- MBTI
- enfp
- Enneagram
- -
Some supporting questions:
1. How much money could convince you to kill a man?
2. Would you trade the lives of 100 rapists and serial murderers for saving the lives of 1'000'000'000 people? If not 100, how many? Would you trade them for curing cancer? (which may save potentially infinite amount of lives in the future)
3. Suppose there's a switch. If you don't touch it, 5 random people die, if you press it, 1 random man dies. Would you press the switch?
4. Suppose now, you stand behind a fat man. If you push him in front of some train, he'll die, but the train stops. If you do nothing, the train passes by and will kill 5 people. Would you push the fat man in front of the train to save the other 5 men?
5. Imagine the closest member of your family, or just the one you love the most on the world. Would you kill 1'000'000'000 people to save them, or would you let them die?
I know, harsh issues.
Let's see my own theory. I believe human life counts as infinity, no matter of the case. If it's the worst monster-killer beyond repairment, if it's a 120-year old man in vegetative state, it doesn't matter. But it matters, if it's a close relative/loved one of yours. Sorry, it seems unfair, that's the way I feel. So here are the responses:
1. Infinity.
2. No. I wouldn't trade 1 worst murderer for saving the rest of the world.
3. There's no inaction here, if you do nothing, you still "kill" people. I say there should be a random choice, by dice or coin, because on both sides of the equation you have infinity.
4. Same as above. (but I'll have more problems pushing a man in front of the train, than pressing a switch, even if it causes essentially the same harm)
5. Yes. I'd think 9 times before hurting even a fly, but if it's about protecting the lives of very close loved ones, and there's really no other way to save them, I might agree even to mass genocide. I can't completely justify this decision. It just only feels right. I believe such level of commitment should be universal, i.e. others to do the same in my place. As an example, many animals seem to be ready to kill anyone to protect their family (sometimes they overcome the natural fear and can kill or scare much stronger animals, or large groups of attackers).
Unfortunately, point 5 is very easily abused by many political regimes around the world. It's so easy to keep the population under control, when most of them have too much to lose. People can't think clearly, because they are too dependent on their loved ones, who are also kept dependent. Thus every good citizen becomes a potential mass murderer, who would vote for the next world war. It's very sad.
1. How much money could convince you to kill a man?
2. Would you trade the lives of 100 rapists and serial murderers for saving the lives of 1'000'000'000 people? If not 100, how many? Would you trade them for curing cancer? (which may save potentially infinite amount of lives in the future)
3. Suppose there's a switch. If you don't touch it, 5 random people die, if you press it, 1 random man dies. Would you press the switch?
4. Suppose now, you stand behind a fat man. If you push him in front of some train, he'll die, but the train stops. If you do nothing, the train passes by and will kill 5 people. Would you push the fat man in front of the train to save the other 5 men?
5. Imagine the closest member of your family, or just the one you love the most on the world. Would you kill 1'000'000'000 people to save them, or would you let them die?
I know, harsh issues.
Let's see my own theory. I believe human life counts as infinity, no matter of the case. If it's the worst monster-killer beyond repairment, if it's a 120-year old man in vegetative state, it doesn't matter. But it matters, if it's a close relative/loved one of yours. Sorry, it seems unfair, that's the way I feel. So here are the responses:
1. Infinity.
2. No. I wouldn't trade 1 worst murderer for saving the rest of the world.
3. There's no inaction here, if you do nothing, you still "kill" people. I say there should be a random choice, by dice or coin, because on both sides of the equation you have infinity.
4. Same as above. (but I'll have more problems pushing a man in front of the train, than pressing a switch, even if it causes essentially the same harm)
5. Yes. I'd think 9 times before hurting even a fly, but if it's about protecting the lives of very close loved ones, and there's really no other way to save them, I might agree even to mass genocide. I can't completely justify this decision. It just only feels right. I believe such level of commitment should be universal, i.e. others to do the same in my place. As an example, many animals seem to be ready to kill anyone to protect their family (sometimes they overcome the natural fear and can kill or scare much stronger animals, or large groups of attackers).
Unfortunately, point 5 is very easily abused by many political regimes around the world. It's so easy to keep the population under control, when most of them have too much to lose. People can't think clearly, because they are too dependent on their loved ones, who are also kept dependent. Thus every good citizen becomes a potential mass murderer, who would vote for the next world war. It's very sad.
Well I basically had 2 mothers when I was a child (my grandmother raised me half of my childhood). Both are dead. I've lost 3 close family members to death in the last 5 years. So Death is a pretty big part of my viewpoint. I think it has had a serious effect on my life and worldview. I simply don't value the things that others do any more. I just can't seem to care about 'stuff' any more beyond paying the bills. I think the day to day kills what really binds people together.
