| I tend to value the life of a younger person more compared to an older one. If I had the choice to save a younger person or an older one I would save the younger person. What about you? Do you value more the life of younger people? |
DrSexyMar 4, 2021 4:39 PM
| 한 번만 살지만 제대로 하면 한 번이면 충분해요 |
| Well it make sense to save the younger people I suppose...younger people are our future after all |
| I would like to express the same. However, I cannot be objective with my own person when answering a question of "If you had to save A or B, who would you save?" at a time when I'm not in that apparent situation. |
   You and the rose are connected. Know the weight of your own life |
| Ideally they should have equal value but nobody really treats a janitor with the same respect as a CEO. |
| anthropologically speaking is debatable, but economically speaking the answer is a clear not, numbers never lie. |
| as much as I want to think all lives are equal, they're not. The smarter a person is, the more value their life holds, the richer a person is, the more value their life holds, the more famous a person is, the more value their life holds. because they can impact the world more than an average person. If I had to choose to save stephen hawking or a random guy, then the answer is obvious. |
just a weeb wandering around.  |
| No lives aren't equal. There are people that are superior to others. And ye I would also save a 25 year old over a 50 year old. |
| Everyone is equal life ofc but if I hate to pick I would pick the younger not because they're life is worth more than the old person, but that the old person is already on a death bed, Todd here is earning his masters, societal Todd is contributing more. But I'd never want our society to be put in this position, picking and choosing who will die like we might have to with covid, it's immoral to end up at this point |
 |
| They are inherently equal but that doesn't mean each and every person holds an equal value to any given group or society regardless of their actions. |
| In theory all lives are supposed to be equal however reality always begs to differ. A brilliant mind like Einstein or Elon Musk is always worth more than 100 average college student minds. Back in the days, one Alexander or one Zhuge Liang is worth more than 1000s of soldier lives. We also tend to save the lives that carry more values to us, I'd save the lives of my family over some random people on the streets 100% of the times |
 If you're having crippling depression, hopefully our videos will send you to another world and have you reborn as an isekai protagonist https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCc8rSgYdcdZUSXXqVJhNwLw |
Futari_no_Ossan said: I would not save Elon musk over 100 college students lol wtf??? No one should In theory all lives are supposed to be equal however reality always begs to differ. A brilliant mind like Einstein or Elon Musk is always worth more than 100 average college student minds. Back in the days, one Alexander or one Zhuge Liang is worth more than 1000s of soldier lives. We also tend to save the lives that carry more values to us, I'd save the lives of my family over some random people on the streets 100% of the times |
| To me I value people I meet more than people I never met. In terms of law I believe all lives should be treated equally regardless of sex or age. No one should be above the law. I would easily chose my family over 1,000,000 strangers. |
 |
Ethereal-peace said: I would not save Elon musk over 100 college students lol wtf??? No one should I would, raked in lots of $ thanks to Tesla and guess who's Tesla CEO? What would I get from 100 college students other than 100 walking debts? Lots more to come from Musk and his projects such as SpaceXXX |
If you're having crippling depression, hopefully our videos will send you to another world and have you reborn as an isekai protagonist https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCc8rSgYdcdZUSXXqVJhNwLw |
Futari_no_Ossan said: Uhhh such as? I think it’s a ploy and only the rich will benefit anywaysEthereal-peace said: I would not save Elon musk over 100 college students lol wtf??? No one should I would, raked in lots of $ thanks to Tesla and guess who's Tesla CEO? What would I get from 100 college students other than 100 walking debts? Lots more to come from Musk and his projects such as SpaceXXX |
Ethereal-peace said: Uhhh such as? I think it’s a ploy and only the rich will benefit anyways This is where perspective matters: those who benefit tremendously from Elon will appreciate his life's value more than those who do not benefit from it. You don't get gainz from him and do not see his future potential so you don't appreciate him, simple isn't it? |
If you're having crippling depression, hopefully our videos will send you to another world and have you reborn as an isekai protagonist https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCc8rSgYdcdZUSXXqVJhNwLw |
Futari_no_Ossan said: So you don’t appreciate 100 kids who could possibly be better than Elon? Ethereal-peace said: Uhhh such as? I think it’s a ploy and only the rich will benefit anyways This is where perspective matters: those who benefit tremendously from Elon will appreciate his life's value more than those who do not benefit from it. You don't get gainz from him and do not see his future potential so you don't appreciate him, simple isn't it? |
| nah the president of a nation has more value than a lot of commoners |
Ethereal-peace said: So you don’t appreciate 100 kids who could possibly be better than Elon? Key word here is possibly it's a big IF, what probability are you talking about? No one invests on those vague terms lol well maybe the so-called "entrepreneurs" that are plaguing RH rn It's simply a case of proven product vs unproven product. Do you take a gamble on an obscure penny stock with no data backing it up or a stock that has been overperforming for many years and still has room to grow with very clear evidence? Are you willing to wait 10-20 years for those penny stocks that may or may not bear fruits or would you rather wait 2-3 years to double/triple your gainz? I'd rather take multiple 0.5x 2x 3x gainz rather than playing the lottery for a potential 10x coup with crappy odds that most likely will never come. |
