How much would you pay to save a stranger's life?

[Rosstin]

I've got a true story behind this that I'll share after a few people have given their 2 copper.

EDIT:



Backstory:
Once, when I was a Peace Corps volunteer living in Guizhou, Guiyang, I went to visit Hong Kong. I close friend of mine from Indonesia was flying to Africa, and we created this crazy plan to have her layover in Hong Kong for a night so we could see eachother.

This was an extremely expensive venture, and the moment I started the trip I was beset with disasters. At one point my bank card stopped working and I was left with only the money in my pocket, about 7000rmb (or 1000 usd). One of the tricks I'd done to be able to afford this was to Couchsurf instead of stay at hotels, and my Couchsurfing host was a young Hungarian lady named V who lived in Guangzhou.


Event:
On the way back from seeing my friend in Hong Kong, V was kind enough to let me stay with her again so I could get ready for a long trip back to Guiyang the following morning. She was going to a huge party with all of her fellow volunteers. Now, if you haven't been overseas with a volunteer group, you might not be aware of what a huge problem alcoholism is. Volunteers get DRUNK, and these were no exception. There were about 20 of us at this rooftop party, and everyone got drunk to the point of true stupidity. For various reasons, I never drink, but I decided to stick close to my host to make sure I had a place to sleep that night.

At some point, a few of incredibly crazy volunteers calls a taxi and decides to go get some midnight McDonalds. V is worrying me a bit at this point, being manically jovial and crazy, really having way too good of a time. As we're walking around downtown Guangzhou, I'm watching V balance precariously on a concrete divider as she sings showtunes.

Then, suddenly, she slips, landing right on her head with a sickening crack. Suddenly, she's lying on the concrete, blood pooling out from her head. The other volunteers keep walking, and I'm shouting for them to come back and call an ambulance. "She's just playing around, she's fine," one of them says. My brother has seizures and has these kinds of falls all the time, so I've seen this before and I know it's not fine. I'm trying to think what I can do; she has a head injury and I don't want to move her, and I need an ambulance, but I don't want to leave her there. We're right outside a McDonalds. I start yelling for a doctor, an ambulance, shouting help, in Mandarin. I ask someone to bring me ice from inside the McDonalds. So I'm pressing this ice pack to the back of her head which has a huge gash in it, she's unconscious, and blood is getting all over me, and this huge crowd of Chinese people is in a circle around me just staring at me gaping while I'm trying to tell them to get me an ambulance.

At this point, the other volunteers have just fled. Disappeared. But very luckily, some of the Chinese teachers who V knows have stopped by, and they help me get the ambulance. The Chinese doctors strap her to a gurney and we ride to the hospital. At this point she is horrifyingly awake, totally oblivious to the situation and delirious, smiling and talking to me, or perhaps someone who isn't quite there.


Decision:
So now we're in this Chinese hospital, and she's sitting on the stretcher still bleeding and I'm telling the doctors she needs stitches on the back of her head to close the gash so she doesn't bleed to death. And of course, what do the doctors do, but ask me for a few thousand Renminbi (about 1000 usd) before they'll do anything.


What I Did:
I consider myself an extremely moral person. When someone is in trouble, I try to be the one who jumps in the lake, who uses my scarf as a bandage, or jumpstarts their car on the side of the road. I'm usually the first to react. Which is why this situation was such a shock to me. I'd like to say I immediately pulled out my wallet and handed them the cash, but that's not what I did. I pulled out my wallet and looked inside. I had just enough money to pay them what they were asking for, with almost nothing left over. I'd like to say I paid immediately, but I didn't. I tried to bargain with the doctors. I asked her Chinese teacher friends what to do. I called all the contacts on her cell phone. Meanwhile she's bleeding there, and I know that she's losing blood, at risk for a serious infection, probably has a concussion, and in desperate need of stitches, and every second I waste is a second no one can afford. No matter how corrupt the doctors seem to me, they're still the best shot she has. This is not a scam.

But I didn't pay out. I'd like to think I would have, but I was instead saved by the bell. One of the people I had called was a teacher who had a massive crush on V. I told him that the doctors were asking for about 1000 USD and he immediately yelled "Pay it! Pay it, you fools!" He was there, drunkenness and all, but with money, within 10 minutes. He paid the doctor, V got the stitches, and the Chinese teachers and I went back to V's apartment to stay overnight with her.

After a night of rest, V seemed somewhat recovered. She had been conscious through a lot of the disaster, although pretty delirious, but in the morning she remembered almost nothing of what had happened, and we had to tell her over and over again to make her remember what had happened. Her Chinese teacher friends came back that morning, and I made sure her volunteer friends knew her situation.

V and I are still friends and I check up on her once in a while. She told me she quit drinking as a result of that night.

I do wonder about that night. Why didn't I just give the doctors the money? I had a million reasons NOT to give up the money, but one extremely compelling reason TO give up the money. Especially after all the kindness I'd been shown by this group and especially V. I'd like to think that if this came up again, I would have just forked it over.

Paying a 1000 USD to save someone's life doesn't seem like a big deal when you have access to a bank account and an ATM, but when you're in a strange town and it's all the money you have in the world, it's a lot harder to give up.

[Kajhera]

Depends how strange. Currently the clearest return on investment I've uncovered for people I don't know is 1 life / $2000, which is more than I've ever been able to afford ... but if it's a matter of knowing the situation and just getting someone bus tickets or train tickets from one place to another I'll chip in what I have access to. Pretty sure someone will feed me currently even if I'm flat broke. :smallsigh: I really don't have much right now though.

The problem tends to be knowing when it's efficient charity or inefficient, I'm sure I've tossed money at inefficient charities when I realize they've spent more on trying to get me to spend more than I gave them. :smallconfused: There's a lot of fraud out there, certain places have problematic policies etc ...

Basically, I'd like to know the situation. But uh ... once I do, and if I'm sure of its sincerity you could pretty much get all I'm worth out of me. x_x

[TuggyNE]

It depends on how much I have, how certain it is that my cash specifically would make the difference between life and death, and how reliable the information is. Given how limited my resources are, I'd expect to hit the cap pretty soon if there was some credible reason to believe that.

[Kalmageddon]

However much it takes, I guess? A life is the most precious resource in the world as far as I'm concerned. I'd have to be pretty directly involved, though. I wouldn't give my money to some random stranger claming it will be to save a life and, given the choice, I'd try to find another way to save thins hypotetical person, seeing as I'm not wealthy at all.
But if all else fails, sure, take my money. I'd never be able to look at myself in the mirror again if I let someone die instead of giving away things that only have value because we want to give them value or rather because we are forced by society to give them value.

[Togath]

If they aren't a close(as in parent, sibling, grandparent, or child)? Nothing.
The way I see it, someone I don't have a (profit or friendship)reason to help isn't worth my time/money.
I mean, if they paid me to help them(or if they were a close friend), I'd go to hell and back to do so, but I ain't interested otherwise.

[Kalmageddon]

If they aren't a close(as in parent, sibling, grandparent, or child)? Nothing.
The way I see it, someone I don't have a (profit or friendship)reason to help isn't worth my time/money.
I mean, if they paid me to help them(or if they were a close friend), I'd go to hell and back to do so, but I ain't interested otherwise.

That's an incredibly awful attitude.
So you see someone dying on the sidewalk and you walk away because he isn't worth the time or money to assist him or call an ambulance? How the hell do you even get so desensitized and cynical? :smallannoyed:

[GolemsVoice]

If I for whatever reason knew without doubt that my money directly saves the person, all I have.

If it's some indirect thing that might or might not help, not very much. As cruel as it sounds, I have my own problems.

[Grinner]

But if all else fails, sure, take my money. I'd never be able to look at myself in the mirror again if I let someone die instead of giving away things that only have value because we want to give them value or rather because we are forced by society to give them value.

Is everyone really worth saving?

Think about your answer carefully.

[Kalmageddon]

Is everyone really worth saving?

Think about your answer carefully.

Yes. I will not accept any other answer.
Even the worst scum on this earth should be allowed to grow old and die of natural causes, provided they are also prevented from hurting people. But every life has value.

[TaiLiu]

Yes. I will not accept any other answer.
Even the worst scum on this earth should be allowed to grow old and die of natural causes, provided they are also prevented from hurting people. But every life has value.
That does bring up an interesting question, though: where exactly does the value of life come from?

[Kalmageddon]

That does bring up an interesting question, though: where exactly does the value of life come from?

From it being literally the only thing we have. And again, empathy. The fact that som many of you seem to have troubles understanding that is absolutely horrifying.

[The Fury]

Is everyone really worth saving?

Think about your answer carefully.

What's there to think about? In this hypothetical the dying person is a stranger, and yes for all you know this stranger could be a horrible person. Yet this stranger might actually be perfectly decent too, because you don't know for sure. Really, anyone's entitled to benefit of the doubt here.

[Creed]

However much cash is in my wallet, but only in a hostage situation style deal, where there is a definitive line between life and death.

[TaiLiu]

From it being literally the only thing we have. And again, empathy.The fact that som many of you seem to have troubles understanding that is absolutely horrifying.
Could you rephrase these statements?

[Kalmageddon]

Could you rephrase these statements?

Why and how?

[TaiLiu]

Why and how?
Because I don't understand what you're trying to say. What do you mean by life being "literally the only thing we have?" How does empathy factor into the question?

[Pseudo_Nym]

...Is trying to save someone's life really the minority vote here? Really? If I had to DIE to save I stranger's life I'd want to think about it, and if I didn't have time to think I'd go ahead and save them. Of course I'd pay any amount of money! And I'd like to believe all of you would too, if the situation came up.

[Kalmageddon]

If someone doesn't want to die, his life obviously has value to him. Empathy means I can also value his life because I can identify what he's feeling and give it the same importance he does.
I think that's pretty straightfoward.

As for my other statement, clarifying it in detail would be against forum rules. It's just my personal opinion on the matter.

[TaiLiu]

...Is trying to save someone's life really the minority vote here? Really? If I had to DIE to save I stranger's life I'd want to think about it, and if I didn't have time to think I'd go ahead and save them. Of course I'd pay any amount of money! And I'd like to believe all of you would too, if the situation came up.
Actually, it seems to be the majority.

[Aragehaor]

As much money as i have available at the given time. Though there are limits, i would be unwilling to give so much money that it will cause my - or my family's if i possess one at the time death through starvation or such, as an example.

[Grinner]

Yes. I will not accept any other answer.
Even the worst scum on this earth should be allowed to grow old and die of natural causes, provided they are also prevented from hurting people. But every life has value.

I'm not talking about murderers or rapists. I'm talking about addicts. Heroin, alcohol, it doesn't really matter. Point is, a lot of people are their own worst enemy. They have little to offer the world. They exist for the sake of themselves and themselves alone.

I have a friend who used to do drugs. Hard drugs, mind you. She's been clean for a while now. But for every one of her, how many people do you think never made it? How many see no way out? My friend, she had help. I think she still talks to him sometimes. It wasn't money that got her out though. It was a person.

I think he's tried helping others as well. He's apparently also been screwed over a bunch of times. So when do you call it quits? It's nice to say that everyone is worth saving, but the world has an endless supply of tragedies to offer. You can't save everyone. Some can't even save themselves from themselves. So who do you save?

Personally, I'd like to say "However much it takes", but I know better. That doesn't mean I don't try. It just means I know my limits.

[Kalmageddon]

I'm not talking about murderers or rapists. I'm talking about addicts. Heroin, alcohol, it doesn't really matter. Point is, a lot of people are their own worst enemy. They have little to offer the world. They exist for the sake of themselves and themselves alone.

So what? Are you in a position to honestly claim the authority to judge who deserves to live and who deserves to die?!

Everyone lives for whatever reason they can find for living. Doesn't matter if it is only for themselves or if it's to help others. They still deserve to live their life fully and to have all the help they can get to keep on doing that.

[TaiLiu]

If someone doesn't want to die, his life obviously has value to him. Empathy means I can also value his life because I can identify what he's feeling and give it the same importance he does.
I think that's pretty straightfoward.
That part is, yes.

As for my other statement, clarifying it in detail would be against forum rules. It's just my personal opinion on the matter.
Ah, unfortunate. That was where most of my confusion arose from.

In any case, my query can be altered to this: should life be in this exalted status? Or, rather, is life underrated or overrated?

I guess to answer this question, one would have to define 'life' first. Is life defined as merely being alive?

[Aragehaor]

So what? Are you in a position to honestly claim the authority to judge who deserves to live and who deserves to die?!

Everyone lives for whatever reason they can find for living. Doesn't matter if it is only for themselves or if it's to help others. They still deserve to live their life fully and to have all the help they can get to keep on doing that.

While i don't necessarily disagree with the notion that people should be able to do what they want, there is no moral reason they should be actively helped if what they want is actively harming them. (Though note, i still agree that the individuals in question still deserve to be saved from death.)

[Kalmageddon]

While i don't necessarily disagree with the notion that people should be able to do what they want, there is no moral reason they should be actively helped if what they want is actively harming them. (Though note, i still agree that the individuals in question still deserve to be saved from death.)

Of course not, that's not what I was saying. Sorry if I phrased it ambiguously.

[Pseudo_Nym]

In any case, my query can be altered to this: should life be in this exalted status? Or, rather, is life underrated or overrated?

I guess to answer this question, one would have to define 'life' first. Is life defined as merely being alive?

You're overthinking. And that's fine. It's fine to debate the meaning and value of life as a theoretical matter, as a hobby. But if you see someone suffering, you help them. If you see someone dying, you do everything you possibly can to save them. And you don't need to ask why.

[Kalmageddon]

You're overthinking. And that's fine. It's fine to debate the meaning and value of life as a theoretical matter, as a hobby. But if you see someone suffering, you help them. If you see someone dying, you do everything you possibly can to save them. And you don't need to ask why.

Well said.

[Nightpenguin]

Regarding the original question, I'd argue that "everything I have" is too great a price, simply because that one person whom I sacrifice everything for is not the only person in danger. What if that money could be of greater use elsewhere? If I can save one person's life today, but perhaps tomorrow ten people will need that money, is the answer so clear-cut? Anything I pay to save someone today reduces my ability to save others by that same amount.

[TaiLiu]

You're overthinking. And that's fine. It's fine to debate the meaning and value of life as a theoretical matter, as a hobby. But if you see someone suffering, you help them. If you see someone dying, you do everything you possibly can to save them. And you don't need to ask why.
We can agree on that, aye. Luckily, no one is dying near me right now, and I enjoy philosophical debates.

[Grinner]

So what? Are you in a position to honestly claim the authority to judge who deserves to live and who deserves to die?!

In this hypothetical situation, apparently so.


Everyone lives for whatever reason they can find for living. Doesn't matter if it is only for themselves or if it's to help others. They still deserve to live their life fully and to have all the help they can get to keep on doing that.

Cool. Next time someone asks you for bus money, I want you to either give him a ride or hand over your car keys.

You may find that not everyone was honest about their intentions. In fact, they really just wanted your money.

That's the thing about helping people. It's like playing the lottery. You can try and try and try, and you can never succeed. However, on a few occasions, you might really make a difference. More often though, you end up just feeding their problems.

I think that's why it's good to help someone you can keep an eye on.

[Kalmageddon]

Regarding the original question, I'd argue that "everything I have" is too great a price, simply because that one person whom I sacrifice everything for is not the only person in danger. What if that money could be of greater use elsewhere? If I can save one person's life today, but perhaps tomorrow ten people will need that money, is the answer so clear-cut? Anything I pay to save someone today reduces my ability to save others by that same amount.

You should do it because you know for a fact that this person is dying. You don't know for a fact that tomorrow more people will die if you don't give more money. Thus, if you don't do something you might never have the chance to actually do something.

Look at it this way: you see someone drowning and you have the chance to dive in and save them (assuming you have the skills to do that), but you choose not to do that because maybe in 5 minutes 2 people will be drowning and you'll be unable to help them because you are too tired from saving the other guy. So you walk away and let him drown.
Sorry but by that logic you can justify not doing anything, always. And I don't think it works.


In this hypothetical situation, apparently so.



Cool. Next time someone asks you for bus money, I want you to either give him a ride or hand over your car keys.

You may find that not everyone was honest about their intentions. In fact, they really just wanted your money.

That's the thing about helping people. It's like playing the lottery. You can try and try and try, and you can never succeed. However, on a few occasions, you might really make a difference. More often though, you end up just feeding their problems.

I think that's why it's good to help someone you can keep an eye on.

Don't strawman me.
We are talking about saving lives, not being a selfless martyr that gives everything away for the most trivial reasons.

[Aragehaor]

Of course not, that's not what I was saying. Sorry if I phrased it ambiguously.

No apology is necessary, though i thank you for the clarification.




Regarding the original question, I'd argue that "everything I have" is too great a price, simply because that one person whom I sacrifice everything for is not the only person in danger. What if that money could be of greater use elsewhere? If I can save one person's life today, but perhaps tomorrow ten people will need that money, is the answer so clear-cut? Anything I pay to save someone today reduces my ability to save others by that same amount. The answer, naturally isn't clear-cut at all, you do what you can when you can - it all depends on circumstance.

However worrying about a hypothetical situation where you could of saved more lives if you hadn't saved one before is folly, and such a line of thought is likely to lead to simply saving no one.


EDIT: Hmm, it looks like my point was by and large already made. I really am too slow. :smalltongue:

[Togath]

Ack, post got eaten.
I'd been saying that I was feeling a bit emotional when I made my first posts..
Grinner's opinion is closer to mine, with the added problem that I'm very nervous about taking risks...:smallfrown:

[Kalmageddon]

Ack, post got eaten.
I'd been saying that I was feeling a bit emotional when I made my first posts..
Grinner's opinion is closer to mine, with the added problem that I'm very nervous about taking risks...:smallfrown:

It's ok.
I deleted my reply to your second post and your quote. We all have our problems.

[druid91]

If someone doesn't want to die, his life obviously has value to him. Empathy means I can also value his life because I can identify what he's feeling and give it the same importance he does.
I think that's pretty straightfoward.

As for my other statement, clarifying it in detail would be against forum rules. It's just my personal opinion on the matter.

Weak argument. Not all individuals have strong sense of empathy, and empathy is not at all required to be a member of society.

Letting someone just die, is disruptive. At the same time, crippling yourself to save one already dying person is also disruptive.

So to answer the question, a non-trivial, but non-critical amount. And then, only if I'm somehow responsible for the person. (Friend, I'm the only one around, Family, Etc.)


You're overthinking. And that's fine. It's fine to debate the meaning and value of life as a theoretical matter, as a hobby. But if you see someone suffering, you help them. If you see someone dying, you do everything you possibly can to save them. And you don't need to ask why.

Actually, you really do. Why is a very important question. Along with "How."
How important is it that I help this person? Why am I helping this person, when there are others that could be helped? Why am I spending my time and effort the way I am spending it. Could I be doing better?

People die. People suffer. It happens. It will likely always happen. There is no use destroying yourself throwing pebbles into the ocean trying to stop the tide. Protect what you can, and don't overextend yourself, or you'll wind up not protecting anything.

[Aragehaor]

Ack, post got eaten.
I'd been saying that I was feeling a bit emotional when I made my first posts..
Grinner's opinion is closer to mine, with the added problem that I'm very nervous about taking risks...:smallfrown:


It's ok.
I deleted my reply to your second post and your quote. We all have our problems.

Hmm, i'll edit the relevant information out of my post as well.

It was, after all, fairly rude of me to respond to a post that was clearly retracted. And for that, i apologize.

[Kajhera]

Actually, you really do. Why is a very important question. Along with "How."
How important is it that I help this person? Why am I helping this person, when there are others that could be helped? Why am I spending my time and effort the way I am spending it. Could I be doing better?

I find that 'how do I help this person?' tends to be the most pressing one of the how questions...

[Grinner]

Don't strawman me.
We are talking about saving lives, not being a selfless martyr that gives everything away for the most trivial reasons.


But if all else fails, sure, take my money. I'd never be able to look at myself in the mirror again if I let someone die instead of giving away things that only have value because we want to give them value or rather because we are forced by society to give them value.

You said it. Not me.

Clearly, we're at an impasse here. I'll leave you with a couple things. Feel free to respond. I'll read whatever you write.

First, human instinct seems to be overwhelmingly oriented towards carrying on as usual. I once read an article about a homeless man. A woman was being mugged at knifepoint when this man intervened. The mugger stabbed him and left him for dead. Guess what? He died, after the woman fled and nine others walked straight past him. People aren't stupid. Nor are they as universally selfish as I make them out to be. People are just people. Often, they don't even realize something's wrong until somebody looks. Other times, they don't want to get involved; all they really want to do is get on with their lives.

Second, there's a concept in emergency medicine called triage. It's priority-setting, taking care of worst cases first. Even then, not everyone can be saved. The idea extends to other concepts as well. In transplant medicine, there's only so many organs to go around. So who get them, and who dies? This doesn't expand to everything. If you see someone in obvious need of medical attention, it's easy to summon help for them. Everyone has phones these days. Hell, you'll be called a hero for it. Other decisions aren't so easy.

People are dying every day, people you or me could have saved. Regardless of what we do, they're going to continue to die. All you can do is do the best you can. Expect nothing more, and accept that some people are just beyond help.

[TuggyNE]

You can't save everyone.

I think this is the main point. What you're arguing is not, strictly speaking, that you would not pay to save a stranger's life; what you're arguing is that you would not pay to fail to save a stranger's life, in cases where you're pretty sure your attempts have little or no chance of success.

While I might disagree with that, or at any rate with your criteria, this is a much less repugnant position.


Regarding the original question, I'd argue that "everything I have" is too great a price, simply because that one person whom I sacrifice everything for is not the only person in danger. What if that money could be of greater use elsewhere? If I can save one person's life today, but perhaps tomorrow ten people will need that money, is the answer so clear-cut? Anything I pay to save someone today reduces my ability to save others by that same amount.

Possible, but most people seldom even encounter one person in such dire need (right? right??), so this is more a hypothetical. (Except, I suppose, that if you literally give up everything you have you're likely to die yourself within a few days from lack of water or exposure, but as long as you don't give up access to things like job and house it shouldn't come to that.)

[Grinner]

I think this is the main point. What you're arguing is not, strictly speaking, that you would not pay to save a stranger's life; what you're arguing is that you would not pay to fail to save a stranger's life, in cases where you're pretty sure your attempts have little or no chance of success.

Such eloquence. I envy you.

[Evandar]

I took a unit in Ethics last March at university. While I am still really new to Philosophy and hesitate to talk about it because it is highly likely my inexperience shows, I thought Peter Singer's stance of "Give until giving more would hurt you more than it would help them" made a lot of logical sense. (Is this discussing real-world philosophy? I don't know how strict that rule is.)

