The Real Last Morallity Poll
- Thread starter Prince_Imrahil
- Start date
Jawz II
Oh Dear
They are all the same exact question repeated over and over only with slightly altered wording.
LucyDuke
staring at the clock
It's simple math, right, but it works out the other way. Though there aren't enough details in the OP, x pounds of food will sustain 4 people longer than it will sustain 10 people. Likewise, 4 people eating 10 people will sustain longer than 10 people eating 4 people. As long as the family as a unit is sticking together, the numbers work in the smaller family's favor.
Of course, if mine was the family of 10, I'd have to give the food to the family of 4.
Of course, if mine was the family of 10, I'd have to give the food to the family of 4.
Bozo Erectus
Master Baker
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2003
- Messages
- 22,389
If there were seven similarly worded morality threads already up, would you refrain from posting your own, even if it would benefit 72 people?
Prince_Imrahil
King
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2006
- Messages
- 820
In this hypothetical scenario that's beside the point, whichever family gets the food will survive the drought and then live on after because the drought will pass or whatever, while the other family dies. The family of ten has better metabolisms so as to require less food to stay alive, (which amounts to the amount of food needed for the other family of 4 to stay alive)
But the thing is, does numbers matter? Is it the Greater Good that we are obligated to or Our Own Good?
LucyDuke
staring at the clock
Exactly why I said that there weren't enough details in the OP. You didn't specify that the drought would pass (which doesn't make much sense), nor did you specify that the family of ten has better metabolism. If the scenario is divorced from reality, why bother? It seems to just muddy the question.
If the question is "pick who lives - your family of four, including you, or another family of ten, excluding you", and there's absolutely no function or consequence of one or the other, I'm picking my family and myself to survive. But then, this is a thoroughly hypothetical scenario, and I don't think dying is a bad thing or that letting someone die so that you can survive is immoral.
Sorry, Prince_Imrahil, back in high school I developed the habit of, when given a question to write a paper on, writing a paper about why the question wasn't strictly answerable.
ArneHD
Just a little bit mad
I think the question is: Is your family of four worth more to you than ten strangers?
LucyDuke
staring at the clock
Okay. In a vacuum, yes.
Mise
isle of lucy
There's no way in hell I'd sacrifice my family to save another...
For one it's not my life to sacrifice. Moreover, my family > all.
For one it's not my life to sacrifice. Moreover, my family > all.
Communisto
Condottiere
the people i love come first.
Prince_Imrahil
King
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2006
- Messages
- 820
Ok, I guess the answer is obvious, but the part I'm trying to get at is the WHY? Not the, they're important to me BECAUSE they are MY family answer, but why, because theyre your family, does this make them more important than, say, the greater good?
About the scenario, it really doesn't matter, all these polls and threads of mine have been an attempt to find the reason we may value our interests (family) over the interests of a greater amount of people. What if a billion people would die unless we sacrificed ourselves and our loved ones? What would be the right thing to do? Who's our first obligation to and why is that?
These are the things i'm trying to get at.
Why does the other family have so many children? The population in the region (and globally) is obviously too large, drought or not. I let the greater portion of the population die. My smaller family will live.
The need to care for my family is in my genes. Family is thus the most important thing in my life. I care for other people in the community, but that care is really going too far nowadays. I care for the globe and environment, and so I also acknowledge that solidarity is potentially a problem.
The need to care for my family is in my genes. Family is thus the most important thing in my life. I care for other people in the community, but that care is really going too far nowadays. I care for the globe and environment, and so I also acknowledge that solidarity is potentially a problem.
Mise
isle of lucy
Short answer: Instinct.
Long answer: If we weren't hard wired to look after our family and let "the greater good" die, then our family would die, and so the genes that led to letting "the greater good" survive would die along with it. Hence, the ONLY genes that end up in the final mix are the ones that look after one's own seed; the ones that sacrificed themselves for "the greater good" dropped out of the gene pool.
I didn't explain that succinctly... Sorry.
AL_DA_GREAT
amour absinthe révolution
I am not starving.
LucyDuke
staring at the clock
There's also the "if you want something done right, do it yourself" factor. Say there's a famine situation, and set overpopulation (an incredibly underrated problem on this planet) aside. If my family dies, I'm putting the survival of my species in the hands of strangers. If some strangers die, my family and I are able to step up and maybe help out some other strangers. I realize the example is awkward, but I think the idea is clear.
Margim
Footy's back.
Silly poll. Not a feasible situation. If there was enough food to feed 10 people until the famine was over, there would be more than double the amount required to feed a family of four. Thus, at the very least, your family and half the other family would be sufficiently provided for. As both families have been accessing the granary up to this point, there is presumably no reason why they still cannot both access the remaining rations. Therefore, even if the other family only got what was left after your own family had eaten (60% of the remaining grain), they could go onto have rations and still have food left over. If, as you've later suggested as an apologetic for the unfeasability of this poll, the bigger family has such ridiculously disproportionate metabolisms, then they are obviously mutant freaks and deserve death.
---
Seriosly, what you are really asking, in simpler terms, is would we value our own family over the lives of others, or would we sacrifice a minority, regardless of their personal significance, for the sake of the many?
Such questions are, of course, ridiculous to hypothesise about on a theoretical level, as no one knows what they will do until such a moment arises, and the scenario you have painted is so unlikely that it will never come to pass.
May as well ask 'if you were forced to drop a nuke on one of two locations, and one place was an island with just your family, and the other was New York city, which one would you choose?' Of course it would be something of a dilemma, but there would be no chance of such a scenario taking place. Thus=pointless conjecture=waste of time=go back to school
---
Seriosly, what you are really asking, in simpler terms, is would we value our own family over the lives of others, or would we sacrifice a minority, regardless of their personal significance, for the sake of the many?
Such questions are, of course, ridiculous to hypothesise about on a theoretical level, as no one knows what they will do until such a moment arises, and the scenario you have painted is so unlikely that it will never come to pass.
May as well ask 'if you were forced to drop a nuke on one of two locations, and one place was an island with just your family, and the other was New York city, which one would you choose?' Of course it would be something of a dilemma, but there would be no chance of such a scenario taking place. Thus=pointless conjecture=waste of time=go back to school
