• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

How many innocent people would you kill to save yourself?

Most people who have responded in this thread don't seem to understand that while it's easy to answer a question like this in a hypothetical sense, when you're placed in a situation of life and death, logic flies out the window, and anyone in here would do anything to save themselves. Yes, parents, if put in a life or death situation would save themselves over their children. Argue it all you want, it's all a moot point. So to answer the questions, if i was placed in a life-or-death situation like the one described, i would likely kill everyone on the planet before myself, not because i would make that decision in a calm and rational environment, but because my ass is on the line, and i'd do anything possible to save it, as all of you would.
 
I would have to say that I would never let another person die rather than me or my loved one. The main reason is that I know I couldnt live with myself knowing I did such a selfish thing.

Then again, I have never been in that situation. :\
 
when you're placed in a situation of life and death, logic flies out the window, and anyone in here would do anything to save themselves.
Click to expand...

Wow, do you have a screwed up view of life. This is provably false. Plenty of people in history have knowingly died to save others. What about the soldier who jumps on a grenade? This has happened before, more than once. What about people who risk death to save others, like running into a burning building?

I'm curious...are you an atheist? Is your idea that this life is all we've got, so you need to do whatever it takes to prolong it?

~psychoblast~
 
glowbug said:
^^^Yeah? Name one person in history who has maintained a perfect undefeated record against death.

<Insert name here> infinity, Death 0?

Even Christ supposedly lost one.
Click to expand...


What do you mean maintained a perfect undefeated record against death?

And what do you mean christ supposedly lost one?
 
I'd kill a lot of people, but if the number started getting really rediculous, I'd go after the guy who was holding me captive and fight it to the death...

I wouldn't really care if they were children.

I haven't had kids yet, so I can't really answer that question.

And I've never really been in a very serious relationship, so I guess I can't answer that, either...hmmz...

But yea, assuming I really loved the person, I'd kill quite a few people for them, too.
 
JudgeFishy said:
What do you mean maintained a perfect undefeated record against death?

And what do you mean christ supposedly lost one?
Click to expand...

Well, what I meant was, nobody lives forever, so there isn't ALWAYS a way to dodge death...at least not yet.

And Christ supposedly died, so he lost one battle with death too.
 
1. How many adult strangers would you kill to save yourself (the strangers are NOT trying to kill you)?

0

2. Would your answer change if the strangers were children? If yes, how?

No

3. How many adult strangers would you kill to save your child (the strangers are NOT trying to kill your child)?

As many that come in my way...

4. Would your answer change if the strangers were children? If yes, how?

No

5. How many adult strangers would you kill to save your lover/spouse/soul mate?

Any and all of them...

6. Would your answer change if the strangers were children?

Yes, Children still need to live their lives. If I loved somebody then i'm sure she would understand...
 
1. How many adult strangers would you kill to save yourself (the strangers are NOT trying to kill you)?

0

2. Would your answer change if the strangers were children? If yes, how?

No

3. How many adult strangers would you kill to save your child (the strangers are NOT trying to kill your child)?

infinte

4. Would your answer change if the strangers were children? If yes, how?

No

5. How many adult strangers would you kill to save your lover/spouse/soul mate?

infinte

Kid's, don't think I could do it.
 
Not all terrorists think they are going to heaven, isnt that like one particular belief associated with some islamic extremists? Chechnian terrorists are of a different religion, their one goal -for the last few generations or however long its been- is to get an indepentant chechnia away from communist Russia.
 
Although i (hopefully as I intend to) promote thoughtful conversations and appreciate them as dearly as (if not moreso than) repsoducing my own DNA (so I would like to believe), but I can't fathom the discussion on such a futile question that one that requests a specific numerical answer to an extremely unliekey event which even if it were the case would ALSO be under near infinite other influences (eg., mood, health, train of throught at the time, priorities, the weather, the comfort of your clothes, whether you scored the night before, whether you were recently diagnosed with a terminal illness, whether there is money involved, whether that cab cut you off earlier or not, your sanity, the full moon, et·cet·er·a)

This question is like "does a tree falling in the woods with no one around make a sound?" or even statements like, "how long is a piece of string", or "the cat sat on the mat" or even the singal word "blue".

The answers and responses to which are infinite due to your own personal interpretations and undertandings of each word and and THEIR countless possible interpretive connotations which ALWAYS inevitably differs from everyone else's, thus negating any possibility for real clear undertsanding (as I can see right this very moment) LET ALONE ASIGN A SPCIFIC NUMERICAL SCALE!

Not to imply any negative connotations is you all discussing this question. It has, after all been a rather successful question to get such a response.

But i'm trying to understand why....
What has or can anyone gain from asking such a question?
?I undertand this coversation less than I understand this t-shirt

...I hope we haven't or aren't losing ourselves to decadence.

Now probably due the the neon eighties, decadence may still be perceived with positive qualities (apart from the absolute basic one that gives it existancel)
But for those with any doubt, according to ]www.dictionary.com
dec·a·dence Audio pronunciation of "decadence" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dk-dns, d-kdns)
n.
1. A process, condition, or period of deterioration or decline, as in morals or art; decay.[/i

n.b IF anyone is wondering why i put so much effort in asking why, it's because by being interested in the thoughts and reasonings of others I can hopefully become more aware of my own. That and an attempt to hold up the proverbial mirror to good poeple.