I am unfortunately not actually selfless enough to do this, nor do I know anyone that is. I don't really consider that an excuse and am still grappling with the problem.

But I guess I know I should give up all my wealth to save a stranger's life.(unless I could save more strangers by spending it in a different way -- one life for $5000 versus the same number of live for $5000 makes the latter clearly superior to me)

Whether I'd actually do that is a totally different matter. I know I'd do it with little to no hesitation for my friends and most of my family, but that's not the question.

Sometimes I feel the root of most human evil isn't extreme crime or cruelty. It's the ability of people to watch a natural disaster on television, say "Oh wow, that's awful." then change the channel without donating.

[TaiLiu]

Sometimes I feel the root of most human evil isn't extreme crime or cruelty. It's the ability of people to watch a natural disaster on television, say "Oh wow, that's awful." then change the channel without donating.
Aye. Apathy can be detrimental.

[Aedilred]

I don't think you can place a monetary value on life (well, you can, but only in a legal/economic sense, not an ethical one). But, really, that complicates the issue. It's always got to be all or nothing. There are contextual issues, of course, and others that need to be considered. Is this a one-time deal or an ongoing thing? If I pay out everything I have for the first person who needs it, that money's gone, and I don't have it to spend on anyone in future, which means the next time this situation arises, that person's going to die, regardless of whether they're more deserving people, or for that matter closer to me - family, close friends, etc. Even myself. And, sure, you could take the view that that's an excuse for never doing anything, but I think it's certainly worth considering the facts of the situation, weighing up the probabilities and taking a view on a case-by-case basis rather than just agreeing to the terms on the first case on general principle.*

That's also ignoring any financial responsibilities I might have. I have a number of creditors, and my decision to default on my debts to them to save a random stranger is going to have a knock-on effect on them and making that ethical judgment for them - what right do I have to do that? I might have children or other financial dependents - should I allow them to starve and otherwise suffer for the life of someone else?

Moreover, even if you decide that the answer is always "yes, everything", then that's still a problem, because the spending power of that money isn't relative to the amount you have. If all I have in the world is £150, that's going to buy a lot less life than £15m. It's not something that actually works when applied to the real world, only as a thought experiment and even then I think it's fundamentally flawed.

*If more generally applied, the conundrum about whether to accept the first thing you're offered or to hold out for the possibility of something better is at the heart of a large proportion of life decisions (both critical and utterly trivial, and everything in between). It's something you have to decide upon every time on the individual merits. Raising the stakes of the decision doesn't mean that the same thought process shouldn't be applied, it just makes it more important that you get it right.

[Pie Guy]

Well, how do I know the person I'm saving isn't going to keel over from old age the next day. I'd spend less money to save a ninety-year-old than a middle aged person than a teenager.

[Kajhera]

In the case I had larger reserves of money, I would probably be cautious of spending over $2000 on someone completely unknown, if I've correctly worked out that $2000 is the minimal amount to buy someone unknown a life of good length and quality rather than an early death.

$4000 to save one person vs $4000 to save two ... :smallfrown: ... well again, situational, urgency, emotions play a big part ... whether there's anyone in my position to help; plenty of people may be donating to a worthy charitable cause and I can reasonably delay aid, less people are on the scene to respond to a very specific emergency.

Logically, I'd weigh all the factors and come to the decision of financial expenditure that resulted in the most length and quality of life for those involved. Back in reality, it would be very circumstantial and emotionally driven.

[Lither]

A human, nothing else about them? All of nothing. Human life is the cheapest resource on this planet, and it's only getting more common. Roughly 150,000 people die a day; one more won't hurt. Just another number in a statistic. If they were dying in an extremely painful way, I would be inclined to spare a small amount to hasten the process along in a less painful manner. At most, waste a bit of my time trying to get other people like the ones in this thread to pay for me.

If they were a close friend/ family of mine? Still same as above. Halting the process of clawing my way to the top and even jeopardising it is not worth one human life.

Although if said person's life could be used to advance my position or goals I'd be willing to pay up to an equal value of what the advancement would be worth. That's the only reason I can think of.

What reward do people think they're going to get from saving the life of a random stranger?

[Togath]

A human, nothing else about them? All of nothing. Human life is the cheapest resource on this planet, and it's only getting more common. Roughly 150,000 people die a day; one more won't hurt. Just another number in a statistic. If they were dying in an extremely painful way, I would be inclined to spare a small amount to hasten the process along in a less painful manner. At most, waste a bit of my time trying to get other people like the ones in this thread to pay for me.

If they were a close friend/ family of mine? Still same as above. Halting the process of clawing my way to the top and even jeopardising it is not worth one human life.

Although if said person's life could be used to advance my position or goals I'd be willing to pay up to an equal value of what the advancement would be worth. That's the only reason I can think of.

What reward do people think they're going to get from saving the life of a random stranger?

This^
Much better said then I:smallsmile:.
I'm not generous myself, but I am fine with other people being generous.

[Kajhera]

A human, nothing else about them? All of nothing. Human life is the cheapest resource on this planet, and it's only getting more common. Roughly 150,000 people die a day; one more won't hurt. Just another number in a statistic. If they were dying in an extremely painful way, I would be inclined to spare a small amount to hasten the process along in a less painful manner. At most, waste a bit of my time trying to get other people like the ones in this thread to pay for me.

If they were a close friend/ family of mine? Still same as above. Halting the process of clawing my way to the top and even jeopardising it is not worth one human life.

Although if said person's life could be used to advance my position or goals I'd be willing to pay up to an equal value of what the advancement would be worth. That's the only reason I can think of.

What reward do people think they're going to get from saving the life of a random stranger?

What reward are you going to get from your goals? :smallconfused: My goals include helping people. Saving lives. Ending human death, ambitiously. Creating art. Asking meaningful questions. Gaining and keeping friendship. Being useful. Surviving. Giving more than I take, in the end, in defiance of entropy.
Perhaps they are not your goals, but why does that mean I am looking for a greater reward? The effort is intrinsically fulfilling.

[Evandar]

A human, nothing else about them? All of nothing. Human life is the cheapest resource on this planet, and it's only getting more common. Roughly 150,000 people die a day; one more won't hurt. Just another number in a statistic. If they were dying in an extremely painful way, I would be inclined to spare a small amount to hasten the process along in a less painful manner. At most, waste a bit of my time trying to get other people like the ones in this thread to pay for me.

If they were a close friend/ family of mine? Still same as above. Halting the process of clawing my way to the top and even jeopardising it is not worth one human life.

My first response to this was a fair bit of shock. I guess if you don't feel other people are worth your money to save, you don't, and the only logical arguments I can present revolve around reward (so they would still come across as really selfish). I really don't know what to say about that, other than that I sincerely hope not too many people feel this way.



Although if said person's life could be used to advance my position or goals I'd be willing to pay up to an equal value of what the advancement would be worth. That's the only reason I can think of.


I think you're not really paying to save their lives at this point though, you're paying for the advancement and the lifesaving is incidental.




What reward do people think they're going to get from saving the life of a random stranger?

I think for most people (I really, really hope it's this way for most people) that saving a life and helping other people is a reward in and of itself. It might not always be altruistic (I might help people because I want to feel good about myself, or because I want to avoid guilt -- if we can count those things as rewards) but it feels like a far cry from expecting money or a promotion at work. Or it might be just as bad/good.

To be honest, my initial instinct was to condemn the 'another number in a statistic' thing as strongly as possible. Suffice it to say I couldn't disagree more.

[Starwulf]

Regarding the original question, I'd argue that "everything I have" is too great a price, simply because that one person whom I sacrifice everything for is not the only person in danger. What if that money could be of greater use elsewhere? If I can save one person's life today, but perhaps tomorrow ten people will need that money, is the answer so clear-cut? Anything I pay to save someone today reduces my ability to save others by that same amount.

Not only that, but if you are married and have kids, and you give EVERYTHING you have, then you are possibly ruining their lives, and in such a way that could eventually lead to their deaths. There is NOONE in this world that I would sacrifice my families well being for, for any reason, ever. Now, giving everything with reason(as in, it won't ruin you and your family financially), is perfectly acceptable, and is something I would certainly do, IF I knew for a fact that it would literally save the persons life.

However, unlike a few others, I add the stipulation that if I knew they were a "bad" person, such as a murderer(accidental murder doesn't count, bad things happen to good people sometimes), or rapist, or terrorist, then hell no, I wouldn't give a dime. I'd go farther, but my opinions on that particular issue would likely cause me to be banned from this forum.

[blunk]

People die. People suffer. It happens. It will likely always happen. There is no use destroying yourself throwing pebbles into the ocean trying to stop the tide. Protect what you can, and don't overextend yourself, or you'll wind up not protecting anything.I agree. You can argue about what's right, but when the chips are down, it's you and your tribe, however you've defined it.

[Rack]

Based on available evidence about £50.

I'd pay a lot more to not have to think about letting someone die.

[banthesun]

stuff

Evandar's post really get's to the heart of the issue, I feel.

This is a kinda terrifying question morally (unless you're someone who responds "nothing"). If someone was dying/going to die in front of me, and for some reason money would help them, I'd probably give them as much as I had. Hell, I might even give my life to save them. But I can't say I would give everything I have to save someone, because I could, but I don't. I could donate everything I have to charity. If I gave it carefully, it could probably save a few lives. But what I give is really a pitiance, compared to what I could give, and I'd presume nearly everyone in this thread is in a similar situation (I mean, I'm talking to you over the internet from a computer in my bedroom, just giving that up could probably help a lot of people).

So yeah, it all depends on how close to me the person is, as selfish as that may be.:smallfrown:

Aster Azul should get back in here and tell their story though, before this thread goes completely crazy. :smallwink:

[Eloel]

I feel sentimentality detracts from what makes humans different from other animals - reason. That said, everyone is sentimental to some extent, and while I wouldn't pay anything at all to save a stranger that is unlikely to ever be profitable to me, I would be willing to pay all I have (up to and including my own life) for those closest to me.

So, for a stranger, do a quick calculation, and pay <= the expected profit you gain from helping that stranger.

(expected profit will obviously be an estimate of the weighted mean)

[SiuiS]

In a vacuum? Enough to strain finances but not jeopardize my own life.

This belies that you lie in the bed you make though. I do not feel all strangers are worth saving.


That's an incredibly awful attitude.
So you see someone dying on the sidewalk and you walk away because he isn't worth the time or money to assist him or call an ambulance? How the hell do you even get so desensitized and cynical? :smallannoyed:

That is a completely different setting, though. That is a scenario where you can act. The base scenario is about giving away economic coupons.


Yes. I will not accept any other answer.
Even the worst scum on this earth should be allowed to grow old and die of natural causes, provided they are also prevented from hurting people. But every life has value.

Is life defined as continued metabolic processes or as living in a fulfilling fashion? Serial killers have the most fulfillment and joy of life while killing, don't they?

Is it okay to let someone live a full term of existence in a tiny grey box with basic amenities because they're a danger? It's quite a conundrum. Human compassion quickly gets in it's own way. There is no clear cut, automatic rule or answer. That's what makes compassion valuable; it's always a hard, off the cuff choice to do what, right here and now, you feel is best. Not optimal, not efficient, but best.


From it being literally the only thing we have. And again, empathy. The fact that som many of you seem to have troubles understanding that is absolutely horrifying.

Religion covers this.

Unfortunately, we cannot cover religion.

Suffice to say, that I would not save someone else's life because their life is important. I would save someone else's life because the quality of life-saving is important to me.


...Is trying to save someone's life really the minority vote here? Really? If I had to DIE to save I stranger's life I'd want to think about it, and if I didn't have time to think I'd go ahead and save them. Of course I'd pay any amount of money! And I'd like to believe all of you would too, if the situation came up.

But that's different. There is no comparison between "would you ouch out a guy who was going to stab someone" and "would you pay off a guy who was going to stab someone".

Actions have an entirely different cost structure. $X or £X is worth so much of your past life, planned achievements, and continued quality of life. An action is not. The dollar has already been quantified; that's an hour of your life! But the action to save the man, even if it was also an hour long, would be priced differently in the mind.

It's rather interesting really.


You're overthinking. And that's fine. It's fine to debate the meaning and value of life as a theoretical matter, as a hobby. But if you see someone suffering, you help them. If you see someone dying, you do everything you possibly can to save them. And you don't need to ask why.

Certainly.

Would you admit that for some people, to "help" and "save" them could be to allow them to die or to hasten it to prevent suffering?



Cool. Next time someone asks you for bus money, I want you to either give him a ride or hand over your car keys.

I do. Frequently. I've given the shirt off my back, the bike I was riding, groceries for a week, a tent, numerous miles and gallons worth of transit. I've given shoes, I've interrupted knife fights and gang fights, I've stopped a robbery when a gun came out. I've gone out of my way to buy food, and clothing, I've bought someone a hotel room when a cold snap was coming and they were homeless.

I will not give someone with a son story and social engineering tricks money. I tell them point blank "I don't give out money". I've had people refuse a twenty dollar meal and continue asking for the .87¢ to buy a burger (designed to make you think "why eighty seven? He must have an actual thing in mind). I've had people refuse a ride with their infant to their house and desire to take the bus. I'm fairly confident they brought the baby to wrestle money out of people.

It depends where you go.


I find that 'how do I help this person?' tends to be the most pressing one of the how questions...

In this situation?

You insert money into a quantum 4d interface, feeding it directly to the god machine with the knowledge that it will objectively alter reality in such a way as to preserve the stranger's life.

[Evandar]

I do. Frequently. I've given the shirt off my back, the bike I was riding, groceries for a week, a tent, numerous miles and gallons worth of transit. I've given shoes, I've interrupted knife fights and gang fights, I've stopped a robbery when a gun came out. I've gone out of my way to buy food, and clothing, I've bought someone a hotel room when a cold snap was coming and they were homeless.


For what it counts, I admire you a great deal for all of that. I sincerely hope that when I'm done with university and making my own money I'll find it in myself to be so giving.

[Kalmageddon]

Usually I do not agree with you but I can kinda see your point, but this time I'm actually amazed you can even write stuff like this:


Is life defined as continued metabolic processes or as living in a fulfilling fashion? Serial killers have the most fulfillment and joy of life while killing, don't they?
No. No they don't. What kind of screwed up Hollywood movie logic are you employing here? This is a gross misinterpretation of the psychological problems that push someone to commit murder.


Suffice to say, that I would not save someone else's life because their life is important. I would save someone else's life because the quality of life-saving is important to me.
What does that even mean? "The quality of life-saving"? :smallconfused: Think of it, please. Think it's your life at risk. Or the life of someone you care about. What would you think of someone that tells you "I don't know if saving your life is quality enough for me, I think I'll just let you die instead".
There can be no "but", no "if", no "maybe". If someone is going to die unless you do something about it and you are sure of it there is no justification for not acting.
None.

And if you value your life, or someone else's life, you should value the life of all people equally. They are all humans, all deserving to live just as much as you.
I'm surprised someone that supports equality of rights can make an argument like this. The most basic right that everyone should share is being allowed to live, being saved when his or her life is at risk. If you don't do that then you might as well throw all your pretty talk about gender equality and whatever else you support out of the window, since you still have to make step one in order to truly respect other people, which is respecting their life in and of itself. Their life which includes their gender, their race, their hopes, their dreams, everything that anyone can ever be IS their life.

You know, I've got the feeling many people here are answering the question from a completly detached, completly unrealistic point of view. As in, you are not thinking of giving your mony to save a person, you are thinking of answering a question about giving your money to save a thing that just so happens to be a person in this example. You are objectifying life.

But I'd like to think that every single one of you would do it without second thoughts if they actually found themselves in that situation irl.
Because otherwise, and I stand by this next statement 100%, you would be complete monsters to let someone die for whatever apathetic, detached and pragmatic reason your brain might find.
And I don't care how convoluted you get or how philosophical you get, I'm not backing away from this statement.

[Brother Oni]

But I'd like to think that every single one of you would do it without second thoughts if they actually found themselves in that situation irl.
Because otherwise, and I stand by this next statement 100%, you would be complete monsters to let someone die for whatever apathetic, detached and pragmatic reason your brain might find.
And I don't care how convoluted you get or how philosophical you get, I'm not backing away from this statement.

Even if the person views death along the lines of 'Oh well, better luck next reincarnation'?

[Finlam]

From personal experience, I have spent so much time and money trying to stop friends from dying and the only lesson learned is that it makes no difference in the end.

But for a stranger? No. I won't do that to people who depend on me; I won't slight them or harm or damage them in any way by throwing away my resources on a stranger. Doubly so, since they will likely meet the same fate anyway.

I appreciate both the idealism and sociopathism expressed in this thread so far, but save for a few, the words ring hallow: they are untested. It's great to dwell at absolutes in the realm of theory. Everything or nothing sounds so easy, but doing is hard.

I know quite firmly where I stand on this, but I'm not sure it's more than a little game for most. When you are tested, and I hope you never are, you may find the reality within yourself quite different than what you have imagined.

[Lither]

This^
Much better said then I:smallsmile:.
I'm not generous myself, but I am fine with other people being generous.

Thank you :smallsmile:


What reward are you going to get from your goals? :smallconfused: My goals include helping people. Saving lives. Ending human death, ambitiously. Creating art. Asking meaningful questions. Gaining and keeping friendship. Being useful. Surviving. Giving more than I take, in the end, in defiance of entropy.
Perhaps they are not your goals, but why does that mean I am looking for a greater reward? The effort is intrinsically fulfilling.

Power - political, economic, social, whatever goes.

It cannot be as fulfilling as to use the money to support yourself. To aid another, you claw out your own intrinsic being and feed the chunks to them. Surely it would be better to save your own strength for aiding your own position in life.


My first response to this was a fair bit of shock. I guess if you don't feel other people are worth your money to save, you don't, and the only logical arguments I can present revolve around reward (so they would still come across as really selfish). I really don't know what to say about that, other than that I sincerely hope not too many people feel this way.



I think you're not really paying to save their lives at this point though, you're paying for the advancement and the lifesaving is incidental.




I think for most people (I really, really hope it's this way for most people) that saving a life and helping other people is a reward in and of itself. It might not always be altruistic (I might help people because I want to feel good about myself, or because I want to avoid guilt -- if we can count those things as rewards) but it feels like a far cry from expecting money or a promotion at work. Or it might be just as bad/good.

To be honest, my initial instinct was to condemn the 'another number in a statistic' thing as strongly as possible. Suffice it to say I couldn't disagree more.

Certainly, like I said, I would be willing to pay if I saw a clear and notable return on my investment. However, for a random stranger, I simply do not.

What is a human if not an unusually intelligent animal? When you crush ants beneath your feet, do you think of what they could accomplish? Do you think how you would like to be crushed yourself? No. Most of the time you don't even notice their deaths. Same deal with spiders and other insects.

When sixteen million people die a year of poverty-related causes because nobody is paying to prevent it, nobody cares. When one human is going to die unless people pay to stop it, people tumble over themselves to try and fix it. Once you understand the fundamental hypocrisy of people that way, you understand my position; if we won't care about sixteen million, why should I care about one when I already have myself to care about?

[Grinner]

You know, I've got the feeling many people here are answering the question from a completly detached, completly unrealistic point of view. As in, you are not thinking of giving your mony to save a person, you are thinking of answering a question about giving your money to save a thing that just so happens to be a person in this example. You are objectifying life.

That's just it. Between us and this hypothetical stranger, there's an distance. Because of that distance, there's little impetus to act. If I said there's a child dying in a hospital bed right (there is, by the way), and your money could help her (it can, by the way), would you give it? What about the other children dying in hospital beds right now? Fact is, there's so many people just dying, period.

Also, it's worth pointing out that most, if not all, of us are answering from a detached viewpoint, including you. Unless you can honestly say you've stepped up and made that sacrifice, you're no better than the rest of us. You might take a difference stance, but in the end, you end up doing the same thing. "Actions speak louder than words" and all that.

True selflessness is special. By definition, most people aren't special.

[Kalmageddon]

Even if the person views death along the lines of 'Oh well, better luck next reincarnation'?
Answering to that is against forum rules, I believe. Let's not get this thread locked.
Or actually, let's do that. I'm getting tired of it anyway. It's making me lose faith in humanity. Countless threads where people get stoned for not being as tolerant, as open minded and then when it actually comes down to saving lives, people back away and say "oh I don't know if I'd do that".
It's actually both depressing and silly.


Also, it's worth pointing out that most, if not all, of us are answering from a detached viewpoint, including you. Unless you can honestly say you've stepped up and made that sacrifice, you're no better than the rest of us. You might take a difference stance, but in the end, you end up doing the same thing. "Actions speak louder than words" and all that.

True selflessness is special. By definition, most people aren't special.

I did. Didn't have to give money away, but something more valuable to me.
But I don't think that it makes me better. You are capable of doing the same.

[Skeppio]

Answering to that is against forum rules, I believe. Let's not get this thread locked.
Or actually, let's do that. I'm getting tired of it anyway. It's making me lose faith in humanity. Countless threads where people get stoned for not being as tolerant, as open minded and then when it actually comes down to saving lives, people back away and say "oh I don't know if I'd do that".
It's actually both depressing and silly.

It's utterly depressing, but I can't say I expected much else. :smallsigh:

[SiuiS]

For what it counts, I admire you a great deal for all of that. I sincerely hope that when I'm done with university and making my own money I'll find it in myself to be so giving.

Oh, it's a supremely selfish attitude on my end. Very lazy. But true laziness is doing it right the first time so you don't need to do it again; the most selfish action is to 'teach a man to fish' because then he will leave you alone, and probably owe you.

I hope you come to these good deeds through more honest means.


Usually I do not agree with you but I can kinda see your point, but this time I'm actually amazed you can even write stuff like this:

No. No they don't. What kind of screwed up Hollywood movie logic are you employing here? This is a gross misinterpretation of the psychological problems that push someone to commit murder.

Murder != serial murder. It was also a question, you'll note. It's often better to answer questions than to judge the person asking them, isn't it? That's how the person learns and corrects themselves.


What does that even mean? "The quality of life-saving"? :smallconfused:

It means that the good behaviors are not taken because I objectively value all life. The good behaviors are taken because if I do not take those behaviors I will feel bad about myself. It's a very selfish process. Sometimes I do it specifically to lead by example, but often I act because my immediate actions represent me on a spiritual level.


Think of it, please.

It is a fallacy to think that because my response is different from yours I haven't put thought into it. The idea that if I just think about it, really, I'll change my mind, is insulting and ludicrous.

“Another person's life is saved in exchange for yours. In other words, yours is saved in exchange for another person's.”