If you're having crippling depression, hopefully our videos will send you to another world and have you reborn as an isekai protagonist https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCc8rSgYdcdZUSXXqVJhNwLw |
| when there's war/conflict/earthquake etc, the people always say women and children first, as in women and children are to be saved first, I mean, even indirectly we tent to put more value in other lives, we don't save lives randomly |
    |
| Depend the situation I would prioritize saving the one that is more rescuable regardless gender age and race. But in most dire situation i wouldn't go over my ability to save anyone at all. And it is a good thing to say all lives are equal value but definitely not true. That is why some work extremely hard to get above on others. |
| Most certainly not! Most are devoid of value, as it is meant to be. |
  “The most shameless thing in the world is political power that can be inherited regardless of ability or talent!” |
| Ofcourse different, if i asked to safe bill gates or random slump child pretty sure i prefer choose bill gates despite my reason seems like unmoral but if u can safe both of them why not, right ? |
 |
Futari_no_Ossan said: I don’t necessarily like to look at people that way. Like there’ll be 100 families and friend groups etc that will be affected by those deaths. Yea Elon is rich and famous but that’s not the same impact that those 100 will have. Until he actually creators something tangible and amazing to the human race I can’t see a reason to save him. And if those “stocks” bust then it just busts. Nothing is guaranteed right?Ethereal-peace said: So you don’t appreciate 100 kids who could possibly be better than Elon? Key word here is possibly it's a big IF, what probability are you talking about? No one invests on those vague terms lol well maybe the so-called "entrepreneurs" that are plaguing RH rn It's simply a case of proven product vs unproven product. Do you take a gamble on an obscure penny stock with no data backing it up or a stock that has been overperforming for many years and still has room to grow with very clear evidence? Are you willing to wait 10-20 years for those penny stocks that may or may not bear fruits or would you rather wait 2-3 years to double/triple your gainz? I'd rather take multiple 0.5x 2x 3x gainz rather than playing the lottery for a potential 10x coup with crappy odds that most likely will never come. |
You mean comparing 2 individuals I don't know anything about except their age? Then no! If you mean within a whole population, then yes. |
Ethereal-peace said: I don’t necessarily like to look at people that way. Like there’ll be 100 families and friend groups etc that will be affected by those deaths. Yea Elon is rich and famous but that’s not the same impact that those 100 will have. Until he actually creators something tangible and amazing to the human race I can’t see a reason to save him. And if those “stocks” bust then it just busts. Nothing is guaranteed right? Everyone looks at things differently that's why I said perspective matters: for the family of one of those students, they won't care about Musk and place more value on that student for being part of their family so if anything happens, they'll prioritize that student. For me Idk those students but I do know Musk and am involved with him so I have to save his azz for my own sake There's this ep in Jujutsu Kaisen in which Nanami questions his life and ask himself what does he contribute to society other than just buying and selling money (aka stocks), it's not something tangible, akin to virtual money like bitcoin. However it does improve people life, at least those who know how to make profits out of it. If those stocks bust, a lot of investors will either hang themselves or go bankrupt, that is a guarantee lol so people will end up dying due to Musk dying, is is fair to save 100 students in exchange of more people being in peril + one ded Musk? Remember the butterfly effect? |
Futari_no_OssanMar 5, 2021 10:20 AM
If you're having crippling depression, hopefully our videos will send you to another world and have you reborn as an isekai protagonist https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCc8rSgYdcdZUSXXqVJhNwLw |
| There are many angles I could take this. We obviously value people differently based on a number of different factors, those would be wealth, influence, familiarity, for some people, things like nationality or race could be. But those are psychological reasons, not necessarily philosophically grounded ones. Indeed, there's nothing intrinsic about the nature of the people at the bottom of the aforementioned metrics that they had to have been that way, that they're just inadequate compared to others. If you had a dice that randomly swapped everyone's minds, rewound the time, and made everyone reborn in this new set of circumstances, it would not be the same minds who prosper and the same minds who fail as the previous world. You'd see most of the geniuses and the entrepreneurs of the past world live utterly dull and ordinary lives, as well as the commonfolk of the past world live incredibly successful ones. We undercut how much does external factors actually get us where we are, and only recognize them if they work against us. |
 |
