life to take) but lives to save.
Those who cannot live with the guilt later will deal with it under a separate cover, after they save those who can be saved.
Instinct would take over, especially where self preservation is part of the equation.

Morally, if you read the Bible literally, God has covered us by giving us His genocidal flood as an example of misguided justice.

Regards
DL

[gbh]

Not to doubt your good intentions and position but I know that actually being placed in one of the stated scenario, most would do the right thing.

No one would sit by feeling sorry for their moral position when there are (not a life to take) but lives to save.
Those who cannot live with the guilt later will deal with it under a separate cover, after they save those who can be saved.
Instinct would take over, especially where self preservation is part of the equation.

Morally, if you read the Bible literally, God has covered us by giving us His genocidal flood as an example of misguided justice.

I have never been in a "take a life for another" situation, but I do agree that when it comes down to being in a really bad situation, no matter what the cost is to yourself, I have tried to do the right thing because when I didn't, I knew it, and further found it hard to live with subtle reminder of the wrong-doing. It is not fun sometimes doing the right thing when it is you who must suffer for it, but it the only thing one can do who has a conscience.

It is not a case of feeling sorry in the moment for one's moral position, but looking into a child's eyes, thinking do I kill you to save the others? Couldn't do it. Now, if many were dying all around, and you had to pick one to save, the answer would be different because in that type of situation there is only one of you and your resources are limited...but to kill with intent? Sorry, I'd be one to walk away from Omelas.

As for self-preservation, I have been in sticky situations at work that were less dramatic as this where self-preservation was an issue, and I most of the time seek out a person of higher responsibility for advice on how to deal with it. Sometimes the answer is that to be honest with oneself, one must do what is right and true because hitting that wall over and over again, taking the route of least pain, teaches you that you cannot always look out for #1...it's not in the overall game plan.

I do not interpret the Bible that literally, so it holds no bearing on what I think I "might" do in the situation. It is interesting how everyone has different takes on this question...it is a good discussion.

Take Care ~ gbh