If Person A will die unless person B intervenes because Person C is a knife wielding jerk, it doesn't matter whether I am A, B or C. The equation should play out the same. This is the key to the golden rule. Not "do unto others" but "you do unto yourself".

It is always my life at risk. Always. When I leave someone in the cold because they are a dangerous junkie, even though they might die, I leave myself in the cold. I estimate that were I in that situation, I would deserve it. When I help someone who is clearly dangerous and in no immediate danger, I help myself, because I believe in that situation I would be deserving of help. Every interaction I take is taken with the knowledge of how I would react and feel in the other position, unless the other position is so bizarre that I cannot conceive of it. And then I ask about it so that I may learn to put myself there.


There can be no "but", no "if", no "maybe". If someone is going to die unless you do something about it and you are sure of it there is no justification for not acting.
None.

You're right! And leaving someone to their fate is an action.


And if you value your life, or someone else's life, you should value the life of all people equally.

I do~


I'm surprised someone that supports equality of rights can make an argument like this. The most basic right that everyone should share is being allowed to live, being saved when his or her life is at risk

Philosophical exercise: if I am allowing someone to live, does that not mean it is my right to make that decision?


If you don't do that then you might as well throw all your pretty talk about gender equality and whatever else you support out of the window, since you still have to make step one in order to truly respect other people, which is respecting their life in and of itself.

You're equating your connotations of 'respect' and 'value' with factual definitions! I do respect human life. I do value life. I value all life equally. I value humans as much as I value animals. There is a base value. But that base value is lower for me than it is for you. Any additional value of any individual human or animal must be earned, just as it must be acknowledged.



You know, I've got the feeling many people here are answering the question from a completly detached, completly unrealistic point of view.



I live this. Your judgement is hollow and without merit.

[Lither]

It's utterly depressing, but I can't say I expected much else. :smallsigh:

Nor did I, I must admit.

[Skeppio]

Nor did I, I must admit.

I can't understand how you people can be so selfish and jaded. I honestly can't. It's like I'm from an alternate reality. :smallfrown:

[Kalmageddon]

I live this. Your judgement is hollow and without merit.
Good, now we both offended eachother.
Isn't this great? We now have nothing more to say to eachother.

Too bad, actually. Re-reading your post I think we are saying basically the same thing, only you are being nitpicky about it while I don't worry as much of the fine details.

I can't understand how you people can be so selfish and jaded. I honestly can't. It's like I'm from an alternate reality. :smallfrown:

Yup. I'm getting the same feeling.

[The Succubus]

I make my own moral judgment on a situation, according to my own moral values. If I feel a life can be helped with my own help, I will do so. If people try and emotionally manipulate or coerce me into helping, I will refuse to help. If I feel that a person is not worth helping - I will not help them.

I have the right to judge people as I see fit and accept the responsibilities and consequences of that judgment.

[Lither]

I can't understand how you people can be so selfish and jaded. I honestly can't. It's like I'm from an alternate reality. :smallfrown:

I used to think like that. Even as late as my teen years I grasped at scraps of a misguided belief in humanity. Now, I've grown up, and I do not understand how one can still cling to the idea that they should voluntarily weaken themselves to pull up another person who will take advantage of your generosity.

[GolemsVoice]

Now, when I think of the situation, I thought of some hypothetical, video-game like situations where you KNOW that your money is going to save the person, not of a situation where somebody asks me for money in the street and I have to consider if he's trying to scam me etc.

Because in such a situation, my answer would differ enormously.

I wonder however if those people who answered that they wouldn't help this person because they maybe could save more people next time WOULD actually save more people next time? Where is the limit for "enough people"? Would you wait if there were two persons, but act if you could save ten? I can see the logic behind such a statement, but I can't always take it seriously, sadly.

[Skeppio]

I used to think like that. Even as late as my teen years I grasped at scraps of a misguided belief in humanity. Now, I've grown up, and I do not understand how one can still cling to the idea that they should voluntarily weaken themselves to pull up another person who will take advantage of your generosity.

So cynicism, selfishness, apathy and hate are "grown up" things now? :smallfurious:

See, it's funny. I get depressed sometimes. I feel horrible, like the whole world is nothing but evil and darkness. But people insist to me it isn't. I start to see the light side and begin feeling better. But then there's always people like you, who'll gladly throw me back into that same pit, just because you're so jaded and spiteful you can't stand to see anyone else enjoying life!

[SiuiS]

Even if the person views death along the lines of 'Oh well, better luck next reincarnation'?

Please don't. Many folks have excluded their views based on spiritual bents so far, and I respect them for that. I would rather no one be backed into a corner.


From personal experience, I have spent so much time and money trying to stop friends from dying and the only lesson learned is that it makes no difference in the end.

I am sorry. :smallfrown:



Power - political, economic, social, whatever goes.

It cannot be as fulfilling as to use the money to support yourself. To aid another, you claw out your own intrinsic being and feed the chunks to them. Surely it would be better to save your own strength for aiding your own position in life.


Eh. This just leads to a rhetorical circle. Selflessness being inherently selfish and all.

Money is a means to an end. If that end is feeling good, and saving someone makes you feel good, screw money – save them. Cut out the arbitrary denominational middleman.



Or actually, let's do that. I'm getting tired of it anyway. It's making me lose faith in humanity. Countless threads where people get stoned for not being as tolerant, as open minded and then when it actually comes down to saving lives, people back away and say "oh I don't know if I'd do that".
It's actually both depressing and silly.

By definition you cannot tolerate things you like. There are plenty of views here I disagree with or find repugnant. I am tolerating them by not forcing conformity.


It's utterly depressing, but I can't say I expected much else. :smallsigh:

I am surprised at you, Skeppio.


Good, now we both offended eachother.
Isn't this great? We now have nothing more to say to eachother.

Too bad, actually. Re-reading your post I think we are saying basically the same thing, only you are being nitpicky about it while I don't worry as much of the fine details.

You're very presumptuous, attributing feelings and motives and thought patterns and assumptions and conceits to me. It's almost like I don't even need to be here~!

I'm not offended, though I am consternated that you're offended. But then that's a good sign, it means you're still unjaded enough to see these responses and not contain yourself.

Just remember, when you judge others you are judged. Don't be so quick to decry falsehood, shock and reprobation.


I make my own moral judgment on a situation, according to my own moral values. If I feel a life can be helped with my own help, I will do so. If people try and emotionally manipulate or coerce me into helping, I will refuse to help. If I feel that a person is not worth helping - I will not help them.

I have the right to judge people as I see fit and accept the responsibilities and consequences of that judgment.

May you grow wise enough to ever counsel well and choose such that your conscious is clear my friend.

[Skeppio]

I am surprised at you, Skeppio.

Why? What did I say that's so wrong? :smallconfused:

[Kalmageddon]

I used to think like that. Even as late as my teen years I grasped at scraps of a misguided belief in humanity. Now, I've grown up, and I do not understand how one can still cling to the idea that they should voluntarily weaken themselves to pull up another person who will take advantage of your generosity.

To put it briefly?
Because I know I'm strong enough.
I'm not afraid of people taking advantage of me, I can handle myself. And I can spare the time and energies to also help others if I have the chance.

It's your choice, accept your limitations or strive to overcome them. But I honestly believe everyone has the potential to be a better man or woman. It's just that conforming to the lowest common denominator is easier and provides good company. But I still think it's wrong on so many levels.

[GolemsVoice]

As others said, I find it fascinating that a person who is vehemently arguing for equality between genders would have such an attitude to life.


I mean, hey, if the very life of another person is so meaningless, because you have no connection to it, then how can the quality of life of another person be of any importance? You're dying? Well, sucks to be you. Your gender/sexuality is repressed? Well, sucks to be you, I'm sitting pretty as a hetero man, how much would it benefit me, economically, to help you?

Sorry to bring that up, but it just came to my mind. I'm really not trying to be hostile.

[SiuiS]

So cynicism, selfishness, apathy and hate are "grown up" things now? :smallfurious:

See, it's funny. I get depressed sometimes. I feel horrible, like the whole world is nothing but evil and darkness. But people insist to me it isn't. I start to see the light side and begin feeling better. But then there's always people like you, who'll gladly throw me back into that same pit, just because you're so jaded and spiteful you can't stand to see anyone else enjoying life!

Oh that makes a lot more sense. My faux pas!

E: golems voice, who are you addressing?

[Kalmageddon]

By definition you cannot tolerate things you like. There are plenty of views here I disagree with or find repugnant. I am tolerating them by not forcing conformity.

What are you even saying? Who am I forcing? How?
I think you are reading another discussion and somehow end up posting here, because you make no sense.

And me, jaded? You are really not making sense.

[Lither]

So cynicism, selfishness, apathy and hate are "grown up" things now? :smallfurious:

See, it's funny. I get depressed sometimes. I feel horrible, like the whole world is nothing but evil and darkness. But people insist to me it isn't. I start to see the light side and begin feeling better. But then there's always people like you, who'll gladly throw me back into that same pit, just because you're so jaded and spiteful you can't stand to see anyone else enjoying life!

I don't believe protracted apathy will get anyone anywhere, one only goes far by being extremely proactive - improving their position, crushing threats.

Why would knowing how bad the world is to live in be such a bad thing? Surely it in itself is a liberating knowledge.

Also, I do enjoy life. Watching a good plan come together, breaking my opponents and clawing my way upwards makes me happy.

Furthermore, I have no intention of throwing someone into a pit of depression, unless of course they begin to be a severe interference. If something makes you happy, go for it. I understand seeking happiness. If they ask for the community opinion in a thread, I'm happy to give it.


To put it briefly?
Because I know I'm strong enough.
I'm not afraid of people taking advantage of me, I can handle myself. And I can spare the time and energies to also help others if I have the chance.

It's your choice, accept your limitations or strive to overcome them. But I honestly believe everyone has the potential to be a better man or woman. It's just that conforming to the lowest common denominator is easier and provides good company. But I still think it's wrong on so many levels.

I see it the opposite, that it is a weakness to open yourself up voluntarily to being taken advantage of, or to lower yourself to aid another.


As others said, I find it fascinating that a person who is vehemently arguing for equality between genders would have such an attitude to life.


I mean, hey, if the very life of another person is so meaningless, because you have no connection to it, then how can the quality of life of another person be of any importance? You're dying? Well, sucks to be you. Your gender/sexuality is repressed? Well, sucks to be you, I'm sitting pretty as a hetero man, how much would it benefit me, economically, to help you?

Sorry to bring that up, but it just came to my mind. I'm really not trying to be hostile.

Assuming that was directed at me, you've put me in a very grave conundrum. Equality in everything has been something I've argued for a great deal. I feel I cannot answer that without a lot of time. Assuming only, though.

[Grinner]

What are you even saying? Who am I forcing? How?
I think you are reading another discussion and somehow end up posting here, because you make no sense.

Well, seeing as you've just spent a great deal of time castigating the rest of us for our opinions, you're not exactly a great example of tolerance.

[The Succubus]

May you grow wise enough to ever counsel well and choose such that your conscious is clear my friend.

I will never be able to make perfect judgments and people will be hurt because of it. All I can do is accept that I made those decisions and learn from them.

But to come back on topic, it's a difficult question to answer. It depends on the stranger, the situation and the amount. My answer will vary a lot depending on each of the three - so much so that I can't make a blanket statement on it.

[Kalmageddon]

I see it the opposite, that it is a weakness to open yourself up voluntarily to being taken advantage of, or to lower yourself to aid another.

"Lower yourself"? Helping others is elevating yourself.
But honestly, you read like a bad manga character with all the talks about "beraking opponents" and stuff like that. Please.
I can't take you seriously enough to argue your point.

Well, seeing as you've just spent a great deal of time castigating the rest of us for our opinions, you're not exactly a great example of tolerance.

Depends on what you see as tolerance. If tolerance means not opposing your opinion with mine, then sure, I'm not tolerant. But I see tolerance as recognizing your right to live your life as you see fit. Which I do, even if I may not share your ideas.
That said, I'm still not forcing you to do anything, so that's still a completly absurd accusation.

[SiuiS]

What are you even saying? Who am I forcing? How?
I think you are reading another discussion and somehow end up posting here, because you make no sense.

And me, jaded? You are really not making sense.

Your lack of understanding is not nonsense on my part.

Especially since I said you were NOT jaded.
Try again :smallsmile:

[Lither]

"Lower yourself"? Helping others is elevating yourself.
But honestly, you read like a bad manga character with all the talks about "beraking opponents" and stuff like that. Please.
I can't take you seriously enough to argue your point.

To aid another, you must first give something from yourself. It might be as simple as time, or it might be as difficult to replace as large sums of money or personal happiness.

I'm sorry, I don't read manga or watch anime, or really involve myself in fictional media. If it bothers you, replace "breaking" with a phrase to the effect of Machiavelli's recommendation to deal an enemy such a grievous blow as to render them incapable of further threatening your goals. It was the most appropriate word I could think of.

[GolemsVoice]

E: golems voice, who are you addressing?

Both Lither and you, since I've seen you argue quite eloquently in the "Female players..." thread in Media Discussion.


But I mean in general, in a way. What would happen if we expand this attitude (not neccessarily yours, SiusS')? Helping others is "to lower yourself". Ok. So why should ANYONE care about anything that happens to somebody else, unless that person had some kind of advantage from it? Taking that worldview to it's logical conclusion, I could justifiy a LOT of things.


Now, in one thing I wouldn't agree with Kalmageddon. Letting yourself be exploited isn't neccessary. If you help, you have to be careful, which is sad in itself, but true. But that's what I would argue: being nice isn't equal to being stupid, and it does NOT mean being a walking purse that people just take money out whenever it suits them.

It DOES however mean making an effort to help, and I'd rather help 10 people who need my help and 1 person who doesn't, than do nothing and help nobody. But that's just my opinion, in the end.

[banthesun]

If this thread has said anything so far, it's "it takes all kinds". It really is interesting to see the range of views people have on this issue. Special thanks to SiuiS for fully explaining your views on this matter. I didn't quite understand this part though:
Philosophical exercise: if I am allowing someone to live, does that not mean it is my right to make that decision?Do you mean that it should be your right to decide whether or not to save someone?


What does that even mean? "The quality of life-saving"? :smallconfused: Think of it, please. Think it's your life at risk. Or the life of someone you care about. What would you think of someone that tells you "I don't know if saving your life is quality enough for me, I think I'll just let you die instead".
There can be no "but", no "if", no "maybe". If someone is going to die unless you do something about it and you are sure of it there is no justification for not acting.
None.

And if you value your life, or someone else's life, you should value the life of all people equally. They are all humans, all deserving to live just as much as you.

Now, I don't think that treating all life of equal value is a bad thing (doing otherwise could be seen as judging their future), but I'd like to give you a bit of a thought experiment on this one. If there were two people going to die, and you could only save one of them, would you save a murderer, or a mother? A child or an elder? A loved one or a stranger? If you find the question to harsh, think of it in terms of who would you save first. Either way, you're being asked to weigh two lives against each other.

Honestly it's a choice I wouldn't wish on anyone, and in real life it could well be a matter of whoever's closest. But it does explain in the roughest terms how people could value one person's life higher than another's.

This is a pretty heavy thread, but I hope everyone stays within the rules, and that no one really gets seriously upset at each other, no matter how cynical or niave you find someone. This is a lovely forum and I would very much like to have heavy discussions like this without anyone getting offended. :smallsmile:

[GolemsVoice]

This is a pretty heavy thread, but I hope everyone stays within the rules, and that no one really gets seriously upset at each other, no matter how cynical or niave you find someone. This is a lovely forum and I would very much like to have heavy discussions like this without anyone getting offended.

I fear you can't answer such questions without offending someone, but yeah, that is an idea that we all should follow.

[Brother Oni]

Answering to that is against forum rules, I believe. Let's not get this thread locked.
Or actually, let's do that. I'm getting tired of it anyway. It's making me lose faith in humanity. Countless threads where people get stoned for not being as tolerant, as open minded and then when it actually comes down to saving lives, people back away and say "oh I don't know if I'd do that".
It's actually both depressing and silly.

By 'depressing and silly', do you mean the viewpoint or the separately mentioned behaviour?

Staying away from the viewpoint, I believe I'm the same as most people here - I try to help out without overly harming myself because if I hurt myself, it affects my ability to look after my family, which have higher priority than a stranger.

Bear in mind that different people have their own individual tolerances for 'overly harming'. For example, given the option between donating ~122 UKP or donating a unit of blood, I would (and do) donate blood, whereas someone who is absolutely terrified of needles would probably prefer to give money if they were still willing to help.

That said, I refuse to villfy anybody who has extremely self centred view of helping strangers - tolerance and open mindedness means acceptance of other people's points of view, even if I do find them distasteful.

[Kalmageddon]

Both Lither and you, since I've seen you argue quite eloquently in the "Female players..." thread in Media Discussion.


But I mean in general, in a way. What would happen if we expand this attitude (not neccessarily yours, SiusS')? Helping others is "to lower yourself". Ok. So why should ANYONE care about anything that happens to somebody else, unless that person had some kind of advantage from it? Taking that worldview to it's logical conclusion, I could justifiy a LOT of things.


Now, in one thing I wouldn't agree with Kalmageddon. Letting yourself be exploited isn't neccessary. If you help, you have to be careful, which is sad in itself, but true. But that's what I would argue: being nice isn't equal to being stupid, and it does NOT mean being a walking purse that people just take money out whenever it suits them.

It DOES however mean making an effort to help, and I'd rather help 10 people who need my help and 1 person who doesn't, than do nothing and help nobody. But that's just my opinion, in the end.

I never said that you need to allow yourself to be exploited. That's a strawman others have pinned onto me.
What I said is that I know I can handle someone that tries to take advantage of me, as in, I can defend myself from such things while still being able to help those in real need.


That said, I refuse to villfy anybody who has extremely self centred view of helping strangers - tolerance and open mindedness means acceptance of other people's points of view, even if I do find them distasteful.

And what does "acceptance" means in this context?

[Grinner]

That said, I'm still not forcing you to do anything, so that's still a completly absurd accusation.

I should point out that you're in no position here to force anyone to do anything. But if you were...Would you respect another's right to deny aid to another human being, or would you continue throwing stones?

[Kajhera]

I find money and power to be means to an end, seeing them as ends in themselves is ... puzzling. Though I know it is a viewpoint that exists, it does not seem entirely logical.

If I have money, the eventual point is to buy things with it, and therefore I ask what can I buy that will satisfy my values? After my needs, addictions, and a measure of happiness are met ... The continuation of a person's life, when it is an effective gesture, certainly falls under satisfying my values. (I might be convinced to forgo something of the above but I do try to keep myself afloat first; eating the whole of plants down to the root leaves the land barren). If I am jaded it is by realizing my attempts to do so often prove far less effective than advertised.

If I have political power, the whole point is to use my will to enact change and benefit people. Or prevent change and benefit people, if one is more conservative. Political power seems far too stressful to endure for its intrinsic benefits. :smalltongue: And once you have it ... it's your duty to serve your people, not the other way around.

If I have social power... well I usually use it to pursue friendships rather than my other values, but not averse to calling upon it in times of need, if I have the capacity. :smallconfused:

[Kalmageddon]

I should point out that you're in no position here to force anyone to do anything. But if you were...Would you respect another's right to deny aid to another human being, or would you continue throwing stones?

I'm not throwing stones.
I would not force anyone to do anything. I'd do it myself instead.
You are trying really hard to demonize me somehow, you know?

[The Succubus]

This is a slight detour but it may say something about me. If I see a homeless person begging for change, I will give them some money. Do I give them my credit card, Oyster and my coat? No - because these things would impact on the quality of my life to an extent I couldn't easily recover from. That's the trick with this question - it's *all or nothing*. Life rarely works with such extremes.

Oh...you want to know why? It's pretty simple. If I was in a similar position, up **** creek without a paddle or canoe, I'd like someone to give me a helping hand. Even if it was just a little one.

[banthesun]

I used to think like that. Even as late as my teen years I grasped at scraps of a misguided belief in humanity. Now, I've grown up, and I do not understand how one can still cling to the idea that they should voluntarily weaken themselves to pull up another person who will take advantage of your generosity.

Well, for many people, their faith in humanity doesn't even come into it. People can be willing to help someone not because they think the person they're helping is a good person, but because they believe that by helping them they're making themselves a better person. For some people this doesn't even seem to be a concious thought, which is honestly more than I can comprehend. For some, it's less a matter of faith in humanity than faith in themselves, the whole "be the change you want to see in the world" thing.

I hope this made their position a bit easier to understand (and if anyone wants to jump in and clarify their position here please do, I wouldn't want to be putting words in anyone's mouth).

EDIT: and this thread is moving really fast right now... :smalleek:

[Kalmageddon]

This is a slight detour but it may say something about me. If I see a homeless person begging for change, I will give them some money. Do I give them my credit card, Oyster and my coat? No - because these things would impact on the quality of my life to an extent I couldn't easily recover from. That's the trick with this question - it's *all or nothing*. Life rarely works with such extremes.

Oh...you want to know why? It's pretty simple. If I was in a similar position, up **** creek without a paddle or canoe, I'd like someone to give me a helping hand. Even if it was just a little one.

Luckly we are not talking about helping people in general but instead about saving people's lives, which is quite different from giving some change to a homeless person.

As I said before, I'm not advocating being a selfless martyr that gives everything to others. I'm saying that saving a life is worth any sum of money.

I'm not saying you in particular did, but please stop strawmanning me. Stop trying to put things I didn't say in my mouth.

Well, for many people, their faith in humanity doesn't even come into it. People can be willing to help someone not because they think the person they're helping is a good person, but because they believe that by helping them they're making themselves a better person. For some people this doesn't even seem to be a concious thought, which is honestly more than I can comprehend. For some, it's less a matter of faith in humanity than faith in themselves, the whole "be the change you want to see in the world" thing.


For me, personally, it's both.
Thank you for trying to clarify my position as well as the position of others in this thread.

[The Succubus]

Now here's a slightly different question - how much would you pay to bring another human being into existence? Is it more, less or the same as saving a stranger?

[Evandar]

I try to be accepting, but the thing I find really terrifying with some of the opinions expressed here (a tiny minority that I am hopefully misinterpreting) is that the only reason to save a life, even that of a loved one, would be because I expect to get ahead in the world somehow.

I'm hoping very hard that a 'return on the investment' has the return in question to mean 'the life of my loved one', or I have a lot of thinking to do regarding those viewpoints, how I feel about them and what exactly being accepting of them entails.

Either way though, this thread has got me thinking which is great.

[Kajhera]

Now here's a slightly different question - how much would you pay to bring another human being into existence? Is it more, less or the same as saving a stranger?