| Well, @traed already said what I meant to say, so instead I will just quote my own post from another thread: Sheklon said: Value is subjective, but if we were to look at the matter from a rational point of view closer to the concept of justice, a life is only worth the same as another life. And two lives are already worth more than one. I wouldn't say this has anything to do with belonging. I'd say it's a cold and objective perspective if anything - that is, if every person had the same opportunities to do good and bad. And since morality is also subjective, it wouldn't be possible to judge one's value over another, because that is believing in inherent ethical nature to acts and that there is moral superiority. If the natural state of things is neutral, then truly, every life is worth the same: one. |
| I value exclusively those lives who behave in a manner that brings about justice. All other lives hold no value whatsoever and can perish. |
| I personally disagree that all lives are objectively worth the same in every context. If you had the choice to save a known serial murderer+rapist or someone like Albert Einstein, no one in their right mind would choose the former. However, it requires prior knowledge of the individuals to make such a decision. In the same way, if there was only a single woman left on Earth and you (as a man) had a choice to save her or any other random man, you would most definitely choose the first option. Choosing the first option would be the equivalent of giving a chance for the human race to survive meanwhile the second option would doom the human race to extinction. |
 |
| We like to claim there is equality when it suits us and We love to claim inequality whenever it suits us... the truth is that is where our equality is - the fact that there is no true equality to speak of. We can pretend all we like but in truth whatever you are you have benefits, privileges, and discrimination to deal with on a day to day basis and you can focus on whichever one you want and that is how you will view others and the world around you but the reality is they are all there for you and everyone else whether you like it or not. We all have our strength based on what we are We all have that special "card" that allows us certain privileges in our lives We all have those who will hate us just because of what we are |
 |
| Are you pulling a doctor Tenma move, dr? As expected of doctors, they have good connections. As for the question I don't. |
 just wanna feel wanted by someone other than the police 😫 |
| Yes..................................... |
 |
automaweeb said: I personally disagree that all lives are objectively worth the same in every context. If you had the choice to save a known serial murderer+rapist or someone like Albert Einstein, no one in their right mind would choose the former. However, it requires prior knowledge of the individuals to make such a decision. In the same way, if there was only a single woman left on Earth and you (as a man) had a choice to save her or any other random man, you would most definitely choose the first option. Choosing the first option would be the equivalent of giving a chance for the human race to survive meanwhile the second option would doom the human race to extinction. You assertion is right based on common sense, but you might wanna ask yourself: - What is right and wrong? - Why is it important to protect society and the common well being of people? - Why is it important to keep the human race alive/not extinct? Can you find objective answers to these questions? Ones that are not relative? |
| Lives has no inherent value on itself, it can only be appraised by the one living it and not by others I cannot judge objectively whether a person A is more valuable than person B. I might try to rationalize my answer by saying 'this person A has done more goods than person B, so A live is more important' or something like that, in reality this is just giving them arbitrary value from our convenience and POV (family, love, morals, you named it). The only thing you can accurately assume it's value is your own life, because the one that surely impacted by it's death is yourself. So I think all lives are not equal,you'll make reasons and excuse to believe it is, and one's live is the most important. My life is more important to me, your life is more important to you, for everything else - we will make excuse. |
| The most important things in life is the people that you care about |
| All lives are of equal worth, that's how society is built, doesn't matter your race or background, that's the ideals of society, right? How much the inherent value is itself, remains a mystery. |
  死神 ❝What do you think are the most important things in life? Money, dreams, sympathy towards others... Yes, they're all important things as well... But the most important thing is responsibility for your own actions.❞ - Yuichi |
Sheklon said: You assertion is right based on common sense, but you might wanna ask yourself: - What is right and wrong? - Why is it important to protect society and the common well being of people? - Why is it important to keep the human race alive/not extinct? Can you find objective answers to these questions? Ones that are not relative? I see we are getting a little bit philosophical at this point lol - What is right/wrong in this scenario is what benefits the collective as a whole in a positive/negative way. - If the well being of people is not protected, people will become agressive and claim it on their own whether it is through manipulation or violence and thus becomes bad for the collective. - This is debatable, but in general, from the perspective of a human being, human lives are worth more than any other life. From the perspective of other lifeforms, the survival of their own species would take priority. A bit of a rhetoric in this scenario, because the goal is to save and promote the collective as a whole. Not letting the human race die benefits the collective more than saving a single ephemeral life. If you were not going to benefit the collective in the first place, might as well leave both to die which in terms eliminates the need of asking yourself this question lol |