We've evolved to have the gift (which nowadays seems more like luxery) of an amazingly articulte processes, systems and transmittions tools to communicate and it's one of my pet peeves when people don't say what they mean. Especially when the words are as clear as black text on white backgournd and not to mention the infinite editing opions. Don't take this as an attack, because I am as guilty of the above like everyone else, morso than some and less than others (which in iteself fluxurats randomly).

We are all in a forum called "thoughts and awareness". I just thought it's important to recognise the possibility (maybe even inevitability) of communication and therefore intellectual and even spritual deterioration.

I'm off to bed now. No more "BIG" BIG weekends for me for a while. Thanks all for giving me this avenue to spill my memetic juices all over this moment of space and time. Please accept my sincerest apologies if I overly offended anyone tonight. if so, nothing personal. I don't kow you..... still friends, yah
 
Last edited:
^ Basically, you don't like to discuss the impracticable. Well, good for you. Your preferences however, are not a dictation to this board. The forum is open for both theoretical and empirical discussion.
 
i wouldnt kill people to save myself because i dont care if i die or live... if it were to save my child (even tho i dun have one left) i would murder as many Men, Women, Boys, and Girls that get thrown my way.... and fuck my signifigant other she can die (j/k) but i wouldnt kill for her anyways
 
I would kill as many as it took

My existance is the only one taht i can be sure is true

to me other people are just a part of the expirience that is my life

I cant be sure that they are real

they are just a part of my dream/life

sounds kind of selfish but selfishness is a virtue in my eyes

thoughts?
 
Black Hole said:
^ Basically, you don't like to discuss the impracticable. Well, good for you. Your preferences however, are not a dictation to this board. The forum is open for both theoretical and empirical discussion.
Click to expand...

I apologise if my post is a little long winded and also if it is seen as straying off topic. I, personally, don't think I am off topic at all.

Do I REALLY need to start a new thread to question the function of this one? In my opinion this thread is THE MOST appropriate place to ask my question.
And in contrary to your assessment of my likes and dislikes, I LOVE to discuss impracticable concepts and ideas and do so at every possible opportunity. Is there anything more exciting as the theoretical? Not to me (right now).
It is my love to talk such ideas which drew me to the internet, bluelight, the T&A forums and this thread. It is the community that keeps me coming back and I would really like to participate in this thread in the way it was intended.

Now out of my RESPECT for psychoblast, the originator of this thread, I requested clarification on two things:
1)How can one answer the question?
2)What is there to gain from the question?

Now, unless I am dumber than everyone else here, there would be others who also do not know the answers to either one or both of my questions.



(nb. replacing img from previous post with just a link as it may have been too distracting)
 
1. How many adult strangers would you kill to save yourself (the strangers are NOT trying to kill you)?

I'm not sure if I could kill a man or woman I didn't know.

2. Would your answer change if the strangers were children? If yes, how?

Yes, I'd never even consider killing a child. Such a waste of life and energy

3. How many adult strangers would you kill to save your child (the strangers are NOT trying to kill your child)?

It's easier to justify murder if you're saving a loved one, isn't it? One or two; out of a mostly selfish desire to see my children grown up

4. Would your answer change if the strangers were children? If yes, how?

I still don't think I could kill a child I didn't know to save my own.

5. How many adult strangers would you kill to save your lover/spouse/soul mate?

One or two, as above; out of an equally selfish desire to spend more time with her

6. Would your answer change if the strangers were children?

Hard questions. It would depend whether I had children of my own; I would like to think that my spouse/love/soulmate would rather die than have me kill (several) children to save her; I still don't think I could do it.

The big lesson is that those who jumped on the "Hey, this is too vague to possibly answer" band-wagon, to recognize that there is something in you that is obstructionistic, narrow-minded and/or fearful in your ethical reasoning. You might want to consider why you were so eager to sidestep this quiz with a lame excuse about how the hypotheticals are too vague to answer, or could never be possible no matter how unlikely a scenario we are permitted to imagine. The bottom line is you do NOT need more specifics to answer. Just answer. Done. Is that so hard? And if you DID need more specifics (which you don't), you could easily have invented them yourselves without much effort. Why so reluctant? Certainly not lack of time, or you would not have bothered posting on here. Rather, you seem to find something threatening in the very idea of committing yourself to an ethical position whose ramifications you cannot fully think out ahead of time.

What, you want to avoid a "trap"? Are you afraid you'll state an ethical position which can then be used to show that, to be consistent, you must support a war you currently oppose, or oppose a war you currently support, or give more money to charity, or stop buying Nike shoes? See, finding your ethical inconsistencies is not a trap, it is the crux of improving your ethical position. Because if you DO have ethical inconsistencies, that is a problem you should uncover and fix, not something you should run away from with your hands over your ears screaming "la-la-la...I can't hear you--la-la-la...I'd rather not know if I have ethical incon
Click to expand...

btw, thanks Freud, I didn't need you to call me narrow minded. I have difficulty comprehending any sort of situation where I would have to choose between life and death of another human being. Call me unimaginitive if you wish, to be honest I find it easier to accept the impermanence of life and understand the inevitability of death and go about living life than contemplating how many I would kill to stave off that inevitability temporarily.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top