Nothing, in a vacuum. If it was important to someone I cared about, I'd chip in to help the process if needed. If already in the stage of existence that is pregnancy, likely somewhat more to help the development process go smoothly, if someone needs my help with that (and broadening the net of who I'd be willing to help, an amount).

If I decide I want kids this ... could change? Not sure.

[Grinner]

I'm not throwing stones.
I would not force anyone to do anything. I'd do it myself instead.
You are trying really hard to demonize me somehow, you know?

You are, and I'm not.

I am trying to prove that your position is non-viable.

You don't seem prepared to consider that possibility, though.

[GolemsVoice]

Now here's a slightly different question - how much would you pay to bring another human being into existence? Is it more, less or the same as saving a stranger?

Nothing. Why should I? Life is precious, yes, but this is not life that exists yet, and if I choose not to bring this life into existence, nobody would be harmed. The way of bringing people into existence which we have at the moment seems to work allright, no need to pay extra money. The way we have to save people from certain death isn't working very well, which is why I'd sacrifice money for saving a life.

[Grinner]

Now here's a slightly different question - how much would you pay to bring another human being into existence? Is it more, less or the same as saving a stranger?

It's not how much I'm willing to pay. It's how much I'm going to end up paying, which, as I recall, averages about $200,000.

[Lither]

I find money and power to be means to an end, seeing them as ends in themselves is ... puzzling. Though I know it is a viewpoint that exists, it does not seem entirely logical.

If I have money, the eventual point is to buy things with it, and therefore I ask what can I buy that will satisfy my values? After my needs, addictions, and a measure of happiness are met ... The continuation of a person's life, when it is an effective gesture, certainly falls under satisfying my values. (I might be convinced to forgo something of the above but I do try to keep myself afloat first; eating the whole of plants down to the root leaves the land barren). If I am jaded it is by realizing my attempts to do so often prove far less effective than advertised.

If I have political power, the whole point is to use my will to enact change and benefit people. Or prevent change and benefit people, if one is more conservative. Political power seems far too stressful to endure for its intrinsic benefits. :smalltongue: And once you have it ... it's your duty to serve your people, not the other way around.

If I have social power... well I usually use it to pursue friendships rather than my other values, but not averse to calling upon it in times of need, if I have the capacity. :smallconfused:

I suppose it requires a certain investment-focused mindset.


Well, for many people, their faith in humanity doesn't even come into it. People can be willing to help someone not because they think the person they're helping is a good person, but because they believe that by helping them they're making themselves a better person. For some people this doesn't even seem to be a concious thought, which is honestly more than I can comprehend. For some, it's less a matter of faith in humanity than faith in themselves, the whole "be the change you want to see in the world" thing.

I hope this made their position a bit easier to understand (and if anyone wants to jump in and clarify their position here please do, I wouldn't want to be putting words in anyone's mouth).

EDIT: and this thread is moving really fast right now... :smalleek:

I think I do understand. Not condone the idea, but understand.


Now here's a slightly different question - how much would you pay to bring another human being into existence? Is it more, less or the same as saving a stranger?

That's interesting. Raising a human from youth is something of a long-term investment. When I'm too old to support myself - assuming nobody invents immortality - a human that I've raised to love and fear me in equal measure can provide a source of income. Certainly no more than 25% of what I could expect to see in return (total throughout raising them).


I try to be accepting, but the thing I find really terrifying with some of the opinions expressed here (a tiny minority that I am hopefully misinterpreting) is that the only reason to save a life, even that of a loved one, would be because I expect to get ahead in the world somehow.

I'm hoping very hard that a 'return on the investment' has the return in question to mean 'the life of my loved one', or I have a lot of thinking to do regarding those viewpoints, how I feel about them and what exactly being accepting of them entails.

Either way though, this thread has got me thinking which is great.

You're not misinterpreting my position. Most of my family and friends are dead already, and you get used to the idea.

[Kalmageddon]

You are, and I'm not.

I am trying to prove that your position is non-viable.

You don't seem prepared to consider that possibility, though.

Which may be because I already tested it as viable and I'm already living by my ideals?

Look, if the idea that yours is the only viable way to live makes you sleep better at night, you don't need to challenge your preconceptions. But if you don't mind, I'll keep on living as I see fit.

[Kajhera]

... Huh. Lither, I swear I've had this exact conversation with a red dragon (in character).

[Lither]

... Huh. Lither, I swear I've had this exact conversation with a red dragon.

I wouldn't call myself evil or particularly chaotic. I consider myself LN.

Nor, in fact, have I had any particular tendency to kidnap children of monarchs, breathe fire upon all those who oppose me or grown scales :smalltongue:

[Finlam]

I wouldn't call myself evil or particularly chaotic. I consider myself LN.

Nor, in fact, have I had any particular tendency to kidnap children of monarchs, breathe fire upon all those who oppose me or grown scales :smalltongue:

But is that because of disposition or ability? =P

[Kalmageddon]

I wouldn't call myself evil or particularly chaotic. I consider myself LN.

Nor, in fact, have I had any particular tendency to kidnap children of monarchs, breathe fire upon all those who oppose me or grown scales :smalltongue:

But you do eat young virgin women! AH-HA! I GOT YOU NOW!

[Grinner]

Which may be because I already tested it as viable and I'm already living by my ideals?

I've met one person like that. She's broke, unemployed and living hand to mouth, and she's now in no position to help anyone. She's spent, used up. She's still a good friend, but she lives only by the grace of others.

You? I don't know you. Frankly, I sincerely doubt that you're being completely honest with us. But this is an Internet argument. I'll leave you now. If you've been honest with us, more power to you. If not, well, it wouldn't be the first someone's misrepresented themselves.

[Lither]

But is that because of disposition or ability? =P

I have been advised to make no comment on this matter.


But you do eat young virgin women! AH-HA! I GOT YOU NOW!

And I woulda gotten away with it if it weren't for you meddling kids!

[Kajhera]

Oh, I wasn't trying to imply you were a red dragon ... :smallwink:

[Chen]

As I said before, I'm not advocating being a selfless martyr that gives everything to others. I'm saying that saving a life is worth any sum of money.


Which may be because I already tested it as viable and I'm already living by my ideals?

If the first is a statement of your ideals, I find it hard to believe you are in fact living by them to the letter. You're using a computer and arguing on the internet when people are dying as we speak. You could spend the money you'd get (or that you almost inevitably have in your bank or on you now) to help save those people. Clearly there is some limit to when lives are worth money else you wouldn't be arguing with us, you'd have sold your computer, not paid for internet access and have used that money to save lives that are currently being lost.

[Kajhera]

If the first is a statement of your ideals, I find it hard to believe you are in fact living by them to the letter. You're using a computer and arguing on the internet when people are dying as we speak. You could spend the money you'd get (or that you almost inevitably have in your bank or on you now) to help save those people. Clearly there is some limit to when lives are worth money else you wouldn't be arguing with us, you'd have sold your computer, not paid for internet access and have used that money to save lives that are currently being lost.

Don't know about the rest of you, but I can't really earn money in the first place without a computer.

[banthesun]

Now here's a slightly different question - how much would you pay to bring another human being into existence? Is it more, less or the same as saving a stranger?

Okay, now this is a lot more interesting than it initially appears... :smallbiggrin:

My immediate respose is the same a few other people have mentioned, it's not a life that exists, I have no reason to give anything for it. But if I claim to value the potential a child's life holds I should value the potential of a life not yet defined by anything at least as highly. Perhaps I've just been justifying an innate desire to protect children here. I might return to something I'd skipped over earlier here:

What is a human if not an unusually intelligent animal? When you crush ants beneath your feet, do you think of what they could accomplish? Do you think how you would like to be crushed yourself? No. Most of the time you don't even notice their deaths. Same deal with spiders and other insects.
Honestly, I do find myself feeling bad for ants I kill. When I was younger, I actually spent a period doing whatever I could to avoid killing them (when I was even younger I'd kill them for fun, kids, eh :smallwink: ). The problem is they're so hard not to kill. I still feel bad about killing them sometimes, but I don't to anything to avoid it. Perhaps there's something to be read from that.

I didn't respond to that section earlier because, well, that's obviously not Lither's point, and I felt it might've been something of a troll-y response. But there's something else it made me think of. When it comes to spiders, I'm much more willing to kill baby spiders than fully grown ones. It feels a lot harsher to so thoughtlessly crush something that fought it's way through to adulthood than to crush something that just has the potential to.

I think there might be something to be drawn from that, but it's getting late here, and I strongly suggest I'm getting ramble-y, so I'll leave it at that for now (probably gonna read a few more posts before bed if this thread is still so fast, though). If someone reads though this and doesn't think I'm talking ****, let me know. I'm really not sure what conclusion to draw from all this, so I guess it's at least a good thought experiment. Thanks Succubus, I guess. :smalltongue:

[Kato]

Okay, because I know this discussion will not lead anywhere except some people feeling bad or angry I'll just toss in a little thought to those who more or less claim they would spend any amount of money and this is the only proper thing to do and anyone who doesn't is a horrible human being:

By that logic you/we should spend every cent we do not need to stay alive (and all our spare time) on charitable organizations because everything we spend on ourselves while there are people out there suffering and dying (and that people do) is selfishness. And I can say for sure the majority, the vast majority of people do not do that and are therefore bad. And I won't make any claim about how the people who make these statements here act in real life (but considering they spend time here arguing about it...)

No, it is not natural, nor is it - in my opinion, clearly - a justified expectation from any person to make these sacrifices. It might be a nice thought and maybe the world would be a nicer place if we did but by human nature it will never work and that's it. Obviously, if people want to do as much as they are willing to for the sake of strangers, go ahead, if it makes you feel better. I admire you. But considering there are a million times as many people out there you can not help... I quite frankly don't see the point. But that's kind of a different issue. Just don't tell people they are bad because they don't live up to some unreachable expectations.

[Kalmageddon]

It's not the same logic.
That's about it.

[Kajhera]

Even for the charitably inclined caring for yourself ought be a pretty important priority. To ensure you stay in a position to help others while you can, if nothing else.

[Chen]

By that logic you/we should spend every cent we do not need to stay alive (and all our spare time) on charitable organizations because everything we spend on ourselves while there are people out there suffering and dying (and that people do) is selfishness. And I can say for sure the majority, the vast majority of people do not do that and are therefore bad. And I won't make any claim about how the people who make these statements here act in real life (but considering they spend time here arguing about it...)

This is pretty much what I was getting at with my earlier post. The people who say they will spend any amount of money are either exaggerating or haven't really thought it through. Perhaps now that you've mentioned this they will put their money where their mouth is, sell their belongings and go do only charity work. I don't think its likely but its possible.

In no way do I feel a person is "bad" if they don't do this though. The question in the OP is an interesting one because it basically asks how much would you "inconvenience" (or even "harm") yourself to save the life of a random person. It's a very difficult line to determine I think. If I give up all my life savings to save a random person, how much extra harm have I now caused to my wife and kids (let alone myself). What about my extended family? If my dad has cancer and I give away money that could have been used to help him instead, is it more or less "right"? And what about possible future cases. If my dad doesn't have cancer but is very likely to get it (say long term smoker, worked in mines etc) is it more "right" to use my money on a stranger's life or should some if it be saved in case I need to help my dad?

A knee jerk answer to the OPs question seems woefully inadequate for a scenario that has such far reaching consequences.

[Kajhera]

This is pretty much what I was getting at with my earlier post. The people who say they will spend any amount of money are either exaggerating or haven't really thought it through. Perhaps now that you've mentioned this they will put their money where their mouth is, sell their belongings and go do only charity work. I don't think its likely but its possible.

In no way do I feel a person is "bad" if they don't do this though. The question in the OP is an interesting one because it basically asks how much would you "inconvenience" (or even "harm") yourself to save the life of a random person. It's a very difficult line to determine I think. If I give up all my life savings to save a random person, how much extra harm have I now caused to my wife and kids (let alone myself). What about my extended family? If my dad has cancer and I give away money that could have been used to help him instead, is it more or less "right"? And what about possible future cases. If my dad doesn't have cancer but is very likely to get it (say long term smoker, worked in mines etc) is it more "right" to use my money on a stranger's life or should some if it be saved in case I need to help my dad?

A knee jerk answer to the OPs question seems woefully inadequate for a scenario that has such far reaching consequences.

There is enough truth to this, and it is good to make an effort to think rationally about resource expenditure; but I've determined I actually do make donations wise and unwise as knee-jerk reactions, and honesty seemed preferable to rationality.

I try to make charitable decisions rationally! To balance out the ones I make emotionally if nothing else. One of these rational decisions is that I can make more of a difference at a better rate by earning a decent paycheck and spending money, vs doing volunteer work myself, and so I have invested in pursuing this capability (am in one of the 'spent a lot of money and now need to recoup it' phases of investment, but the degree should reap fair return). There's only a certain amount of work I have the fortitude to do, so it will be a better leveraging of my time and effort.

[Rosstin]

Not to be a tease, but I'm typing up the story that led to this question right now. This really happened to me in a non-hypothetical situation one time.

[Krazzman]

In Germany the system is: we work, pay taxes and from this taxes we generate a pool that is for the unemployed folk. I've encountered it multiple times that people get their apartment paid by the state and basically can afford something better than people that are actually working. Hard. As in 10 hours per day or manual labor/other hard stuff.

In my opinion my taxes are enough for this pool. I "help" that society stays fed at least a little. Everything else I accumulate to let other things not fall off the table... like the economy and such stuff. I often enough decline homeless people money... until I really know that it is a "good investment". Gave a guy that was really near tears as he asked us for money everything I could. Together with a friend of mine he could sleep in a charity organization from what we gave him for 2 days.

But as Succubus said it: I would need to factor in: Person, Cost and Opportunity.
Helping an unemployed friend via paying some of his drinks when he comes with us (hidden in given a round) or similar. All done but those days are over.

[druid91]

And if you value your life, or someone else's life, you should value the life of all people equally. They are all humans, all deserving to live just as much as you.
I'm surprised someone that supports equality of rights can make an argument like this. The most basic right that everyone should share is being allowed to live, being saved when his or her life is at risk. If you don't do that then you might as well throw all your pretty talk about gender equality and whatever else you support out of the window, since you still have to make step one in order to truly respect other people, which is respecting their life in and of itself. Their life which includes their gender, their race, their hopes, their dreams, everything that anyone can ever be IS their life.

You know, I've got the feeling many people here are answering the question from a completly detached, completly unrealistic point of view. As in, you are not thinking of giving your mony to save a person, you are thinking of answering a question about giving your money to save a thing that just so happens to be a person in this example. You are objectifying life.

But I'd like to think that every single one of you would do it without second thoughts if they actually found themselves in that situation irl.
Because otherwise, and I stand by this next statement 100%, you would be complete monsters to let someone die for whatever apathetic, detached and pragmatic reason your brain might find.
And I don't care how convoluted you get or how philosophical you get, I'm not backing away from this statement.

I realize this wasn't addressed to me, but I'd like to put something into context for you.

I suffer from a neurological disorder, one of the largest symptoms of which is a vastly decreased sense of empathy.

By simple point of fact, I'm almost incapable of looking at people as anything but complex automata. I see no difference between a computer and a human.

I can be fond of them, just as anyone can be fond of anything, be it a favorite tool or hat, or a favorite person. But in the end, I do objectify them, just as I objectify everything.

I have walked past a homeless man bleeding on the street without a second thought, Without even paying him any mind at all I noticed him sitting against the wall and proceeded to do... nothing, he just wasn't important. Then my father stopped, went in the store and bought the guy a blanket. To be honest, that time probably only stands out because my father did that, if he hadn't, I would not have recalled the man with the bandages wrapped around his head at all.

This disorder is considered a mild disorder that won't interfere with life very much.

A disorder that renders someone nigh on incapable of empathy, for even the closest people around them, is considered "Meh, sucks, but you'll be fine."

[Rosstin]

Haha, okay, I better post before we get a thread lock. ^_^;;;

Backstory:
Once, when I was a Peace Corps volunteer living in Guizhou, Guiyang, I went to visit Hong Kong. I close friend of mine from Indonesia was flying to Africa, and we created this crazy plan to have her layover in Hong Kong for a night so we could see eachother.

This was an extremely expensive venture, and the moment I started the trip I was beset with disasters. At one point my bank card stopped working and I was left with only the money in my pocket, about 7000rmb (or 1000 usd). One of the tricks I'd done to be able to afford this was to Couchsurf instead of stay at hotels, and my Couchsurfing host was a young Hungarian lady named V who lived in Guangzhou.


Event:
On the way back from seeing my friend in Hong Kong, V was kind enough to let me stay with her again so I could get ready for a long trip back to Guiyang the following morning. She was going to a huge party with all of her fellow volunteers. Now, if you haven't been overseas with a volunteer group, you might not be aware of what a huge problem alcoholism is. Volunteers get DRUNK, and these were no exception. There were about 20 of us at this rooftop party, and everyone got drunk to the point of true stupidity. For various reasons, I never drink, but I decided to stick close to my host to make sure I had a place to sleep that night.

At some point, a few of incredibly crazy volunteers calls a taxi and decides to go get some midnight McDonalds. V is worrying me a bit at this point, being manically jovial and crazy, really having way too good of a time. As we're walking around downtown Guangzhou, I'm watching V balance precariously on a concrete divider as she sings showtunes.

Then, suddenly, she slips, landing right on her head with a sickening crack. Suddenly, she's lying on the concrete, blood pooling out from her head. The other volunteers keep walking, and I'm shouting for them to come back and call an ambulance. "She's just playing around, she's fine," one of them says. My brother has seizures and has these kinds of falls all the time, so I've seen this before and I know it's not fine. I'm trying to think what I can do; she has a head injury and I don't want to move her, and I need an ambulance, but I don't want to leave her there. We're right outside a McDonalds. I start yelling for a doctor, an ambulance, shouting help, in Mandarin. I ask someone to bring me ice from inside the McDonalds. So I'm pressing this ice pack to the back of her head which has a huge gash in it, she's unconscious, and blood is getting all over me, and this huge crowd of Chinese people is in a circle around me just staring at me gaping while I'm trying to tell them to get me an ambulance.

At this point, the other volunteers have just fled. Disappeared. But very luckily, some of the Chinese teachers who V knows have stopped by, and they help me get the ambulance. The Chinese doctors strap her to a gurney and we ride to the hospital. At this point she is horrifyingly awake, totally oblivious to the situation and delirious, smiling and talking to me, or perhaps someone who isn't quite there.


Decision:
So now we're in this Chinese hospital, and she's sitting on the stretcher still bleeding and I'm telling the doctors she needs stitches on the back of her head to close the gash so she doesn't bleed to death. And of course, what do the doctors do, but ask me for a few thousand Renminbi (about 1000 usd) before they'll do anything.


What I Did:
I consider myself an extremely moral person. When someone is in trouble, I try to be the one who jumps in the lake, who uses my scarf as a bandage, or jumpstarts their car on the side of the road. I'm usually the first to react. Which is why this situation was such a shock to me. I'd like to say I immediately pulled out my wallet and handed them the cash, but that's not what I did. I pulled out my wallet and looked inside. I had just enough money to pay them what they were asking for, with almost nothing left over. I'd like to say I paid immediately, but I didn't. I tried to bargain with the doctors. I asked her Chinese teacher friends what to do. I called all the contacts on her cell phone. Meanwhile she's bleeding there, and I know that she's losing blood, at risk for a serious infection, probably has a concussion, and in desperate need of stitches, and every second I waste is a second no one can afford. No matter how corrupt the doctors seem to me, they're still the best shot she has. This is not a scam.

But I didn't pay out. I'd like to think I would have, but I was instead saved by the bell. One of the people I had called was a teacher who had a massive crush on V. I told him that the doctors were asking for about 1000 USD and he immediately yelled "Pay it! Pay it, you fools!" He was there, drunkenness and all, but with money, within 10 minutes. He paid the doctor, V got the stitches, and the Chinese teachers and I went back to V's apartment to stay overnight with her.

After a night of rest, V seemed somewhat recovered. She had been conscious through a lot of the disaster, although pretty delirious, but in the morning she remembered almost nothing of what had happened, and we had to tell her over and over again to make her remember what had happened. Her Chinese teacher friends came back that morning, and I made sure her volunteer friends knew her situation.

V and I are still friends and I check up on her once in a while. She told me she quit drinking as a result of that night.

I do wonder about that night. Why didn't I just give the doctors the money? I had a million reasons NOT to give up the money, but one extremely compelling reason TO give up the money. Especially after all the kindness I'd been shown by this group and especially V. I'd like to think that if this came up again, I would have just forked it over.

Paying a 1000 USD to save someone's life doesn't seem like a big deal when you have access to a bank account and an ATM, but when you're in a strange town and it's all the money you have in the world, it's a lot harder to give up.

[The Succubus]

That took some courage to tell that story. Thank you Aster. =)

[Grinner]

That's rough...What happened to your brother? Nevermind. Needed to reread the story.

[Evandar]

I think, if nothing else, a lot of people here have reconsidered what they can be doing for others, and why it's important not to turn a blind eye.

Thanks for the story though, Aster. I'm glad your friend was all right.

[Kalmageddon]

That story was depressing and sad, I'm sorry you had to go through it.

[banthesun]

That really is quite the story. Thanks for sharing.

[Kajhera]

That sounds like a scary situation, indeed. Glad she got the medical treatment she needed in the end.

[Brother Oni]

And what does "acceptance" means in this context?

In this context, 'acceptance' means understanding that people have such views and that they are entitled to them. Acceptance does not mean I share their belief - I accept that people can have an almost religious belief in little grey men, but that doesn't mean that I also believe in them.

Likewise, if people refuse to lift a finger to help a stranger unless there is some direct benefit for themselves, that is their right to do so. It doesn't mean I have to like it and I wouldn't want to associate with them, but I'm not going to tell them 'you're a bad person'.

@Aster Azul: You're not a bad person for taking a moment to think twice about giving over the money. I suspect it was the first time that you were in such a situation, so any sensible person would have second thoughts.

If you pause again the next time it happens though then that's when you should start thinking more about what kind of person you actually are compared to what you think you are or want to be.

[GolemsVoice]

By that logic you/we should spend every cent we do not need to stay alive (and all our spare time) on charitable organizations because everything we spend on ourselves while there are people out there suffering and dying (and that people do) is selfishness. And I can say for sure the majority, the vast majority of people do not do that and are therefore bad. And I won't make any claim about how the people who make these statements here act in real life (but considering they spend time here arguing about it...)

That's not the same thing, though.

First: the fact that you can't help everybody all the time (which nobody here expects even if it were possible) does not mean that you shouldn't help at all.

Second: the situation, as I saw it, was so that immediate donation/action would have saved a life, not prolonged charity, not giving money so that some organization might improve the general situation for some people (or might fail to do so), it's money that immediately saves somebody's life.