automaweebMar 5, 2021 12:56 PM
|
| @automaweeb You mean leaving A and B to die? But one could still choose to save either for individualistic or personal reasons, the same way we can say that your priority on the collective benefit is a also personal standpoint. Which is why I don't believe we can talk about objective choices in this question; you're already starting from a relative perspective that favors humans over other animals and that's based on your own perception of collective benefit, is that not right? |
He declared it as such and such it would be. |
Sheklon said: @automaweeb You mean leaving A and B to die? But one could still choose to save either for individualistic or personal reasons, the same way we can say that your priority on the collective benefit is a also personal standpoint. Which is why I don't believe we can talk about objective choices in this question; you're already starting from a relative perspective that favors humans over other animals and that's based on your own perception of collective benefit, is that not right? It is « objectively » good for the collective, yes. That is, if you see it from a collective standpoint. Because there is one subjective opinion defying this truth does not mean it is not good for everyone in the collective. If you let a single person opinion sway the benefit of the collective, murderers would themselves always claim they are good for the community and everyone would leave them roaming and killing others. The perception that humans are favored over other species is already in place and not my point of view. But again, that is why I said this point is debatable. Because the decision could be to save the human race versus a bird species for instance. If you see it from that standpoint, one could claim the planet would benefit more having the humans dead and the birds alive. |
|
automaweeb said: It is « objectively » good for the collective, yes. That is, if you see it from a collective standpoint. Unless we're going by natural needs, that only sounds right in paper. What makes democracy problematic and questionable is that there isn't a single answer as to what is objectively best for everyone. You could argue that life is the primary and most valuable need for every living being, but I could argue that euthanasia is the objective and rational course of action to take regarding children with defective birth, or that death sentences are the best option to deal with serial killers/rapists. If we are to protect the good of the collective, first we would need an unanimous answer to what is good for the collective. Because there is one subjective opinion defying this truth does not mean it is not good for everyone in the collective. If you let a single person opinion sway the benefit of the collective, murderers would themselves always claim they are good for the community and everyone would leave them roaming and killing others. They would not, because people have capacity to act and react. And that possibility is what leads to differing viewpoints and the never ending ethical and political debates. The perception that humans are favored over other species is already in place and not my point of view. But again, that is why I said this point is debatable. Because the decision could be to save the human race versus a bird species for instance. If you see it from that standpoint, one could claim the planet would benefit more having the humans dead and the birds alive. Yes, exactly, and that's a very important factor to your point of view. If humans are not more important than other life forms or the environment, then it's "objectively" better for the planet (the largest form of "collective") that humans go extinct, or undergo heavy and brutal massacre and birth control. Not many people of the human collective are prone to agree with that. I just think "rationally" would fit better to your post than "objectively". It's hard to talk about objectivity when the subject is relative. |
| The value of all living things is equally inexistent, because "value" is a concept created by humans. Who is worth more or less is matter of point of view, since there are many, many things to take in consideration. Let's say i'm in that situation where i have to save one of two people. If one of them is someone i know (for example my family, friend etc) i'll naturally save the one i know. But if both are strangers that i have absolutely no info about, i'll save neither. Age/gender/race is irrelevant to me, to decide which one i'll save (or IF i will save one of them at all) i need to know what kind of person they are. For example if i had to choose between saving a random person and a serial killer i would naturally choose the random person, but that's only if i KNEW which one of them was the serial killer and which one was the "normal" person. But if i don't know anything, then i can't just save one and let the other die. See how it's complicated? Now let's say both of them are people i DO care about. For example my parents. I would have no choice but let them both die. I couldn't just save my mom and abandon dad for example, that'd be fucked up. Even if i get along a bit better with her. Lastly, back to the young vs older thing. In my opinion, saving the younger one just because they have more time to live is bullshit. Sure, they MIGHT have a brilliant future but hey, the older person is not dead yet. They might bring more good to society in their remaining time than the young one ever will, even after living way more. So that's why i believe age is NOT something that matters in this situation. |
  |
I'm just going to lazily drop my favorite movie quote. Not all life is of equal value, but that doesn't mean there's only one standard in which to measure that value. It would be tantamount to saying that IQ is the only way to measure someone's intelligence. |
