Left to Right:
If I read you right, you suggest there is some problem answering these questions because any answer is dependent on so many factors that are unknown until the time and place when such a situation manifests itself.
However, as I previously pointed out in another post, these problems could just as easily be raised if some one asks you what your favorite color is. Most people can answer this. But if you say "red," there still might be shades of red you don't like. And maybe there are some things you would definitely not want to be red. Like your favorite color for shoes might be black, and you might hate the idea of red shoes. Your favorite color might change during the day as your mood changes, too. Yet for all these problems, the fact is that pretty much all of us have probably been asked, and been able to answer, this question. We do it just be giving a quick, gut-level response at the time we are asked. The answer will be true, but inherently generalized and subject to countless unmentioned qualifications and exceptions. It'll just be what feels MOST accurate at the time we answer. This is all inherent in, and subsumed within, the concept of human communication. All questions, all answers, about reality are inherently vague, incomplete, generalized, subjective and prone to some degree of misunderstanding based on different perceptions of different people as to the nuances of meaning of certain words. Yet we still talk to each other because communication works. It does not work perfectly, but it is the best means we have for sharing information and planning coordinated behaviors.
So just look at each question and say what you feel is most accurate for you.
And the request for a numerical answer does not turn this into an impossible task. While you COULD gives answers like "9" or "40,000" or
"2.134", the more practical issue is whether you value strangers lives as being of greater, equal or lesser value than yours or your loved ones.
This was prompted, in part, by my questioning of my mother, who supported the Iraq war. She claimed it was worth the deaths because Saddam was a bad guy and the world is better without his regime. So I asked her if she thought it would have been worth it if I had to die to get rid of Saddam's regime, and she said no, she would not make that bargain. So on the one hand she thinks 1 death would be too high a price to pay for Saddam's downfall -- my own -- and on the other hand she thinks that the thousands of innocent civilians -- including children -- who died was a fair price. It occured to me that there is a hypocrisy there, and unfairness. I thought of a moral principle: You should not be willing to kill some one's innocent child to achieve some goal if you would not be willing to have your own child die to achieve that same goal. There are countless ways or applying that same moral principle to different situations: You should not be willing to kill an innocent person to achieve some goal unless you are willing to die yourself to achieve that goal. You should not be willing to maim an innocent person to achieve some goal unless you are willing to be maimed yourself to achieve that goal. This is my own realization of what is the fairest and simplest way of figuring out if a particular level of violence is warranted in a particular circumstance.
But it is worth examing how much pro-self, pro-family bias people have and admit to, which is the antithesis of my morality. See, this kind of morality just does not work if most people are willing to kill multiple innocent children in order to save 1 child of their own. If that is the prevailing attitude -- that you should do whatever it takes to save your own child as the highest moral imperative (higher even than not taking the lives of innocent children) then that is worth knowing. Should the moral concept be adjusted to meet this prevailing attitude? Does the prevailing attitude need adjusting?
Consider the long-term effects of a "my child above all else" attitude. This may SEEM superficially to be the best way of protecting your child, your genetic future. However, in a world where strangers all must fear each other, and fear that the other strangers would kill your own child and many others to save their own child, we all have to be on guard. It promotes division and division promotes violence. When you dig deeper, it may become apparent that IF we all embraced a common "all children are equally valuable and worthy of life" attitude, then that could result in more human trust and fellowship, a reduction (if not abolition) of violence and warfare... The end result is that by NOT favoring your child's life over the lives of strangers' children, you may actually be creating a safer environment for your child and be BETTER ensuring your child's health and happiness and long life.
It is like this: Imagine you have a farm on very rich soil, surrounded by farms on poor soil. You have plenty of food and your neighbors are starving. You can be socialistic about your farm and share with your neighbors, thereby eliminating any ill will. Or you can sell your extra food to the highest bidder and buy luxuries with the extra money. This would likely create jealousy and animosity, though, in your neighbors. Fearing some thievery or violence by them, you probably would need to build some good security measures to keep yourself safe. High walls, checkpoint entry, border guards, the latest weaponry, etc. That costs money, too. So you have to keep charging your poor neighbors as much as possible for your food and perhaps even engage in other methods of making greater profit for yourself, such as trying to sabotage your neighbor's farming. This could make your neighbors even more hostile, requiring you to spend even more money on security... The richer you get, the more you spend on security and the more you need the security. That's sort of how America sits right now. Most Americans think we are a postiive force in the world, spreading goodness and charity to needy peoples. Yet we have 5% of the world's population using 25% of its resources or something like that. We have a military budget that is as much as the entire rest of the world combined spends on the military. Why? So we'll be safe.... But why do we have to fear for our safety?
We think we are giving our kids a better life because they have the latest electronic gizmos, because we have advanced medical techniques, and we have so much military might no one can seriously threaten us... But what if we had created a future where no one WANTED to threaten us? Where we did not have to stockpile nuclear weapons to deter attack? Where all the nice neighborhoods were not guard-gated? Are we really sure that gluttonous individuality is a happier lifestyle than a modest communal lifestyle?
It is possible that giving our children riches that far surpass what most of the world possesses is NOT giving them a gift, but is giving them a lodestone around their neck, a stone that will attract violence and hatred to them throughout their lives. Just like it is possible that giving our children preferential treatment to the chldren of strangers in matters such as who is deserving of life, health and happiness is, also, putting a lodestone around their necks that draws violence and hatred.
Well, going back to your two questions, the bottom line is these questions can be answered and the answers are relevant to current issues of practical morality.
~psychoblast~