EDIT: Wow, what a story. In the end, I fear, no matter what kind of person we are, situations like these WILL bring us into conflict with ourselves, and, as you said, despite knowing better, we might choose to take care of ourselves. Food is the first thing, moral follows on, eh?

[SiuiS]

As others said, I find it fascinating that a person who is vehemently arguing for equality between genders would have such an attitude to life.

It's actually not that weird. Consider, treating everyone equally like filth is still equality. Although I don't advocate treating people bad; far from it!

I am saying I would treat everyone equally. They will always be judged with as much love and respect as I give myself, minimum. That is foundational to gender equality; in a situation with another person, I judge them as myself giving to myself, not as myself giving to a [gender].



I mean, hey, if the very life of another person is so meaningless, because you have no connection to it, then how can the quality of life of another person be of any importance?

Aye, this here doesn't apply to me. I am connected to all people.


I don't believe protracted apathy will get anyone anywhere, one only goes far by being extremely proactive - improving their position, crushing threats.

Why would knowing how bad the world is to live in be such a bad thing? Surely it in itself is a liberating knowledge.

Wouldn't everyone having a good life be the objectively best solution, though?


Well, seeing as you've just spent a great deal of time castigating the rest of us for our opinions, you're not exactly a great example of tolerance.

Exactly.


I will never be able to make perfect judgments and people will be hurt because of it. All I can do is accept that I made those decisions and learn from them.

Certainly. I think Egypt says it best. "Nothing beautiful is perfect."


"Lower yourself"? Helping others is elevating yourself.
But honestly, you read like a bad manga character with all the talks about "beraking opponents" and stuff like that. Please.
I can't take you seriously enough to argue your point.

While I completely agree, "you're silly so I don't have to actually care about you" is a logical fallacy, isn't it?



Depends on what you see as tolerance.

You are espousing that others should not have an opinion that differs from your own.


To aid another, you must first give something from yourself. It might be as simple as time, or it might be as difficult to replace as large sums of money or personal happiness.

Needlessly and falsely binary. The nature of actions and repercussions is that you can give minimally and both reap substantially. Living life like a debit system is in imaginative and deals solely in quantity when life is a thing of quality.


Both Lither and you, since I've seen you argue quite eloquently in the "Female players..." thread in Media Discussion.

Okay. And thank you, I was sure I spoke like a proverbial china shop bull over there...



But I mean in general, in a way. What would happen if we expand this attitude

Peace, tolerance, compassion, improved quality of life and willingness to listen and solve problems because the other person is worth your time?


(not neccessarily yours, SiuiS')?

Rats :smalltongue:


Now, in one thing I wouldn't agree with Kalmageddon. Letting yourself be exploited isn't neccessary. If you help, you have to be careful, which is sad in itself, but true. But that's what I would argue: being nice isn't equal to being stupid, and it does NOT mean being a walking purse that people just take money out whenever it suits them.

Honestly, I have no qualms with being a walking purse. My issue is that the people who would exploit that are not moral people. I find the action of denial, discussion, and offering to bypass money to be the superior ethical choice because it causes a sense of self reflection.



If this thread has said anything so far, it's "it takes all kinds". It really is interesting to see the range of views people have on this issue. Special thanks to SiuiS for fully explaining your views on this matter. I didn't quite understand this part though:Do you mean that it should be your right to decide whether or not to save someone?

If I am 'allowing' someone to live then that means I have the right to end their life and not exercise it.

Mostly it was to point out the dangers inherent in word choice, because I agree with the general thrust of the Sapir-Word hypothesis. Choice of words shapes thoughts. "Allowing someone to live" breeds entitlement to the fruits of that life even vicariously.



Now, I don't think that treating all life of equal value is a bad thing (doing otherwise could be seen as judging their future), but I'd like to give you a bit of a thought experiment on this one. If there were two people going to die, and you could only save one of them, would you save a murderer, or a mother? A child or an elder? A loved one or a stranger? If you find the question to harsh, think of it in terms of who would you save first. Either way, you're being asked to weigh two lives against each other.

It depends on a number of things which depend on a number of things. I would prioritize wife and daughter though.


I find money and power to be means to an end, seeing them as ends in themselves is ... puzzling. Though I know it is a viewpoint that exists, it does not seem entirely logical.

I know, right?

It's a condition of our society that people mistake the symbol for the meaning.


This is a slight detour but it may say something about me. If I see a homeless person begging for change, I will give them some money. Do I give them my credit card, Oyster and my coat? No - because these things would impact on the quality of my life to an extent I couldn't easily recover from. That's the trick with this question - it's *all or nothing*. Life rarely works with such extremes.

Oh...you want to know why? It's pretty simple. If I was in a similar position, up **** creek without a paddle or canoe, I'd like someone to give me a helping hand. Even if it was just a little one.

Exactly. It also puts lie to the idea that you must claw out chunks of yourself to help someone. Costs are always relative. Sometimes the loss you take is linear and the gains are quadratic.


. For some, it's less a matter of faith in humanity than faith in themselves, the whole "be the change you want to see in the world" thing.

Yo.


I try to be accepting, but the thing I find really terrifying with some of the opinions expressed here (a tiny minority that I am hopefully misinterpreting) is that the only reason to save a life, even that of a loved one, would be because I expect to get ahead in the world somehow.


It's always unsettling to find that perfectly reasonable and ordinary people meet your definition of evil, isn't it?


It's not how much I'm willing to pay. It's how much I'm going to end up paying, which, as I recall, averages about $200,000.

Gosh, I hope that's spread out across the full 18 years. There's no way my salary could cover that...


But you do eat young virgin women! AH-HA! I GOT YOU NOW!

You're cruel and I suppose I deserve this.


If the first is a statement of your ideals, I find it hard to believe you are in fact living by them to the letter. You're using a computer and arguing on the internet when people are dying as we speak. You could spend the money you'd get (or that you almost inevitably have in your bank or on you now) to help save those people. Clearly there is some limit to when lives are worth money else you wouldn't be arguing with us, you'd have sold your computer, not paid for internet access and have used that money to save lives that are currently being lost.

But he said worth a life! He already saved it. Now he can keep his gains.


I realize this wasn't addressed to me, but I'd like to put something into context for you.

I suffer from a neurological disorder, one of the largest symptoms of which is a vastly decreased sense of empathy.

By simple point of fact, I'm almost incapable of looking at people as anything but complex automata. I see no difference between a computer and a human.

I can be fond of them, just as anyone can be fond of anything, be it a favorite tool or hat, or a favorite person. But in the end, I do objectify them, just as I objectify everything.

I have walked past a homeless man bleeding on the street without a second thought, Without even paying him any mind at all I noticed him sitting against the wall and proceeded to do... nothing, he just wasn't important. Then my father stopped, went in the store and bought the guy a blanket. To be honest, that time probably only stands out because my father did that, if he hadn't, I would not have recalled the man with the bandages wrapped around his head at all.

This disorder is considered a mild disorder that won't interfere with life very much.

A disorder that renders someone nigh on incapable of empathy, for even the closest people around them, is considered "Meh, sucks, but you'll be fine."

Interesting.

That assessment might be due to the tendency to downplay purely mental illnesses though. They are prevailing considered less severe than physical manifestations of illness. Part of why depression is dismissed so readily.

[GolemsVoice]

I am saying I would treat everyone equally. They will always be judged with as much love and respect as I give myself, minimum. That is foundational to gender equality; in a situation with another person, I judge them as myself giving to myself, not as myself giving to a [gender].

But at the same time you'd withhold them money because you need it for yourself. So you respect your life very much, which is quite natural, while you value their life not at all, because you don't really care if they live or die.

I also consider letting somebody die who you could have saved as "treating them badly" :smallbiggrin:


Aye, this here doesn't apply to me. I am connected to all people.

Not connected enough to save them from death, but connected enough to worry about what the depiction of female in video games might imply for our society? :smalltongue:


Peace, tolerance, compassion, improved quality of life and willingness to listen and solve problems because the other person is worth your time?

And that's why I specifically excluded you :-) What I take issue with is valuing interaction with another perosn based on purely economic concerns. Well, that is "worth your time", too, come to think about it, but a very different form of worth.

EDIT: please correct me if I'm misrepresenting you!

[Mono Vertigo]

If I was absolutely sure money would help saving a person's life, and that their life was indeed threatened, I think I'd throw, say, half what I have right now.
Problem is, in real life conditions, you can't be sure where the money is going. (Citation: a bunch of horrible natural disasters in recent years.)
Therefore, let's add "in real-life conditions" to the question. Would I still do it?
I like to think I'd do it. But, realistically, it's likely I wouldn't pay, because, as a human being, I'm not really better than the average person.

Now here's a slightly different question - how much would you pay to bring another human being into existence? Is it more, less or the same as saving a stranger?
Some find this question more complicated, whereas I find it quite easier! Funny, heh?
I'd pay nothing. Bringing a whole new person, someone who will grow up with their own mind and responsibilities, into the world, happens often enough without help, and I consider it's an act that is a lot more serious than most people think it is.
(There is a reason I don't want to have kids. Hopefully the folks who replied to the original question taking in account the possibility the stranger was a bad person will understand.)
Paying to ensure that human being gets a decent life (and not just to bring them into existence), though, supposing it was implied by your question? A whole other matter. I'll point at the original question for an answer.

[SiuiS]

E: on reading this, I begin to see why some folks insist I make no sense. I just cannot give you the context for a thing without changing directions entirely. I am my own quantum collapser. By speaking a thought I change it's direction away from what is needed.


But at the same time you'd withhold them money because you need it for yourself. So you respect your life very much, which is quite natural, while you value their life not at all, because you don't really care if they live or die.

How so? I'm not withholding money, I'm giving them a lesson in self worth, not enabling their potential bad habits, giving them direct material goods which money would be used on/providing direct service, allowing reflection and intelligent discussion by which to grow, and giving them a philosophical sounding board and catechist.

Money is earned. Success is earned. Livelihoods are earned. I am allowing them to build worth by earning these things and giving them the necessary support to continue striving while not handicapping them by removing their motivation. The money I have is earned by me. The money I have is not earned by them, just like nothing they have earned is also earned by me. The act of effort brought forth into the world to lay rightful claim to a thing has value. I'm just ensuring the system is fair.

Some of the best moments in my life have been when I was denied. An achievement without effort is cheapened. Have you read The Configuration of the Northern Shore? A dream achieved falsely rings hollow, of cracked gold.



I also consider letting somebody die who you could have saved as "treating them badly" :smallbiggrin:

See, I don't. That's an incomplete equation. Life on its own is metabolic continuance. Saving the life of someone who won't do anything with it is just mental masturbation. I feel similarly about leaving braindead people on life support or extending the lives of the elderly past dignity. I'll honor your wishes about yourself but have my own ideas about what is worthwhile.



Not connected enough to save them from death, but connected enough to worry about what the depiction of female in video games might imply for our society? :smalltongue:

Save them from death? What is so bad about death that it is not preferable to suffering, to waste and pain which does not catalyze? If life is to grow and the next forty years would be a drugged haze, slipping between unconsciousness and pain, slowly losing the ability to meaningfully interface with ther humans, what fear does death hold? Your life has already ended.

But a life in progress? Ending that, that is a crime. A story at its end doesn't need a continuance. A story mid-stride shouldn't be shouted down until the author slips on her burka and scurries back to the kitchen instead of writing out bold adventures as she was wont.



And that's why I specifically excluded you :-) What I take issue with is valuing interaction with another perosn based on purely economic concerns. Well, that is "worth your time", too, come to think about it, but a very different form of worth.

Aye. It's a quality thing. It doesn't matter if it is, at the base, true. The fallout and reactions on the human scale are entirely different based on presentation. An example is a game I play, the newest world of darkness iteration. The experience system uses "beats" which are 1/5th an experience point you earn five, accumulate XP, and then buy upgrades.one of the complaints from fans when this first came out was about how arbitrary that was, and that why didn't they just all them experience points and multiply all costs by five?

The answer was that the feel of the game, and player expectations and satisfaction, were completely different between people who had to earn five experience points for a merit, and people who had to earn five beats – one experience point – for a merit. Even though when abstracted they are the exact same thing.

The purpose of a baseline isn't to establish how little effort you can putout and be okay, it is to establish where to start. If you must always give, it is an obligation and there is no kindness, compassion or love in the gesture. But knowing that all you are responsible for is not being mean as you watch another human being die is what makes your gestures valuable. It is the paradox of the human soul that being moral requires constant kindness, but constancy renders kindness amoral. It doesn't matter if it is an economic abstraction; general human kindness has intrinsic value even where a life alone might not, even though that life consists of potential to give and generate human kindness.


It's also of note that due to forum restrictions, my answers are tempered down to logic exercises. There is, as there always must be, an emotional component. The purpose of a reasoned mind is to seethe limits and boundaries of a thing, and choose. There have been times where I have known an action was morally wrong, and weighed the action against my motives, and did it anyway. The action was the correct one for me to take at the time*, and that doesn't mean it was morally right, simply that I had accepted the consequences of my immoral actions before hand.

So, too, can I look at what is proper, what is the rule, what is efficient, and do something else because it pleases me to do so, or because it would displease me to fail to do so. Just because I "only" value someone as much as myself does not mean I cannot act as though they were more important than I. It simply establishes the value of the aituation when I do so.


I am rambling. It is after my bed time; I assume those are coherent thoughts and make sense with the conversation, but it is hard to be sure. Especially because sophonts are not computers; they are full of moral inconsistencies and catches and generally do not compile.

[zlefin]

maybe, it depends on situation.
Reading original post, i'm not too sure I'd pay those doctors.
I've heard repeatedly that scalp wounds tend to bleed like crazy, but not necessarily to a lethal degree. I'm not sure how hard it is to judge the amount of actual bleeding that's occurring, and whether there's truly a threat or if it just looks scary.

A doctor that's demanding money to save a person's life is not a doctor I'd trust. Would the doctor really let a person brought to them by ambulance die? That seems like it'd go rather badly for the doctor to let such a thing happen.

[Killer Angel]

That's an incredibly awful attitude.
So you see someone dying on the sidewalk and you walk away because he isn't worth the time or money to assist him or call an ambulance? How the hell do you even get so desensitized and cynical? :smallannoyed:

If you live in a big city (millions of people), you'll find plenty of desperate people and homeless that ask for money or lie unconscious in the subway. After a while, you grow desensitized and cynical: it's a sort of self-defense.

[Rosstin]

maybe, it depends on situation.
Reading original post, i'm not too sure I'd pay those doctors.
I've heard repeatedly that scalp wounds tend to bleed like crazy, but not necessarily to a lethal degree. I'm not sure how hard it is to judge the amount of actual bleeding that's occurring, and whether there's truly a threat or if it just looks scary.

A doctor that's demanding money to save a person's life is not a doctor I'd trust. Would the doctor really let a person brought to them by ambulance die? That seems like it'd go rather badly for the doctor to let such a thing happen.

All of these were things that went through my head. But the simple fact is that if I paid them all the money in my wallet, they would stitch the wound. If I didn't, they wouldn't. At least, not right away.

Don't get me wrong, I mean, I was cautious, and she turned out okay. I would say that the worst thing that happened as the result of me not immediately forking over my money was maybe slightly worse scarring than she would have gotten, as she was treated maybe 20-30 minutes later than she could have been.

I'm not prescribing actions for others, but if I could go back, I wouldn't have hesitated.

[GolemsVoice]

See, I don't. That's an incomplete equation. Life on its own is metabolic continuance. Saving the life of someone who won't do anything with it is just mental masturbation. I feel similarly about leaving braindead people on life support or extending the lives of the elderly past dignity. I'll honor your wishes about yourself but have my own ideas about what is worthwhile.

Eh, I'd generally assume that the person you're saving is not a lifelong coma patient or a terminal drug addict. These people exist, sure, and I would debate whether it's "worth" saving somebody who'll is already "on the way out", so to say. In such cases, I'd even agree with you, I think. But most people aren't such people, and the lady in the story certainly wasn't.

You're assuming that we're talking about somebody who'll die anyway, soon, but I think most people do not assume such a person in this scenario.


EDIT:
A doctor that's demanding money to save a person's life is not a doctor I'd trust. Would the doctor really let a person brought to them by ambulance die? That seems like it'd go rather badly for the doctor to let such a thing happen.

Sadly, that's unchecked or just accepted corruption for you. The doctor in this situation likely knew the position ofn power he was in and used it to extort some money.

[Killer Angel]

A doctor that's demanding money to save a person's life is not a doctor I'd trust.

I won't go into politics, but in certain countries, health insurance could be the main factor to see if you can have certain therapies. No money, no cures.

[Bulldog Psion]

Considering that I was saved by someone who was almost a stranger once during my travels, when I was dying of dehydration, I'd have to say that I have one more reason to try to do the same.

With that said, there would be a necessary limit on how much I'd do. Specifically, I'm unfortunately not of heroic mold, so my charity would end at the point where I figured it was putting me at serious risk in some way.

For example, if my visa was expiring, I had $1,000, and I absolutely needed $500 to get back home, I would be willing to use $500 to help someone. But I wouldn't be willing to be locked up in some ghastly foreign prison for overstaying my visa, in order to help said stranger.

If I was going to be stranded in a strange country by my charity, I would be unlikely to do it.

Still, if my money was coming up short, I'd do my best to get more wired to me.

In other words, I'd do a lot to help a random stranger who clearly needed help, but I wouldn't fall on my sword for them, either. Which is unfortunate, and makes me think a bit less of myself, but is also my honest assessment of how I'd react.

[Togath]

Okay, now this is a lot more interesting than it initially appears... :smallbiggrin:

My immediate respose is the same a few other people have mentioned, it's not a life that exists, I have no reason to give anything for it. But if I claim to value the potential a child's life holds I should value the potential of a life not yet defined by anything at least as highly. Perhaps I've just been justifying an innate desire to protect children here. I might return to something I'd skipped over earlier here:

Honestly, I do find myself feeling bad for ants I kill. When I was younger, I actually spent a period doing whatever I could to avoid killing them (when I was even younger I'd kill them for fun, kids, eh :smallwink: ). The problem is they're so hard not to kill. I still feel bad about killing them sometimes, but I don't to anything to avoid it. Perhaps there's something to be read from that.

I didn't respond to that section earlier because, well, that's obviously not Lither's point, and I felt it might've been something of a troll-y response. But there's something else it made me think of. When it comes to spiders, I'm much more willing to kill baby spiders than fully grown ones. It feels a lot harsher to so thoughtlessly crush something that fought it's way through to adulthood than to crush something that just has the potential to.

I think there might be something to be drawn from that, but it's getting late here, and I strongly suggest I'm getting ramble-y, so I'll leave it at that for now (probably gonna read a few more posts before bed if this thread is still so fast, though). If someone reads though this and doesn't think I'm talking ****, let me know. I'm really not sure what conclusion to draw from all this, so I guess it's at least a good thought experiment. Thanks Succubus, I guess. :smalltongue:

I honestly feel much the same about those two subjects:smallsmile:(even the spiders thing, it just seems sort of wrong to squish something that's fought so hard on it's way to this point)

[Togath]

Haha, okay, I better post before we get a thread lock. ^_^;;;

Backstory:
Once, when I was a Peace Corps volunteer living in Guizhou, Guiyang, I went to visit Hong Kong. I close friend of mine from Indonesia was flying to Africa, and we created this crazy plan to have her layover in Hong Kong for a night so we could see eachother.

This was an extremely expensive venture, and the moment I started the trip I was beset with disasters. At one point my bank card stopped working and I was left with only the money in my pocket, about 7000rmb (or 1000 usd). One of the tricks I'd done to be able to afford this was to Couchsurf instead of stay at hotels, and my Couchsurfing host was a young Hungarian lady named V who lived in Guangzhou.


Event:
On the way back from seeing my friend in Hong Kong, V was kind enough to let me stay with her again so I could get ready for a long trip back to Guiyang the following morning. She was going to a huge party with all of her fellow volunteers. Now, if you haven't been overseas with a volunteer group, you might not be aware of what a huge problem alcoholism is. Volunteers get DRUNK, and these were no exception. There were about 20 of us at this rooftop party, and everyone got drunk to the point of true stupidity. For various reasons, I never drink, but I decided to stick close to my host to make sure I had a place to sleep that night.

At some point, a few of incredibly crazy volunteers calls a taxi and decides to go get some midnight McDonalds. V is worrying me a bit at this point, being manically jovial and crazy, really having way too good of a time. As we're walking around downtown Guangzhou, I'm watching V balance precariously on a concrete divider as she sings showtunes.

Then, suddenly, she slips, landing right on her head with a sickening crack. Suddenly, she's lying on the concrete, blood pooling out from her head. The other volunteers keep walking, and I'm shouting for them to come back and call an ambulance. "She's just playing around, she's fine," one of them says. My brother has seizures and has these kinds of falls all the time, so I've seen this before and I know it's not fine. I'm trying to think what I can do; she has a head injury and I don't want to move her, and I need an ambulance, but I don't want to leave her there. We're right outside a McDonalds. I start yelling for a doctor, an ambulance, shouting help, in Mandarin. I ask someone to bring me ice from inside the McDonalds. So I'm pressing this ice pack to the back of her head which has a huge gash in it, she's unconscious, and blood is getting all over me, and this huge crowd of Chinese people is in a circle around me just staring at me gaping while I'm trying to tell them to get me an ambulance.

At this point, the other volunteers have just fled. Disappeared. But very luckily, some of the Chinese teachers who V knows have stopped by, and they help me get the ambulance. The Chinese doctors strap her to a gurney and we ride to the hospital. At this point she is horrifyingly awake, totally oblivious to the situation and delirious, smiling and talking to me, or perhaps someone who isn't quite there.


Decision:
So now we're in this Chinese hospital, and she's sitting on the stretcher still bleeding and I'm telling the doctors she needs stitches on the back of her head to close the gash so she doesn't bleed to death. And of course, what do the doctors do, but ask me for a few thousand Renminbi (about 1000 usd) before they'll do anything.


What I Did:
I consider myself an extremely moral person. When someone is in trouble, I try to be the one who jumps in the lake, who uses my scarf as a bandage, or jumpstarts their car on the side of the road. I'm usually the first to react. Which is why this situation was such a shock to me. I'd like to say I immediately pulled out my wallet and handed them the cash, but that's not what I did. I pulled out my wallet and looked inside. I had just enough money to pay them what they were asking for, with almost nothing left over. I'd like to say I paid immediately, but I didn't. I tried to bargain with the doctors. I asked her Chinese teacher friends what to do. I called all the contacts on her cell phone. Meanwhile she's bleeding there, and I know that she's losing blood, at risk for a serious infection, probably has a concussion, and in desperate need of stitches, and every second I waste is a second no one can afford. No matter how corrupt the doctors seem to me, they're still the best shot she has. This is not a scam.