 |
Nyarly-kun said: Now let's say both of them are people i DO care about. For example my parents. I would have no choice but let them both die. Sorry, but this is hilarious. I'm not even contesting the rest of your post, it's just that this is too funny to read. You would let them both die because you can't pick one? Why not flip a coin then? XD |
Sheklon said: automaweeb said: It is « objectively » good for the collective, yes. That is, if you see it from a collective standpoint. Unless we're going by natural needs, that only sounds right in paper. What makes democracy problematic and questionable is that there isn't a single answer as to what is objectively best for everyone. You could argue that life is the primary and most valuable need for every living being, but I could argue that euthanasia is the objective and rational course of action to take regarding children with defective birth, or that death sentences are the best option to deal with serial killers/rapists. If we are to protect the good of the collective, first we would need an unanimous answer to what is good for the collective. Because there is one subjective opinion defying this truth does not mean it is not good for everyone in the collective. If you let a single person opinion sway the benefit of the collective, murderers would themselves always claim they are good for the community and everyone would leave them roaming and killing others. They would not, because people have capacity to act and react. And that possibility is what leads to differing viewpoints and the never ending ethical and political debates. The perception that humans are favored over other species is already in place and not my point of view. But again, that is why I said this point is debatable. Because the decision could be to save the human race versus a bird species for instance. If you see it from that standpoint, one could claim the planet would benefit more having the humans dead and the birds alive. Yes, exactly, and that's a very important factor to your point of view. If humans are not more important than other life forms or the environment, then it's "objectively" better for the planet (the largest form of "collective") that humans go extinct, or undergo heavy and brutal massacre and birth control. Not many people of the human collective are prone to agree with that. I just think "rationally" would fit better to your post than "objectively". It's hard to talk about objectivity when the subject is relative. Having an adequate supply of food is « objectively » good for you personally. Having a healthy thriving community is « objectively » good for a collectivity. It's not about the opinion of the decision itself, but rather about what leads closer to the desired state of the individual/collectivity. I don't see many human beings who would decide to leave the human race to die in favor of someone or save a criminal rather than someone who wants the good of the community unless they are personally acquainted with those individuals which then involves subjective bias into the rationale. As far as democracy goes, it's bad because it promotes mobbing by segregating the collectivity and making people side with completely radical opposite sides where all the choices are made rather than actually debating/voting on each subject individually. A slight variation to a question may require more complex answers and thoughts than what was mentioned above and may not have the same degree of approval. I don't know if it's just you not liking the wording, but I don't really see anyone claiming a healthy thriving community as being a negative aspect of a collectivity. |
automaweebMar 5, 2021 2:41 PM
|
Sheklon said: Nyarly-kun said: Now let's say both of them are people i DO care about. For example my parents. I would have no choice but let them both die. Sorry, but this is hilarious. I'm not even contesting the rest of your post, it's just that this is too funny to read. You would let them both die because you can't pick one? Why not flip a coin then? XD Lol i unintentionally made it sound really funny Btw all that saving stuff reminds me of Shirou from Fate |
|
| @automaweeb If we go by semantics, I admit you're correct. But philosophically and ethically, we have limited knowledge and moral bias. The harm principle is not immune to the fallibility of our perception. You might choose to save an irrelevant good/neutral person over a bad person who would promote much more common good later if said person was, for instance, also a politician that supported health investments for the country. Of course, that might not be important to objectively answer the question "are all lives equal?", but it is important if you plan on implementing that type of pragmatics in real life. However, I'm satisfied with your answers. Maybe I am just nitpicking, yes. |
SheklonMar 5, 2021 2:53 PM
Nyarly-kun said: Lol i unintentionally made it sound really funny Btw all that saving stuff reminds me of Shirou from Fate Yeah. lol I don't know much about Fate or the character, but that's an honorable belief for a man to have. |
More topics from this board
Poll: » the future of AI girlfriend technologydeg - 2 hours ago |
11 |
by PostMahouShoujo
»»
3 minutes ago |
|
» Would you ever be interested in going on a blind date?Thy-Veseveia - 6 hours ago |
10 |
by xthewarwithinx
»»
4 minutes ago |
|
Poll: » Bluey is the most watched anime in the world nowtsukareru - 8 hours ago |
13 |
by xthewarwithinx
»»
7 minutes ago |
|
» For everyone who has signed up to this site using Protonmail, and doesn't use that address for anything elsevasipi4946 - 29 minutes ago |
0 |
by vasipi4946
»»
29 minutes ago |
|
» 2023-2024 NBA Season Discussion ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )deg - Jun 18, 2023 |
672 |
by MadanielFL
»»
33 minutes ago |