But I didn't pay out. I'd like to think I would have, but I was instead saved by the bell. One of the people I had called was a teacher who had a massive crush on V. I told him that the doctors were asking for about 1000 USD and he immediately yelled "Pay it! Pay it, you fools!" He was there, drunkenness and all, but with money, within 10 minutes. He paid the doctor, V got the stitches, and the Chinese teachers and I went back to V's apartment to stay overnight with her.

After a night of rest, V seemed somewhat recovered. She had been conscious through a lot of the disaster, although pretty delirious, but in the morning she remembered almost nothing of what had happened, and we had to tell her over and over again to make her remember what had happened. Her Chinese teacher friends came back that morning, and I made sure her volunteer friends knew her situation.

V and I are still friends and I check up on her once in a while. She told me she quit drinking as a result of that night.

I do wonder about that night. Why didn't I just give the doctors the money? I had a million reasons NOT to give up the money, but one extremely compelling reason TO give up the money. Especially after all the kindness I'd been shown by this group and especially V. I'd like to think that if this came up again, I would have just forked it over.

Paying a 1000 USD to save someone's life doesn't seem like a big deal when you have access to a bank account and an ATM, but when you're in a strange town and it's all the money you have in the world, it's a lot harder to give up.


She was a friend, it was the right thing to do:smallsmile:
And the doctors were indeed corrupt.

[Tyndmyr]

I've got a true story behind this that I'll share after a few people have given their 2 copper.


Probably fairly little. I'm aware that in practice, various charities are very effective in saving lives of people I have never met and will never meet. However, I give relatively little to them, and tend to give more to more local charities. The local children's hospital, alzheimer research, etc.

Evidently, I care more about people who are less of strangers to me.

[Starwulf]

But I'd like to think that every single one of you would do it without second thoughts if they actually found themselves in that situation irl.
Because otherwise, and I stand by this next statement 100%, you would be complete monsters to let someone die for whatever apathetic, detached and pragmatic reason your brain might find.
And I don't care how convoluted you get or how philosophical you get, I'm not backing away from this statement.

If saving another persons life resulted in the death of my family, I would not do it. That makes me a monster?

[factotum]

All of these were things that went through my head. But the simple fact is that if I paid them all the money in my wallet, they would stitch the wound. If I didn't, they wouldn't. At least, not right away.

Thing is, you made a good effort to help by ringing around all her friends in the hope of finding someone with more money than you, and that worked out. Where you would have to be asking yourself questions is if none of her friends had been able to help, so you were back at square one with only the money in your wallet between her and imminent demise--would you have stumped up the cash then?

This is why the issue is never as black and white as the bare question in the original post, or as some people in the discussion want to make it. You helped, the person survived, all is good. The fact you spent only your time rather than money to do it doesn't make the achievement somehow worse, or the person you saved any less alive.

[Eonas]

If saving another persons life resulted in the death of my family, I would not do it. That makes me a monster?

I see what you mean, but I'm pretty sure Kalmageddon meant if you're not dealing with more lives being at stake. Whenever you're balancing lives against lives, that's a philosophical grey area. However, whenever you're balancing human lives against goods, well, I can't see how that's even an issue. The one is, like Kalmageddon said, the most precious thing in the world; the other is just stuff.

[SiuiS]

maybe, it depends on situation.
Reading original post, i'm not too sure I'd pay those doctors.
I've heard repeatedly that scalp wounds tend to bleed like crazy, but not necessarily to a lethal degree. I'm not sure how hard it is to judge the amount of actual bleeding that's occurring, and whether there's truly a threat or if it just looks scary.

A doctor that's demanding money to save a person's life is not a doctor I'd trust. Would the doctor really let a person brought to them by ambulance die? That seems like it'd go rather badly for the doctor to let such a thing happen.

Cracked skulls are serious business, and open head wounds on dirty streets likewise.

Also, what country are you from? Here in the US I am accustomed to basically free life saving medical procedures. If I went to China, the Philippines, India, Russia, or somewhere I'm not native, don't know the people and culture, etc., I wouldn't make that assumption.


Eh, I'd generally assume that the person you're saving is not a lifelong coma patient or a terminal drug addict. These people exist, sure, and I would debate whether it's "worth" saving somebody who'll is already "on the way out", so to say. In such cases, I'd even agree with you, I think. But most people aren't such people, and the lady in the story certainly wasn't.

Ah, but the statement I made was bereft of context. This isn't about saving any one person. This is about the background assumptions that saving any one person will be built off of. I do not hold life as the single highest thing. Will I save any one person in front of me? Probably. But that's not an expression of my valuing of life.


You're assuming that we're talking about somebody who'll die anyway, soon, but I think most people do not assume such a person in this scenario.


Oh, no. I'm assuming we aren't talking about anyone at all. I'm not talking about how much the dollar bill in my hip pocket means to me, I'm discussing my understanding of the concept if fiat currency and how the dollar bill in abstract fits into that.

All life has equal value. This base value L, is modified by a number of factors. Most people who value animal and human life equally don't eat animals and don't want them killed, right? They. value animals highly. Instead of that, I value people only as much as animals (I do value animals highly but the details get [redacted] fast). This came up in an ethics class once! People were curious about a lion which attacked and killed a man. They felt other humans should go kill that lion because now he's a man eater and it's their moral imperative to defend the honor of their species.

I thought that human shouldn't have screwed with that lion unless he was sure he could win. Going into the savannah to find a lion and get attacked by it? Kinda your fault, mister hominid. I don't care if you had a wife or children; the lion basically did too.


I honestly feel much the same about those two subjects:smallsmile:(even the spiders thing, it just seems sort of wrong to squish something that's fought so hard on it's way to this point)

Oh yeah. I catch bugs and release them all the time. I've got a kill on sight list, that consists of Flies, Black Widows, Mosquitoes, and Ants. But only because releasing them cannot solve the problem and I'm going to skip escalation and go to "solve the problem" immediately.

At my place of work, Moths also exist on this list. Because screw moths.


Thing is, you made a good effort to help by ringing around all her friends in the hope of finding someone with more money than you, and that worked out.

Exactly! I won't give someone much money but I'll certainly take actions above that amount of money to help.

Money is basically time-frozen success. When you pick up a box, you get a box where you want it. When you grow a flower, that flower is grown. When you make someone laugh, the laugh happens. When you work to support yourself, you don't get automatically supported; you get coupons that allow you to cash them in for support.

Paying for something is retroactively undoing past deeds by redesigning the action to not result in success. An hour of my time is worth about twenty dollars. I won't give twenty dollars to someone but I will devote multiple hours of my time.

Money is simply symbolic of achievement. Money stands in for action. It strikes me as weird that folks are so focused on 'will not gve fiat currency slips' and miss entirely 'will devote life or portion to cause'.

I won't give a man a fish (to use the parable) but I will let him sit at my table – or set his table – when I've caught stuff, and also grant company and a roof and bed. Hopefully, he'll also be open to learning how to fish from me. Or at least teaching someone else.

[GolemsVoice]

But a life in progress? Ending that, that is a crime. A story at its end doesn't need a continuance. A story mid-stride shouldn't be shouted down until the author slips on her burka and scurries back to the kitchen instead of writing out bold adventures as she was wont.

I quoted an earlier post of yours, because I feel exactly the same way. I don't know if I misunderstood you, but you DID talk about not wanting to safe coma patients or drug addicts, so you made it specific. Maybe your message got mixed up, because if you're saying that you wouldn't save any life at any cost, but under normal circumstances you very likely would, I'd agree with you. That's how I interpret the quote below anyway:


Will I save any one person in front of me? Probably. But that's not an expression of my valuing of life.


About money and that it's earned, yes, that's true. You've earned it, obviously, and that means it's yours to spend it. It's just sometimes hard to leave it at that, like in the stopry that was posted. The girl certainly HAD money, but couldn't access it at the moment, so all she had earned herself was meaningless.
In all other cases where money does not immediately save lives, I totally agree with you. Help people to help themselves is the best thing you can do for them. That means being nice, but also bein firm, sometimes.


As for the story with the lion, yeah, tough luck. The death is a tragedy, no doubt, but if you got attacked by a lion, you went somewhere where you could get attacked by lions, and did something for the lion to attack you. Lions are predators and can be deadly, and describing any kind of moral background to the lion's action is nonsense.

[Starwulf]

I see what you mean, but I'm pretty sure Kalmageddon meant if you're not dealing with more lives being at stake. Whenever you're balancing lives against lives, that's a philosophical grey area. However, whenever you're balancing human lives against goods, well, I can't see how that's even an issue. The one is, like Kalmageddon said, the most precious thing in the world; the other is just stuff.

I don't know. His post clearly said there is no reason that we(as in, any of us) could think of that would not make us monsters. And honestly, even if it just put my family into a financial hardship(not like we aren't already there, but I digress), I would not save the strangers life. If it had ANY significant(stress on significant) negative impact on my family, I would not bother. My family is more important to me then any stranger.

[SiuiS]

I quoted an earlier post of yours, because I feel exactly the same way. I don't know if I misunderstood you, but you DID talk about not wanting to safe coma patients or drug addicts, so you made it specific. Maybe your message got mixed up, because if you're saying that you wouldn't save any life at any cost, but under normal circumstances you very likely would, I'd agree with you. That's how I interpret the quote below anyway:


That's the thing. There are circumstances I can think of that would make me honestly consider or attempt to end someone's life. I have no problem with warfare, for one, but more specifically there are circumstances where I know that I would be doing something terrible and wrong, and do it anyway. I just won't try to weasel out of punishment afterwards. That's what justification is for; people do something bad and don't want to get punished for it because they feel it was the best thing to so.

Do what thou wilt, but accept the consequences. That's what being responsible means.



About money and that it's earned, yes, that's true. You've earned it, obviously, and that means it's yours to spend it. It's just sometimes hard to leave it at that, like in the stopry that was posted. The girl certainly HAD money, but couldn't access it at the moment, so all she had earned herself was meaningless.
In all other cases where money does not immediately save lives, I totally agree with you. Help people to help themselves is the best thing you can do for them. That means being nice, but also bein firm, sometimes.


I agree.


As for the story with the lion, yeah, tough luck. The death is a tragedy, no doubt, but if you got attacked by a lion, you went somewhere where you could get attacked by lions, and did something for the lion to attack you. Lions are predators and can be deadly, and describing any kind of moral background to the lion's action is nonsense.

People who are conditioned to value human life above animal life tend to believe that the lion wasn't in the wrong, but is less valuable and the potential for future attacks overrides circumstances.

Also, that sort of "predators gonna predate" attitude is easily commandeered to justify crimes against your fellows, usually rape and hazing. So it's a far more nuanced issue than we can possibly gve credit for. :(


I don't know. His post clearly said there is no reason that we(as in, any of us) could think of that would not make us monsters. And honestly, even if it just put my family into a financial hardship(not like we aren't already there, but I digress), I would not save the strangers life. If it had ANY significant(stress on significant) negative impact on my family, I would not bother. My family is more important to me then any stranger.

The human response is to say "if I am a monster, then I am a monster. I can sleep at night." Really.

Granted, I don't think I'm human, so best not to take advice on it from a fairy pretending to be one of you ^^"

[Starwulf]

The human response is to say "if I am a monster, then I am a monster. I can sleep at night." Really.

Granted, I don't think I'm human, so best not to take advice on it from a fairy pretending to be one of you ^^"

Heh, I don't consider myself a monster though. I'd happily help someone that was dying if my efforts would insure that they would survive, under all circumstances, except ones that(as I previously said) would significantly negatively impact my family.

I'm merely trying to argue the point that a person isn't a monster if they refuse to help a dying person if it puts their families welfare at risk. I'd even go so far as to say that if you would sacrifice your families well-being for a stranger, that THAT is what makes you a monster.

[dehro]

Thanks to the world's glorious leaders' shrewd financial and political insights over the last decades (a.k.a. the credit crunch), I've been in a financial situation now for a few years where I literally get by from one paycheck to the next, with negligible savings.
For instance, I am waiting for a few invoices to be paid to me whereas I just made my own due payments, resulting in me having exactly 2 euro on the bank (no debts though, and I have not put a dime on my credit card yet and, as I said, money is a-coming any day now)
Saying that I would give all of my money to save a life, not even after that money I'm waiting for checked into my account, would not be a major sacrifice..because I have learned to go without and to get by with very little. Also, I know money is going to come in again, eventually, and I have the means (a roof over my head etc etc) to survive until then. I also have family (my parents) who would assist me if I really did give away my money to save a life and if this left me stranded somewhere remote and without means of survival.
In this day and age I would be hard pressed to find a place in the world where a money transfer could not be arranged for what little money I would need to survive. Yes, of course such places exist, but I find that in those places money is not going to save anybody's life anyway.
I am pretty resourceful when it comes to traveling in foreign countries or adapt to not having a place to stay or food to eat... and as I said, there is always a safety net of family and/or friends I can turn to, in an extreme emergency.
I like to think that if I had indeed solved a serious crisis situation by giving away selflessly, they would appreciate that and lend me money (calling me an idiot all the way to the bank).. money that I would then return to them at a later time.
In a hypotetical scenario in which I really am alone in the world and with no resources at all beyond what I can get for the money in my pocket, I would probably go through very similar thought processes as the OP, but I think that ultimately, if no other option appeared, I would cough up the money.
After all, emergencies do pass and situations return to normal, after a while.
I can always ask for it back at a later time and, as I said, if it saves a life, I'm ready to sleep in the rough and skip a few meals here and there.
Truth be told however, I've never found myself in the situation, so that's the best approximation to my likely reaction I can give... and I do think that the OP would have replied similarly, before it happened... so... who knows, truly? Come the moment I might find myself lacking the strength to do the right thing, but I really don't know.

One lesson that I learned the semi-hard way (by working in the field) is to never travel anywhere for extended periods of time without an adeguate insurance coverage and never walk around without proper ID and documentation of said insurance.
This story strongly reinforces that lesson.

[Lither]

The human response is to say "if I am a monster, then I am a monster. I can sleep at night." Really.

Granted, I don't think I'm human, so best not to take advice on it from a fairy pretending to be one of you ^^"

Better to be a monster than a human. Humans are capable of - and have committed - the lowest acts imaginable, a monster simply acts upon its nature. The term "inhuman" is in itself a misnomer - everything "inhuman" is a very human thing to do.

[TaiLiu]

Better to be a human than a monster.
Shouldn't it be the other way around, in this instance?

[Lither]

Shouldn't it be the other way around, in this instance?

My apologies. Heat wave over here has left me without sleep since yesterday.

[TaiLiu]

My apologies. Heat wave over here has left me without sleep since yesterday.
Ah, my empathies.

Anyway: while humans have committed the lowest acts imaginable, they've also committed the highest acts. That's why people on both ends of the spectrum are considered extraordinary.

[SiuiS]

Heh, I don't consider myself a monster though. I'd happily help someone that was dying if my efforts would insure that they would survive, under all circumstances, except ones that(as I previously said) would significantly negatively impact my family.

I'm merely trying to argue the point that a person isn't a monster if they refuse to help a dying person if it puts their families welfare at risk. I'd even go so far as to say that if you would sacrifice your families well-being for a stranger, that THAT is what makes you a monster.

Yeah, I was being weird and philosophical. I fully agree that trading a known value for an unknown non-value is silly.


Better to be a monster than a human. Humans are capable of - and have committed - the lowest acts imaginable, a monster simply acts upon its nature. The term "inhuman" is in itself a misnomer - everything "inhuman" is a very human thing to do.

Pfff. 'I would rather not be responsible for the consequences of my actions'? Really? If you're uncomfortable with consequences don't generate them! It's a very clear prerogative.

Human doesn't mean simply Homo Sapiens Sapiens. Inhuman actions are actions no human should ever do or allow. Humanity is not a condition, but an aspiration. Giving up on it because it's difficult is silly. What happened to that whole 'be proactive' thing? You're arguing that you should contribute to he problem since you can't fix it. Since humans are potentially capable of terrible deeds, you may as well shift your rubric to justify terrible deeds. It's circular and self fulfilling. You can be more.

Mein Celeste, I'm Thanqol.

[The Succubus]

My take on it?

A human is a monster with a conscience.

[Evandar]

Pfff. 'I would rather not be responsible for the consequences of my actions'? Really? If you're uncomfortable with consequences don't generate them! It's a very clear prerogative.

Human doesn't mean simply Homo Sapiens Sapiens. Inhuman actions are actions no human should ever do or allow. Humanity is not a condition, but an aspiration. Giving up on it because it's difficult is silly. What happened to that whole 'be proactive' thing? You're arguing that you should contribute to he problem since you can't fix it. Since humans are potentially capable of terrible deeds, you may as well shift your rubric to justify terrible deeds. It's circular and self fulfilling. You can be more.

Mein Celeste, I'm Thanqol.

You have earned my stamp of approval. It's like a regular stamp, except it doesn't ship to any country, only exists virtually and... yeah it's not like a regular stamp at all.

[Lither]

Pfff. 'I would rather not be responsible for the consequences of my actions'? Really? If you're uncomfortable with consequences don't generate them! It's a very clear prerogative.

Human doesn't mean simply Homo Sapiens Sapiens. Inhuman actions are actions no human should ever do or allow. Humanity is not a condition, but an aspiration. Giving up on it because it's difficult is silly. What happened to that whole 'be proactive' thing? You're arguing that you should contribute to he problem since you can't fix it. Since humans are potentially capable of terrible deeds, you may as well shift your rubric to justify terrible deeds. It's circular and self fulfilling. You can be more.

Mein Celeste, I'm Thanqol.

I don't remember saying that. In fact, that is a lot of things I've not only never said but also argued against in this thread - and to make matters worse you pointed it out yourself. I was merely pointing out that being a "monster" is better than being a human, as humans are capable of greater malice than any other instrument of nature. As humans hate to realise this they dehumanise anyone that they feel to transgress too greatly, hence "inhuman".

One should of course be proactive and work to get ahead in life. However, one should also not constrain themselves by adhering to a fundamentally hypocritical and impossible system.

[SiuiS]

You have earned my stamp of approval. It's like a regular stamp, except it doesn't ship to any country, only exists virtually and... yeah it's not like a regular stamp at all.

Heh.


I don't remember saying that. In fact, that is a lot of things I've not only never said but also argued against in this thread - and to make matters worse you pointed it out yourself. I was merely pointing out that being a "monster" is better than being a human, as humans are capable of greater malice than any other instrument of nature. As humans hate to realise this they dehumanise anyone that they feel to transgress too greatly, hence "inhuman".

The difference between a human and a monster is that they are both crap, but a human can rise.

And, fair enough. I don't suppose I know you or you me, well enough for a comment like that to be taken good naturedly. No insult was meant, and I assume from tone of the response you're puzzled/eye rolling and almost or slightly offended. That wasn't my intent.


One should of course be proactive and work to get ahead in life. However, one should also not constrain themselves by adhering to a fundamentally hypocritical and impossible system.

"Everything is possible, given enough time."

[Lither]

Heh.



The difference between a human and a monster is that they are both crap, but a human can rise.

But they will almost never. In the end, it's better to be a monster and never know any better than to act like one in full knowledge of the alternatives.


And, fair enough. I don't suppose I know you or you me, well enough for a comment like that to be taken good naturedly. No insult was meant, and I assume from tone of the response you're puzzled/eye rolling and almost or slightly offended. That wasn't my intent.

Puzzled. I neither offend nor anger easily.


"Everything is possible, given enough time."

Very quaint. Some things never change.

[SiuiS]

But they will almost never. In the end, it's better to be a monster and never know any better than to act like one in full knowledge of the alternatives.

Not knowing doesn't make them less monstrous somehow. And I refute your almost never. There are billions of people. Of them, maybe one percent of one percent matter at any given point, but he odds they will choose monstrosity? Pretty small.



Puzzled. I neither offend nor anger easily.


That's what I assumed, but based and covering and all.


Very quaint. Some things never change.

It's easy to talk like this when you don't realize we are having a functional face to face conversation across time and space and can harness the energies of primordial creation and have sent monkeys to other bodies.

Anything can be defeated in time. Once humanity had focus, it accomplished it's goal. Every time. But no, you're right. Better to be cynical and assume that nothing ever happens of note and contribute to the problem than to pay attention to all the accomplishments wracked up despite ourselves. :smallwink:

[Skeppio]

But they will almost never. In the end, it's better to be a monster and never know any better than to act like one in full knowledge of the alternatives.

Being a monster isn't about "not knowing any better". A true monster is one who fully understands the consequences of their actions, but will gleefully always choose the option that causes the most pain and suffering to others.
A lot of humans may harm others in ignorance or negligence, but very few go out of their way to cause as much suffering as possible, while fully thinking "I'm going to cause suffering because I enjoy others misery".

[Lither]

Not knowing doesn't make them less monstrous somehow. And I refute your almost never. There are billions of people. Of them, maybe one percent of one percent matter at any given point, but he odds they will choose monstrosity? Pretty small.

It's surprisingly easy to get people to do what they know to be monstrous. Follow the orders of a superior, receiving benefits from the deed, or simply enjoying it too much. Doing something not-monstrous is the exception, rather than the rule.


It's easy to talk like this when you don't realize we are having a functional face to face conversation across time and space and can harness the energies of primordial creation and have sent monkeys to other bodies.

Anything can be defeated in time. Once humanity had focus, it accomplished it's goal. Every time. But no, you're right. Better to be cynical and assume that nothing ever happens of note and contribute to the problem than to pay attention to all the accomplishments wracked up despite ourselves. :smallwink:

Humans as a species have not had any noticeable changes and every time we as a species thought we could improve ourselves it turned out to be a hopeful lie. Based upon past situations it's reasonable to believe that human nature will continue as expected. If anything, we've got worse as we've become capable of wielding more and more power over each other and the world around us.


Being a monster isn't about "not knowing any better". A true monster is one who fully understands the consequences of their actions, but will gleefully always choose the option that causes the most pain and suffering to others.
A lot of humans may harm others in ignorance or negligence, but very few go out of their way to cause as much suffering as possible, while fully thinking "I'm going to cause suffering because I enjoy others misery".

I would daresay that's the most human way to act of them all. To know what you're doing is going to hurt someone and to enjoy doing it anyway.

[Grinner]

Exactly! I won't give someone much money but I'll certainly take actions above that amount of money to help.

Money is basically time-frozen success. When you pick up a box, you get a box where you want it. When you grow a flower, that flower is grown. When you make someone laugh, the laugh happens. When you work to support yourself, you don't get automatically supported; you get coupons that allow you to cash them in for support.

Paying for something is retroactively undoing past deeds by redesigning the action to not result in success. An hour of my time is worth about twenty dollars. I won't give twenty dollars to someone but I will devote multiple hours of my time.

Money is simply symbolic of achievement. Money stands in for action. It strikes me as weird that folks are so focused on 'will not gve fiat currency slips' and miss entirely 'will devote life or portion to cause'.

I won't give a man a fish (to use the parable) but I will let him sit at my table – or set his table – when I've caught stuff, and also grant company and a roof and bed. Hopefully, he'll also be open to learning how to fish from me. Or at least teaching someone else.

This interpretation of the concept of money might be true in certain cases, but it is not true in all cases.

Consider salaried employees. Or investors, for that matter.

[Finlam]

Being a monster isn't about "not knowing any better". A true monster is one who fully understands the consequences of their actions, but will gleefully always choose the option that causes the most pain and suffering to others.
A lot of humans may harm others in ignorance or negligence, but very few go out of their way to cause as much suffering as possible, while fully thinking "I'm going to cause suffering because I enjoy others misery".



I would daresay that's the most human way to act of them all. To know what you're doing is going to hurt someone and to enjoy doing it anyway.

I think the man vs monster debate is interesting, if academic. To be human is to be base and evil, if you define it that way. To be a monster is to be unaware of the harm you inflict, if you define it that way. At the end of the day, man is the only creature capable of both great good and great evil; great knowledge and extraordinary willful ignorance.

But for a human to exist in an absolute is difficult, if not impossible. Most humans fall somewhere between the extremes of very good and outright evil. Even the humans that have been historically judged to be evil, were not absolutely so; even a mass murderer or a tyrant may do some good, however insignificant it may be next to their crimes.

I'm not sure there's much value in weighing one's actions as 'monstrous' or 'human'. When push comes to shove: when you're standing in the hospital with the stranger you hardly know bleeding to death, and the doctors are demanding effectively all the money you have in the world, monster or human makes no difference.

In the end, you are who you are; monster or human, the decision you make in that moment is yours. Even a good person may commit evil, even a monster may choose good.

[The Succubus]

I can't help but feel this thread is shopping around to see whether someone is being shortchanged on a hostage...:smallamused:

[SiuiS]

It's surprisingly easy to get people to do what they know to be monstrous. Follow the orders of a superior, receiving benefits from the deed, or simply enjoying it too much. Doing something not-monstrous is the exception, rather than the rule.

So wait, the fact that people are not constantly doing bad things but can be tricked into thinking that it's okay to do bad things proves they constantly do bad things?

That's not logic. That's not even finding proof by cherry picking. That is stating "the sky is blue" as proof that it's orange.

Besides, people who follow the orders of superiors to do wicked deeds are doing the exact same thing you are. The internal hypocrisy of how it's okay for you to be terrible because the world is terrible because people think it's okay be terrible and that's terrible so why bother, stands. You're causing your own problem. Would not stopping being the lowest common denominator be the solution to your complaint?



Humans as a species have not had any noticeable changes

On what? Subject verb blank doesn't really prove anything.

Plus, what is your definition of change? Do you mean achieve an arbitrary benchmark and never fall below it on an equally arbitrary scale? That's not change. These accomplishments I speak of occur all the time. It's just that people who have other ideas win fairly often too. It goes back and forth.


and every time we as a species thought we could improve ourselves it turned out to be a hopeful lie.

Such as? I mean, I can point to the fact that women without uteruses are close to being able to give birth, that invasive internal procedures can be done with small tubes and light and cause almost no harm, and that severe debilitating illnesses are at the level of barely remembered inconveniences in the parts of the world that don't hold to your viewpoint.

What have you got to show it's nothing but hopeful lies?


Based upon past situations it's reasonable to believe that human nature will continue as expected.

With that attitude, yeah! I mean look at this thread. The number of people who desire to move beyond mere human nature would bely your proclamation. Human nature may be base, but only because so many people insist they are "good enough" as just animals. Hell, we have people behaving and advocating for active subhuman behavior as the cultural norm.

Ah well. I suppose I understand your point and don't agree, and you understand mine as much as you are to and don't agree, so that's that! Good fun though. Thanks. :)


This interpretation of the concept of money might be true in certain cases, but it is not true in all cases.

Consider salaried employees. Or investors, for that matter.

Salaried employees are paid for their time. Investors gamble their money, already earned, and hope to leverage it into more. I don't see how that conflicts with the statement. But you're right that it's not the best broad stroke to use.


I can't help but feel this thread is shopping around to see whether someone is being shortchanged on a hostage...:smallamused:

Pfffffff hahahahahaha!

[dehro]

I can't help but feel this thread is shopping around to see whether someone is being shortchanged on a hostage...:smallamused:

the thing about hostages is that they're only worth anything when they're alive, (and if the guy wanting to get you cares more about them than about wanting to get you).. clearly threatening to kill one's hostages ultimately is against the hostage taker's interest.:smallbiggrin:

[GolemsVoice]

Solution: Take multiple hostages! Bit more of a hassle, but well worth the work.

So just HOW much we said people said could be demanded...?

[Rosstin]

I can't help but feel this thread is shopping around to see whether someone is being shortchanged on a hostage...:smallamused:

I laughed out loud

[Evandar]

I don't think the human vs monster debate is even really a meaningful one.

There are humans that are aware of the harm they cause but continue with their plans because they want something.

There are humans that are only aware of the harm they cause on some vague level, instead largely just not thinking about it.

There are humans that actively enjoy the harm they cause.

Everyone has a different definition of what a 'monster' is, and what's worse, but to the people being harmed it hardly makes a difference. Harm is harm -- intentions might matter when we're deciding on punishments, rewards and trust, but in the end they all have the same potential to be equally horrible.

[Lither]

So wait, the fact that people are not constantly doing bad things but can be tricked into thinking that it's okay to do bad things proves they constantly do bad things?

That's not logic. That's not even finding proof by cherry picking. That is stating "the sky is blue" as proof that it's orange.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man


Besides, people who follow the orders of superiors to do wicked deeds are doing the exact same thing you are. The internal hypocrisy of how it's okay for you to be terrible because the world is terrible because people think it's okay be terrible and that's terrible so why bother, stands. You're causing your own problem. Would not stopping being the lowest common denominator be the solution to your complaint?

I've already addressed this point. This argument is going in circles.


On what? Subject verb blank doesn't really prove anything.

Hard to do on a forum with such strict rules relating to real-world examples.


Plus, what is your definition of change? Do you mean achieve an arbitrary benchmark and never fall below it on an equally arbitrary scale? That's not change. These accomplishments I speak of occur all the time. It's just that people who have other ideas win fairly often too. It goes back and forth.

Demonstrating a significant improvement.


Such as? I mean, I can point to the fact that women without uteruses are close to being able to give birth, that invasive internal procedures can be done with small tubes and light and cause almost no harm, and that severe debilitating illnesses are at the level of barely remembered inconveniences in the parts of the world that don't hold to your viewpoint.

What have you got to show it's nothing but hopeful lies?

Corrective rape on the rise across the world. Helium is running and helium is required for all those fancy small tubes - they simply can't be made without a helium-dominant atmosphere, and that's only the beginning of how dependant we are on helium. Not to mention one certain party is selling massive stocks of helium so underpriced that the market won't correct it in time (it's currently at a tenth of the price it should be). When it goes, say goodbye to advanced medicine and research. Vaccination rates along the world have slacked off, and diseases mostly forgotten in the first world like measles have burst out again. Then there's the planet itself. Where I live is slated to become uninhabitable within the next hundred years just be rising temperatures alone. Smog and industrial runoff are choking the life from sections of the world. For all the first world is doing to cut down on emissions, third world nations finally modernising are switching over to the cheapest available - and that means their carbon output is massively increasing. Already we're seeing extremely powerful weather, and they're only the beginning. Super Typhoon Tip-style hurricanes will become the norm, rather than the exception. We'll go down in history as the only species that knowingly exterminated itself for money.


With that attitude, yeah! I mean look at this thread. The number of people who desire to move beyond mere human nature would bely your proclamation. Human nature may be base, but only because so many people insist they are "good enough" as just animals. Hell, we have people behaving and advocating for active subhuman behavior as the cultural norm.

Stanford prison experiment. Perfectly ordinary people just like those on this thread, put into positions of authority like one would be capable of finding. One third showed "genuine sadistic tendencies" and the treatment got so brutal that the whole thing was called off. If that's the action of an intelligent being I'll stick with animalistic behaviour.

[Starwulf]

Lither, please don't take offense, but I have both a question, and a statement for you: You are perhaps the most negative, pessimistic, self-centered person I have ever come across in my entire life, both in real life, and on the internet. Assuming that it's not an act and you're not just playing a role(or Devils Advocate), how do you live like that? How can you live your life with the feeling that the world is this horrible, awful place that wants nothing more then to grind you up and spit you out? Do you have friends? Do you trust them? Do you have a significant other? Do you love/trust them? If so, completely?

I"m sorry, but I just find it hard to reconcile everything you've said with the ability to even bother living life. I mean, if I felt that badly about the rest of the world, and humanity as a whole, I think I'd just end it, because what's the point in living if you can't have at least some faith/trust in your fellow human beings?

[Lither]

Lither, please don't take offense, but I have both a question, and a statement for you: You are perhaps the most negative, pessimistic, self-centered person I have ever come across in my entire life, both in real life, and on the internet. Assuming that it's not an act and you're not just playing a role(or Devils Advocate), how do you live like that? How can you live your life with the feeling that the world is this horrible, awful place that wants nothing more then to grind you up and spit you out? Do you have friends? Do you trust them? Do you have a significant other? Do you love/trust them? If so, completely?

I'm not offended at all.

I live in the knowledge that I can't do any worse than has already been done. Beyond the odd suicide attempt, I've not put that much more effort into thinking about it.

I don't have friends any more. Car accident and a suicide. The remaining group of my erstwhile friends decided one day it would be fun to hold me down and brand the letter c on to me, gave me a broken jaw when I tried to stop them. Suffice to say, we aren't friends any more. They and the ensuing "hijinks" with a psychologist did teach me a lot about life, though.

No significant other.


I"m sorry, but I just find it hard to reconcile everything you've said with the ability to even bother living life. I mean, if I felt that badly about the rest of the world, and humanity as a whole, I think I'd just end it, because what's the point in living if you can't have at least some faith/trust in your fellow human beings?

I enjoy living. Mostly. I don't particularly intend on blowing my shot at life because of the other people in it.

[Starwulf]

Well, at least now I understand a little more where you get your negativity from, and honestly, it is understandable(and even to be expected), given what you've endured. I would like to say that perhaps you should try to make other friends, ones that are less immature and violent. Friends, even if it's just one or two, are what make life bearable. My life hasn't exactly been the picture of happiness and awesomeness, honestly, it's been anything but, and I can safely say that my 3 core friends and my wife is what has made it bearable and liveable.

[SiuiS]

I don't think the human vs monster debate is even really a meaningful one.

Yeah. Fun though~


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man


Pointing out a self fulfilling prophecy isn't a straw man, and you've yet to actually point out how you're not contributing to the problem that makes you okay with contributing to the problem :smallwink:


This argument is going in circles.

Yup! That's why I said "good game", we aren't gonna get anywhere new really. Again, fun though~!



Demonstrating a significant improvement.


Well, define "improvement". I'm sure that the people doing the whole corrective rape thing believe they're improvig the world.

Change is simply alteration. Defining change as "specific alterations which only meet my arbitrary standards of improvement" is playing language games. Yes, if the only possible use of a word you'll accept supports you, then you'll be supported, but that doesn't matter.



Stanford prison experiment.

Inherently faulty, terrible sampling, contaminated by the executor of the experiment. Frequently derided for being an example of how "science" can be used to misprove things, similar to how a man who observed mating habits of fruit flies used data which supported his beliefs to spread the rampant idea of a battle of the sexes across all species which we are still seeing in effect today.

I would be interested in seeing the experiment repeated with proper procedures though.

[GM.Casper]

And as usually for such treads sociopaths and trolls craw out by the boatload. It makes me both depressed an enraged.

[Lither]

Inherently faulty, terrible sampling, contaminated by the executor of the experiment. Frequently derided for being an example of how "science" can be used to misprove things, similar to how a man who observed mating habits of fruit flies used data which supported his beliefs to spread the rampant idea of a battle of the sexes across all species which we are still seeing in effect today.

I would be interested in seeing the experiment repeated with proper procedures though.

There's been similar experiments, as I've said. Third Wave and the BBC prison experiments are the easiest ones to find.

[SiuiS]

There's been similar experiments, as I've said. Third Wave and the BBC prison experiments are the easiest ones to find.

Alrighty. I'll go look into those. Last time this came up the consensus was "it depends on the people, not the species".

[Killer Angel]

Inherently faulty, terrible sampling, contaminated by the executor of the experiment.
(snip)
I would be interested in seeing the experiment repeated with proper procedures though.

Is it really possible?
One of the premises of quantum theory, states that by the very act of watching, the observer affects the observed reality. :smallsmile:

[Velarias]

I would like to speak directly to those who stated (either flat out or indirectly) all life is equal.
Let's say there are two men.

Man A: Is a hard working,loving father of two. Who wishes to save up enough money to put his kids through school. He is generous and kind and an over all good person.

Man B: is a an alcoholic, who beats his wife and and lives only for the next drink.

Now let's say you get to choose who lives. One caveat however is that only one can live, you cannot save both.

Who do you save? If all life is equal then I imagine the answers would be split down the middle. But I doubt that will be the case.

[Killer Angel]

Not only that, but i would also add that life is not priceless. It has a price, and it's often well defined... and some lives are more valued than others.

[dehro]

I would like to speak directly to those who stated (either flat out or indirectly) all life is equal.
Let's say there are two men.

Man A: Is a hard working,loving father of two. Who wishes to save up enough money to put his kids through school. He is generous and kind and an over all good person.

Man B: is a an alcoholic, who beats his wife and and lives only for the next drink.

Now let's say you get to choose who lives. One caveat however is that only one can live, you cannot save both.

Who do you save? If all life is equal then I imagine the answers would be split down the middle. But I doubt that will be the case.

those are generalisations though.. broad brush strokes to define and characterise individuals with. thinking that way leads to this:

It is time to elect a new world leader, and your vote counts. Here are the facts about the three
leading candidates:
Candidate A: Associates with crooked politicians, and consults with astrologists. He's had two mistresses. He also chain smokes and drinks 8 to 10 martinis a day.
Candidate B: He was kicked out of office twice, sleeps until noon, used opium in college and drinks a quart of whisky every evening.
Candidate C: He is a decorated war hero. He's a vegetarian, doesn't smoke, drinks an occasional beer and hasn't had any extramarital affairs.
Which of these candidates would be your choice?

I guess we all know who candidate C is?

[SiuiS]

All life has similar base value, not static value.


Is it really possible?
One of the premises of quantum theory, states that by the very act of watching, the observer affects the observed reality. :smallsmile:

Record it all and don't observe.
Besides, that's not really going to matter, since those participating I the experiment are also observing it. Unless you're going to tell me an electron moves more when two people view the screen than one?

[dehro]

All life has similar base value, not static value.



Record it all and don't observe.
Besides, that's not really going to matter, since those participating I the experiment are also observing it. Unless you're going to tell me an electron moves more when two people view the screen than one?

well..clearly it would try harder.. you don't want to look like a slouch with people watching, don't you?:smallbiggrin:

[Evandar]

those are generalisations though.. broad brush strokes to define and characterise individuals with. thinking that way leads to this:

It is time to elect a new world leader, and your vote counts. Here are the facts about the three
leading candidates:
Candidate A: Associates with crooked politicians, and consults with astrologists. He's had two mistresses. He also chain smokes and drinks 8 to 10 martinis a day.
Candidate B: He was kicked out of office twice, sleeps until noon, used opium in college and drinks a quart of whisky every evening.
Candidate C: He is a decorated war hero. He's a vegetarian, doesn't smoke, drinks an occasional beer and hasn't had any extramarital affairs.
Which of these candidates would be your choice?

I guess we all know who candidate C is?

Thinking that way doesn't always lead to that. That seems like a silly argument to make. It makes sense to base decisions off the things you know, as well as exercising some caution if there are a lot of unknowns.

While you could seldom name five things about a human being and have them define him utterly, some things are hugely important. I think we all know who Candidate C is supposed to be, but it's a ridiculous bit of trickery there. It makes the point that yes, you can make poor decisions about people on small amounts of information.

That doesn't mean you can handwave absolutely everything you've learned about someone. If I stalked the streets every night, killing an innocent person each day, it seems preposterous to me to go "Well, he's just as valuable as his neighbor that saves ten lives at the hospital -- because who knows what else they both get up to?"

You can make the wrong decisions with the limited information available to us as humans, but that doesn't mean you should just disregard all information.


I can't say that my personal decisions on how a loving father might be more valuable than an unrepentant serial killer are objectively right, but I'd be stunned if someone couldn't understand those decisions.

/rant (also that reads as slightly angry in retrospect, rest assured I am not, and would like to preemptively apologize for using the word 'silly'.)


All life has similar base value, not static value.


What she said!

[dehro]

so.. what if the alcoholic father became so after suffering from ptsd in warzone deployment and his war pension is what keeps his family afloat despite his shortcomings?
what if the first guy's job consists in experimenting on animals or performing some commonly considered questionable line of work? what if the circumstances of his life being endangered are because he was trying something illegal or inappropriate?
these things don't change the facts you posit, but there are people out there who would find these elements changing their perspective and judgement on the individuals involved.
my point is simply that unless we happen to intimately know the individuals and the circumstances, I find it difficult to throw someone's life away, simply because I don't feel that I'm the right person to make such a decision.
I would definitely make a snap judgement about the lesser virtuous individual (in this case, the drunkard)... but that's cheap and carries no consequences. actually holding both their lives in hand, I think that I would find it much much harder to decide that one should die and the other live.

Put simply, there are drunkards who eventually redeem themselves and go on to do great things and be a force for good in their lives, and there are upstanding and caring citizens who are capable of the most abject acts..
so, although in the end I would quite probably make the same choice you would make in terms of who to save and who to condemn, it wouldn't be an easy choice, or one that would make me sleep easy at night.
There's always going to be a part of me thinking "what if..?".
Being put in the position of making such a call is something I gladly leave to someone with a better judgement than mine.

[Killer Angel]

Besides, that's not really going to matter, since those participating I the experiment are also observing it. Unless you're going to tell me an electron moves more when two people view the screen than one?

Even Einstein had problems with quantum theory. Who am I to make a stand? :smallwink:

[Evandar]

my point is simply that unless we happen to intimately know the individuals and the circumstances, I find it difficult to throw someone's life away, simply because I don't feel that I'm the right person to make such a decision.
I would definitely make a snap judgement about the lesser virtuous individual (in this case, the drunkard)... but that's cheap and carries no consequences. actually holding both their lives in hand, I think that I would find it much much harder to decide that one should die and the other live.

Put simply, there are drunkards who eventually redeem themselves and go on to do great things and be a force for good in their lives, and there are upstanding and caring citizens who are capable of the most abject acts..
so, although in the end I would quite probably make the same choice you would make in terms of who to save and who to condemn, it wouldn't be an easy choice, or one that would make me sleep easy at night.
There's always going to be a part of me thinking "what if..?".
Being put in the position of making such a call is something I gladly leave to someone with a better judgement than mine.

I think we're actually in total agreement and I just misinterpreted your earlier point completely. :smallsmile: Suffice it to say I'd rather leave it to other people as well -- I've known myself for a while and I am distressingly lacking in the omniscience department.

[Tyndmyr]

so.. what if the alcoholic father became so after suffering from ptsd in warzone deployment and his war pension is what keeps his family afloat despite his shortcomings?
what if the first guy's job consists in experimenting on animals or performing some commonly considered questionable line of work? what if the circumstances of his life being endangered are because he was trying something illegal or inappropriate?
these things don't change the facts you posit, but there are people out there who would find these elements changing their perspective and judgement on the individuals involved.
my point is simply that unless we happen to intimately know the individuals and the circumstances, I find it difficult to throw someone's life away, simply because I don't feel that I'm the right person to make such a decision.
I would definitely make a snap judgement about the lesser virtuous individual (in this case, the drunkard)... but that's cheap and carries no consequences. actually holding both their lives in hand, I think that I would find it much much harder to decide that one should die and the other live.

Put simply, there are drunkards who eventually redeem themselves and go on to do great things and be a force for good in their lives, and there are upstanding and caring citizens who are capable of the most abject acts..
so, although in the end I would quite probably make the same choice you would make in terms of who to save and who to condemn, it wouldn't be an easy choice, or one that would make me sleep easy at night.
There's always going to be a part of me thinking "what if..?".
Being put in the position of making such a call is something I gladly leave to someone with a better judgement than mine.

You make decisions based on knowns, not unknowns. Both might be better or worse than I believe them to be, but it'd be foolish not to use the information I have at hand.

[Grinner]

Candidate A: Associates with crooked politicians, and consults with astrologists. He's had two mistresses. He also chain smokes and drinks 8 to 10 martinis a day.

Your standard issue politician. Next.


Candidate B: He was kicked out of office twice, sleeps until noon, used opium in college and drinks a quart of whisky every evening.

He does all of this and is still in the running for world leader? There's clearly more to this man than meets the eye. One way or another, this merits investigation.


Candidate C: He is a decorated war hero. He's a vegetarian, doesn't smoke, drinks an occasional beer and hasn't had any extramarital affairs.

In summary, he's killed many people, perhaps unquestioningly, for distant leaders who may or may not have ulterior motives.

He also lives pretty cleanly, so that's at least one mark in his favor.

[Aedilred]

I'm always a bit suspicious of people who live too "cleanly". If they don't have any vices that I know about it makes me worry that there's something more deeply wrong with them.

[Starwulf]

I'm always a bit suspicious of people who live too "cleanly". If they don't have any vices that I know about it makes me worry that there's something more deeply wrong with them.

Why is that? Can't people just "not enjoy" the stuff that harms your body? I mean, if it wasn't for my 2 cigarettes a day, I'd be able to say that I have no vices. I don't gamble, I don't drink(like, a beer or two, once a year, at best), I don't hit my wife, or abuse my children. I don't do drugs except the prescription ones that I have to take to keep my pain from my back in check. Honestly, if it wasn't for the fact that my next door neighbor also happens to be my parents, and that they are highly intrusive into my daily life and irritate the hell out of me, I wouldn't even smoke.

[Rosstin]

I'm always a bit suspicious of people who live too "cleanly". If they don't have any vices that I know about it makes me worry that there's something more deeply wrong with them.

As someone with less "obvious" vices than most people (I don't smoke or drink, and rarely swear), I've definitely noticed that being apparently viceless is NOT an endearing quality.

Knowing this, I actually end up playing up that I do enjoy some of these things, just to fit in. Drink half a beer at a party, just to not be the guy who doesn't think. Swear once in a while, just to not be the guy who doesn't swear. It's interesting how people think.

I have plenty of other vices, just not the common ones that people bond over.

[dehro]

Your standard issue politician. Next.



He does all of this and is still in the running for world leader? There's clearly more to this man than meets the eye. One way or another, this merits investigation.



In summary, he's killed many people, perhaps unquestioningly, for distant leaders who may or may not have ulterior motives.

He also lives pretty cleanly, so that's at least one mark in his favor.

For reference, the three men in question are Roosevelt, Churchill and, of course, History's favourite bad guy, Hitler.

[SiuiS]

I'm always a bit suspicious of people who live too "cleanly". If they don't have any vices that I know about it makes me worry that there's something more deeply wrong with them.

Heh.

Hmm. Vices. Oh wait, I'm safe! I'm a terrible narcissist. That's something you all consider a vice, right? I mean, I am like a drug, and I have me all the time!


Why is that? Can't people just "not enjoy" the stuff that harms your body? I mean, if it wasn't for my 2 cigarettes a day, I'd be able to say that I have no vices. I don't gamble, I don't drink(like, a beer or two, once a year, at best), I don't hit my wife, or abuse my children. I don't do drugs except the prescription ones that I have to take to keep my pain from my back in check. Honestly, if it wasn't for the fact that my next door neighbor also happens to be my parents, and that they are highly intrusive into my daily life and irritate the hell out of me, I wouldn't even smoke.

*cough cough* random egg machine.

[Lady Serpentine]

Is it really possible?
One of the premises of quantum theory, states that by the very act of watching, the observer affects the observed reality. :smallsmile:

Actually, quantum mechanics doesn't really have those effects on a macroscopic scale, though I don't remember the exact reasons, and I'm not interested in looking them up right now.

[banthesun]

Alright, been a few days since I posted, time to respond to some things.

Having thought on this some more, I think that in Azul's story, if things couldn't be resolved by finding someone else to pay it sounds like you would have paid for the surgery. To me it sounds more like an issue of hesitation than unwillingness. Still I can definitely see how that could get you worried and thinking.


I thought that human shouldn't have screwed with that lion unless he was sure he could win. Going into the savannah to find a lion and get attacked by it? Kinda your fault, mister hominid. I don't care if you had a wife or children; the lion basically did too.
As for the story with the lion, yeah, tough luck. The death is a tragedy, no doubt, but if you got attacked by a lion, you went somewhere where you could get attacked by lions, and did something for the lion to attack you. Lions are predators and can be deadly, and describing any kind of moral background to the lion's action is nonsense.

Off topic, but you might find the Tambling Wildlife Nature Conservation (http://tamblingwildlife.com) interesting. It's a wildlife park specialising in reintroducing Sumatran Tigers who have attacked or killed humans back into the wild. I saw a documentary about it a while back, but I'm having trouble finding it online. :smallfrown:


Humans as a species have not had any noticeable changes and every time we as a species thought we could improve ourselves it turned out to be a hopeful lie. Based upon past situations it's reasonable to believe that human nature will continue as expected. If anything, we've got worse as we've become capable of wielding more and more power over each other and the world around us.

Within the last 200 years, every nation in the world has outlawed slavery (I'm not going to say abolished slavery, but at least it's not considered acceptable in any developed nation), women were given the right to vote and own property, and homosexuality was decriminalised in nearly every developed nation (looking at you, russia :smallannoyed: ). I would definitely consider all these things significant improvements, especially considering the how long these injustices where considered an expected part of society (slavery appears to predate recorded history, even). I don't disagree that there's still tons of horrible things going on in the world, and even that things are getting worse in certain areas, but I do dispute that humans as a species are incapable of positive change.

Also I've got a question to all the people who say they wouldn't save someone unless it would benefit them. I'm having trouble picturing how you'd react in a real emergency (or how you'd imagine you'd act, as Azul's story made clear, sometimes you can't really know until you're there :smalltongue: ). If there was someone dying, or at risk of death and you had no way of knowing or finding out if saving them would be a benefit to you, or exactly how much risk saving them would put you in, would you save them? Basically, what I'm asking is whether in a case of incomplete information, would you default to saving someone or not?

[Skeppio]

Also I've got a question to all the people who say they wouldn't save someone unless it would benefit them. I'm having trouble picturing how you'd react in a real emergency (or how you'd imagine you'd act, as Azul's story made clear, sometimes you can't really know until you're there :smalltongue: ). If there was someone dying, or at risk of death and you had no way of knowing or finding out if saving them would be a benefit to you, or exactly how much risk saving them would put you in, would you save them? Basically, what I'm asking is whether in a case of incomplete information, would you default to saving someone or not?

From a lot of posts on this thread, I'm getting the impression that not only would they not lift a finger to aid a dying stranger, but they would enjoy watching said stranger die an easily preventable death. :smallannoyed:

[Lither]

Off topic, but you might find the Tambling Wildlife Nature Conservation (http://tamblingwildlife.com) interesting. It's a wildlife park specialising in reintroducing Sumatran Tigers who have attacked or killed humans back into the wild. I saw a documentary about it a while back, but I'm having trouble finding it online. :smallfrown:

Would be kinder to simply kill them. Animals that attack humans - or just come into close contact with them frequently - and are not culled can and do eventually result in the species losing fear of humans, which invariably ends in tragedy. Been happening to bears in North America quite a bit.


Within the last 200 years, every nation in the world has outlawed slavery (I'm not going to say abolished slavery, but at least it's not considered acceptable in any developed nation),

Outlawed overt slavery. Wage and debt slavery are common in all but a handful of nations (one if you do not include micronations), not to mention slavery in the form of forced prison labour, organisations exploiting refugees and migrants as well as overt slavery (generally in an area where enforcement of laws is a faint dream) still exists across the world and fulfil much of the same gap slavery once did; the undercurrent of the economy nobody will talk about, and hit children particularly hard.


women were given the right to vote and own property,

Yet suffer backlash against what brought them those rights, and with the backlash find it harder and harder to ensure those rights.


homosexuality was decriminalised in nearly every developed nation (looking at you, russia :smallannoyed: ).

Still suffer stigma, and trans- folk suffer the worst of all. Legal equality matters little when those that should enforce the laws don't care about it or are actively opposed to them.


I would definitely consider all these things significant improvements, especially considering the how long these injustices where considered an expected part of society (slavery appears to predate recorded history, even). I don't disagree that there's still tons of horrible things going on in the world, and even that things are getting worse in certain areas, but I do dispute that humans as a species are incapable of positive change.

I would say these haven't gone away but merely changed their appearance.


Also I've got a question to all the people who say they wouldn't save someone unless it would benefit them. I'm having trouble picturing how you'd react in a real emergency (or how you'd imagine you'd act, as Azul's story made clear, sometimes you can't really know until you're there :smalltongue: ). If there was someone dying, or at risk of death and you had no way of knowing or finding out if saving them would be a benefit to you, or exactly how much risk saving them would put you in, would you save them? Basically, what I'm asking is whether in a case of incomplete information, would you default to saving someone or not?

I would default to no.

EDIT:


From a lot of posts on this thread, I'm getting the impression that not only would they not lift a finger to aid a dying stranger, but they would enjoy watching said stranger die an easily preventable death. :smallannoyed:

I don't have enough time in a day to do that.

[Killer Angel]

From a lot of posts on this thread, I'm getting the impression that not only would they not lift a finger to aid a dying stranger, but they would enjoy watching said stranger die an easily preventable death. :smallannoyed:

There's a world of difference between "help someone if I can" and "I'll do all that's in my power, 'cause life is the most sacred thing".
And since I'm not debating in this forum with poor missionaries that devoted themselves and their wealth 100% to poor people, I tend to believe that the latter position contains a little amount of rhetoric.

[The Succubus]

I'm always a bit suspicious of people who live too "cleanly". If they don't have any vices that I know about it makes me worry that there's something more deeply wrong with them.

No worries here then. I am a person of many vices - I keep them in my parent's toolshed.

[jaybird]

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the improving, Lither, it only makes you look naive, not insightful.

[TuggyNE]

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the improving, Lither, it only makes you look naive, not insightful.

More specifically, the brand of naivete that belongs only to the overly cynical.

[Velarias]

Sorry. I was indeed a bit too broad. That is what I get for posting at 4am. I was just trying to say that some people are more valuable to a society than others and that given the circumstances and that was all you knew of the men and had to choose right then and there, most if not all would choose to save the good father.

But again sorry for being vague.

[SiuiS]

No worries here then. I am a person of many vices - I keep them in my parent's toolshed.

That doesn't sound like something is hear in Dexter at all...


Sorry. I was indeed a bit too broad. That is what I get for posting at 4am. I was just trying to say that some people are more valuable to a society than others and that given the circumstances and that was all you knew of the men and had to choose right then and there, most if not all would choose to save the good father.

But again sorry for being vague.

The issue for me isn't the perfection of choice but the responsibility of the individual. We as a culture will more respect the person who performs an action than the one who is paralyzed by indecision because they lack omniscience. We as a society will also usually respect more that person who, when they save the father and find out the father was a terrible choice and a person who didn't deserve saving [rhetorical], would say "yes, I screwed up, but I stand by my choice" over the person who wails "I didn't know!" Because the first person is being responsible for their choices and the second is asking for echo station from responsibility.

But we also fear them. Societally, the person who says "he's, it was wrong, but I would do it again in the exact same aituation because I am responsible for what I know and believe is right", we emotionally consider those actions that we feel are wrong but follow the same rubric. Racists who feel it is right to oppress others and would do it again, etc., and we worry about the slippery slope.

Personally, I find it repugnant that a human being's decision as a Sovereign entity is "someone else said, so I did". I find a culture of appeal to authority to avoid blame and responsibility to be uncountenancable.

[Ailowynn]

(I'm just answering the OP; I don't know how much of this has been said already).

I think I would give up just about all my money. Why? Because there is an inherent value in life.

There is a philosophical argument over this, though; sure, I might save someone's life, and that would seem to be good...unless, for instance, I'm in 1920s/1930s Germany and just saved Hitler, leading to the deaths of millions. But I did so in a selfless way. I showed that man the goodness of the human heart; and maybe, just maybe, that would be enough to change the future and turn a life of evil into one of good.

The one problem with this argument is that I could actually save a life if I gave my money to charity right now, but I'm not doing that. :smallfrown::smallfurious::smallsigh:

[TaiLiu]

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the improving, Lither, it only makes you look naive, not insightful.
Not necessarily. We are all products of our experiences and times, after all. If Lither has a cynical viewpoint, it may be that Lither's experiences and environment support that viewpoint.

[TuggyNE]

Not necessarily. We are all products of our experiences and times, after all. If Lither has a cynical viewpoint, it may be that Lither's experiences and environment support that viewpoint.

Possessing a viewpoint strictly limited by the confines of one's environment is pretty much the definition of naivete. :smallconfused:

Not, indeed, that being naive is an unforgivable offense by any means, but let's call a spade a spade, shall we?

[Lither]

Possessing a viewpoint strictly limited by the confines of one's environment is pretty much the definition of naivete. :smallconfused:

Not, indeed, that being naive is an unforgivable offense by any means, but let's call a spade a spade, shall we?

Then by that my previous case studies from around the world would disqualify me. I have more - and worse - examples, if anyone wants them.

[celtois]

I'm also going to stick with a reply to just the OP.

Honestly, I have no idea, I haven't been in a position were I've had to make that choice. I'm fairly certain I wouldn't give my own life. Because I do value my life more than other humans. (Morally repugnant or not, I have to acknowledge my bias)

If pressed I would suggest, that past actions are the best predictor of future actions. While I don't know how I would respond in a crisis, my interactions with others on a daily basis suggests I'm not a particularly generous person. I am overly attached to my material possessions and tend to posses characteristics which are no dissimilarly to people who hoard objects. Given both of these facts, I am forced to conclude that the amount I would give would be shamefully small.

But, I'm merely human, I make no pretence of being perfect, I merely try and improve myself from day to day, in the hopes that one day I will be able to live up to my moral standards, a point which I suspect I will never reach, but am destined to approach forever like an asymptote.

[Grinner]

I think it's hard to draw a hard line. No, I've never donated 25 cents a day, even though it could potentially feed a starving orphan in the heart of Africa or South America. On the other hand, I think Aster Azul would have eventually ponied up the money, had someone else not come to the rescue.

It's harder to ignore something when it's staring you in the face.

[TaiLiu]

Possessing a viewpoint strictly limited by the confines of one's environment is pretty much the definition of naivete. :smallconfused:

Not, indeed, that being naive is an unforgivable offense by any means, but let's call a spade a spade, shall we?
I fail to see how. All our theories, our physics and sociology and sciences are based upon our observations of the world and the heavens.

[Grinner]

I fail to see how. All our theories, our physics and sociology and sciences are based upon our observations of the world and the heavens.

Some might posit that we still don't have the whole story.

[TaiLiu]

Some might posit that we still don't have the whole story.
To which story are you referring to?

[SiuiS]

I fail to see how. All our theories, our physics and sociology and sciences are based upon our observations of the world and the heavens.

"Our" not "your" or "my".

It is literally the black swan problem. Saying "all swans are white, always" because you personally have only ever experienced that as true.

"I base my expectations of all environments only on my own different and unique environment" is faulty because it says to everyone else who grew into a differing environment 'no, you're wrong' despite evidence. Most people go through it and can see the pitfalls.

[Grinner]

To which story are you referring to?

This story:


"Our" not "your" or "my".

It is literally the black swan problem. Saying "all swans are white, always" because you personally have only ever experienced that as true.

"I base my expectations of all environments only on my own different and unique environment" is faulty because it says to everyone else who grew into a differing environment 'no, you're wrong' despite evidence. Most people go through it and can see the pitfalls.

We might say that certain things are true, but until we can observe the whole system (the universe, which may actually be a multiverse), verifying these things without doubt is a difficult proposition.

For example, as earthbound creatures, we say that gravity goes down, but from an objective viewpoint (outer space, in this case), where is down?

Or take this article (http://www.nature.com/news/did-a-hyper-black-hole-spawn-the-universe-1.13743). Last year, some scientists wrote a paper which proposed that our universe exists as the byproduct of a four-dimensional black hole. I won't pretend to grasp the logic behind that statement, but to a layman, that sounds as crazy as certain other fringe theories. Still, the article assures us, it goes a long way towards explaining certain cosmological discrepancies in the Big Bang Theory, in spite of its own problems.

Regardless of whether the things this article says are true, it still has brought forth the idea that there may be modes of existence beyond our own. Therefore, we do not have the whole story.

And science marches on.

[SiuiS]

heeheehee~ (http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?id=3025#comic)



We might say that certain things are true, but until we can observe the whole system (the universe, which may actually be a multiverse), verifying these things without doubt is a difficult proposition.

For example, as earthbound creatures, we say that gravity goes down, but from an objective viewpoint (outer space, in this case), where is down?

Nah, that's easy. Down is based on orientation do the individual based on nearest gravity well. Down is "where gravity makes things go".


Or take this article (http://www.nature.com/news/did-a-hyper-black-hole-spawn-the-universe-1.13743). Last year, some scientists wrote a paper which proposed that our universe exists as the byproduct of a four-dimensional black hole. I won't pretend to grasp the logic behind that statement, but to a layman, that sounds as crazy as certain other fringe theories.
Huh. That makes sense to me. Is that weird?

[TaiLiu]

"Our" not "your" or "my".

It is literally the black swan problem. Saying "all swans are white, always" because you personally have only ever experienced that as true.

"I base my expectations of all environments only on my own different and unique environment" is faulty because it says to everyone else who grew into a differing environment 'no, you're wrong' despite evidence. Most people go through it and can see the pitfalls.
Hm. I'll let Lither defend themselves on their viewpoint.

This story:

We might say that certain things are true, but until we can observe the whole system (the universe, which may actually be a multiverse), verifying these things without doubt is a difficult proposition.

For example, as earthbound creatures, we say that gravity goes down, but from an objective viewpoint (outer space, in this case), where is down?

Or take this article (http://www.nature.com/news/did-a-hyper-black-hole-spawn-the-universe-1.13743). Last year, some scientists wrote a paper which proposed that our universe exists as the byproduct of a four-dimensional black hole. I won't pretend to grasp the logic behind that statement, but to a layman, that sounds as crazy as certain other fringe theories. Still, the article assures us, it goes a long way towards explaining certain cosmological discrepancies in the Big Bang Theory, in spite of its own problems.

Regardless of whether the things this article says are true, it still has brought forth the idea that there may be modes of existence beyond our own. Therefore, we do not have the whole story.

And science marches on.
We do not, which is why our theories are called theories. They're altered all the time, yes.

[Karoht]

That's an incredibly awful attitude.
So you see someone dying on the sidewalk and you walk away because he isn't worth the time or money to assist him or call an ambulance? How the hell do you even get so desensitized and cynical? :smallannoyed:In the States you can be sued for saving someone's life. You can be sued for calling someone an ambulance. That makes people pretty cynical pretty fast right there.


So what? Are you in a position to honestly claim the authority to judge who deserves to live and who deserves to die?!I posit that I'm probably the LAST person who should ever have that authority, let alone lay claim to it. Put a life in my hands, unless I can save them by deed and action (and maybe some input of cash), I'm really not the kind of guy who wants to play arbiter.

That said, I've saved lives in my day, ranging from preventing 3 suicides and 2 drug OD's, to talking down a man with a gun pointing it in a shopkeep's face. Mind you, my best friend also killed himself while on the phone with me when I was 16, so it's not like I'm good at this or anything. A lot of the people I have helped, I have best helped by either just listening and letting them sort their own baggage out, or by taking a hands off approach and letting the chips fall where they will, picking up people's messes after they push me away.

As for a dollar value? A tipping point?
Depends on the person. My grandparents and my fiancee I would spend any sum of money I could muster, because they are literally the only people that have EVER come to my rescue when I needed it.
Anyone else? Tough call, completely depends on who it is and the situation really.

[Starwulf]

Huh. That makes sense to me. Is that weird?

No. Just read the article, and while it does have a few small holes in it, if they can explain that, it does seem like it could be a valid theory. It's kinda scary though. I mean, we as a species, are miniscule when compared to the vastness of our universe, but this theory postulates that as large as our universe is, it's nothing more then...a vein of a much, MUCH larger universe. That pretty much reduces to the size of...well, whatever the smallest thing in the universe is(quark? I don't know, I don't keep up on science enough) in the grand scheme of things. Smaller really, I mean, it could be 10,000 years or more before we have even half of our universe mapped out. Now imagine how long it would be before we managed to start exploring outside of our little "vein". Kinda scary.

[SiuiS]

Hm. I'll let Lither defend themselves on their viewpoint.
Luther? I was explaining tuggyNE's view.


No. Just read the article, and while it does have a few small holes in it, if they can explain that, it does seem like it could be a valid theory. It's kinda scary though. I mean, we as a species, are miniscule when compared to the vastness of our universe, but this theory postulates that as large as our universe is, it's nothing more then...a vein of a much, MUCH larger universe. That pretty much reduces to the size of...well, whatever the smallest thing in the universe is(quark? I don't know, I don't keep up on science enough) in the grand scheme of things. Smaller really, I mean, it could be 10,000 years or more before we have even half of our universe mapped out. Now imagine how long it would be before we managed to start exploring outside of our little "vein". Kinda scary.

That's actually a really ridiculous way to look at it. We're a data point in a computer so enormous that it can generate an entire cosmological existence inside of it. That's not minuscule; that's normal. The supercomputer is just that massive.

[Partof1]

I've liked this discussion, as light-hearted as it isn't. It's made me question my own philosophies and acknowledge some inconsistencies therein.

As to the original question, I'd have to say me answer would be "some". I'm basically echoing earlier sentiments that I wouldn't jeopardize the health or safety of myself or mine in the long term. That is, I don't want to make myself unable to help my friends and family, nor am I going to mess up my university career by emptying my savings. I'd like to think I'd at least give up my wallet and phone in a strange city for a life.

Though this isn't without a bit of a caveat: I think I would have to be face to face with the person.

Though I know there are about 7 billion people in the world, I only really identify a couple hundred as human beings, if that. Life in and of itself isn't so precious to me, not when we have billions, as widespread quality of life.

In this case, the personal element would be what's needed to spark my empathy. As cold as it may be, I just don't have the resources or physical or emotional energy to care personally about the countless disaster and poverty victims about. Maybe some day, but not on a student's budget.

[Starwulf]

Luther? I was explaining tuggyNE's view.



That's actually a really ridiculous way to look at it. We're a data point in a computer so enormous that it can generate an entire cosmological existence inside of it. That's not minuscule; that's normal. The supercomputer is just that massive.

I know you didn't mean that in an offensive way, but what's so ridiculous about it? It's kind of the same thing you're describing, just you view it as more normal, while I find it a bit overwhelming if you really stop and contemplate it. We both acknowledge that with this theory, it makes the scope of reality that much larger.

[SiuiS]

I know you didn't mean that in an offensive way, but what's so ridiculous about it? It's kind of the same thing you're describing, just you view it as more normal, while I find it a bit overwhelming if you really stop and contemplate it. We both acknowledge that with this theory, it makes the scope of reality that much larger.

Yeah, towards the end I stumbled a bit and ironically, taking away language I thought would be offensive made it less relevant.

The existence of big things does not make you small. A fantastic universe of unfathomable proportion with an even more exponentially unfathomable universe outside it doesn't diminish you, however. You are and always have been as important as you seem yourself to be. There is just that much more to enjoy and explore.

Being dwarfed requires you to mentally shrink everything you know to fit it inside a scale model in your head that takes up finite space. Instead, you should remain the same size and just allow yourself to move further.

[Starwulf]

Yeah, towards the end I stumbled a bit and ironically, taking away language I thought would be offensive made it less relevant.

The existence of big things does not make you small. A fantastic universe of unfathomable proportion with an even more exponentially unfathomable universe outside it doesn't diminish you, however. You are and always have been as important as you seem yourself to be. There is just that much more to enjoy and explore.

Being dwarfed requires you to mentally shrink everything you know to fit it inside a scale model in your head that takes up finite space. Instead, you should remain the same size and just allow yourself to move further.

That's definitely a good, positive way to look at things. I guess my issue is I'm a bit more of a negative person, so it's harder for me to do so, but I fully understand your position now, thank you for the clarification :)