Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Simple questions of right and wrong

Rate this topic


tjfields

Recommended Posts

Please help me answer the following questions. The scenario and questions below are simple because I do not want to confuse the issue with a lot of distracting information. My hope is that there is a logical, rational answer to my questions that contain no leaps of faith, appeals to emotion, or other “non-rational” components.

 

I am asking Objectivists to provide an answer(s) to these questions in the hope that I will receive rational and logical responses that will help make the situation clear. I am interested in reading answers from any non-Objectivists on this forum as well, but if you are a non-Objectivist please identify yourself as such when you answer.  

 

Please consider the following scenario:

 

I live alone on an island in the middle of the ocean. There is no one else on the island, no one ever visits the island, and there is never any communication with any other person. I am completely alone on the island.

 

How I got to the island is irrelevant. I will never leave the island.

 

The island and the ocean immediately around the island provide a wide variety of resources. I use my reason and my ability to think to devise ways of turning the resources available to me into those things that I need to live, e.g. I make tools for gathering and/or hunting food, I devise means of collecting and storing fresh water, I discover or construct shelter.

 

Over time I have become so efficient at providing for my basic needs that I am able to devise ways to use the resources available to make my life better, i.e. provide luxuries and means of entertainment.

 

I live my life to the fullest of my ability given the circumstances in which I find myself.

 

One day, a man washes up on the beach. This man is alive but unconscious. I have never seen this man before and I have never had any interaction with this man. Due to being unconscious, the man has not interacted with me in any way and I do not perceive any kind of threat or danger from this man.

 

I walk up to this man and I kill him. I then continue with my day. The tide washes the body out to sea that evening and I never see the body again. I continue with my life exactly as I did before the man washed up on the beach.

 

Given the scenario, I ask the following questions: Was it wrong for me to kill the man on the beach? If it was wrong for me to kill the man on the beach, why was it wrong?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes

 

Although your scenerio places you alone, we know someone produced you, i.e. you were given life, and that is all that's necessary to pay it forward.  You know others exist (at least your parents), and you know the existence of others poses no threat to your survival (again, since you survived your parents).  So the primary question would be, why would you kill someone who washed up on the beach?  Your action, given what you know about life and the non-threatening existence of others, is irrational without some motive.

 

"I continue with my life exactly as I did before the man washed up on the beach."

 

This is not true.  Prior to the arrival of another, you valued life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Devil’s Advocate,

 

Thank you for your answer.

 

What does “pay it forward” mean? I am confused by this concept. Is it some form of reciprocity, e.g. someone does something for or to me, or does not do something for or to me, therefore I am morally bound to do something, or not do something, for or to them or for another?

 

Is your answer to my question essentially that it is wrong to kill someone because I was given life therefore I owe something to every other person who is alive? If this is your answer, I need some more explanation. Why does the fact that I have been given life mean that it is wrong to kill another person?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, the non-aggression principle does not allow you to kill someone per se, for violating property rights. It says nothing of the proportionality of force used in self-defense. The answers to that cannot be established outside of the greater framework of justice. I think it would violate libertarian eudaimonism to kill someone for landing unconscious on your island, or for the kid's ball accidentally ending up in my front lawn, or for shoplifting a pack of gum, or any number of imaginable circumstances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're welcome, tjfields

 

Pay it forward is a phrase popularized by novel and movie (with the same name), essentially meaning the promotion of good by example, and yes it's representational of ethical reciprocity, e.g. the Golden Rule.  The practice of ethical reciprocity establishes more of a context than a duty.  The fact that you were given life and chose to continue living it suggests life is a value shared by your parents and yourself, but not that they must reproduce or that you must continue living; the context is one of choice, specifically choosing life.

 

So, what prompted you to deny that same choice to another?  Your action was either irrational or contradictory; the former being unlikely by the example of your actions prior to the arrival of another, and the latter being wrong because you believe (again, by the example of your actions prior to the arrival of another) that it is right to live.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please help me answer the following questions. The scenario and questions below are simple because I do not want to confuse the issue with a lot of distracting information. My hope is that there is a logical, rational answer to my questions that contain no leaps of faith, appeals to emotion, or other “non-rational” components.

 

I am asking Objectivists to provide an answer(s) to these questions in the hope that I will receive rational and logical responses that will help make the situation clear. I am interested in reading answers from any non-Objectivists on this forum as well, but if you are a non-Objectivist please identify yourself as such when you answer.  

 

Please consider the following scenario:

 

I live alone on an island in the middle of the ocean. There is no one else on the island, no one ever visits the island, and there is never any communication with any other person. I am completely alone on the island.

 

How I got to the island is irrelevant. I will never leave the island.

 

The island and the ocean immediately around the island provide a wide variety of resources. I use my reason and my ability to think to devise ways of turning the resources available to me into those things that I need to live, e.g. I make tools for gathering and/or hunting food, I devise means of collecting and storing fresh water, I discover or construct shelter.

 

Over time I have become so efficient at providing for my basic needs that I am able to devise ways to use the resources available to make my life better, i.e. provide luxuries and means of entertainment.

 

I live my life to the fullest of my ability given the circumstances in which I find myself.

 

One day, a man washes up on the beach. This man is alive but unconscious. I have never seen this man before and I have never had any interaction with this man. Due to being unconscious, the man has not interacted with me in any way and I do not perceive any kind of threat or danger from this man.

 

I walk up to this man and I kill him. I then continue with my day. The tide washes the body out to sea that evening and I never see the body again. I continue with my life exactly as I did before the man washed up on the beach.

 

Given the scenario, I ask the following questions: Was it wrong for me to kill the man on the beach? If it was wrong for me to kill the man on the beach, why was it wrong?

 

Yes.

 

The moment the man reaches the beach a new possibility was open to you: a society of two.  This drives a wedge between all of your choices and all of the consequences of them prior to the arrival and all of the choices and consequences of them after the arrival.  Moreover you would know at that time the further act of killing the man would also drive a wedge into time, a time before which you had not destroyed a human being a time after which you had, including ALL of the possible consequences.

 

Another person has an enormous potential for your ultimate value, "life", many of your other values as well as the purpose and reward of life "happiness".  Required work on the island would be capable of being performed simultaneously, some things are difficult or inefficient for you to do which may be the opposite for the other person.  Trade and collaboration for survival not to mention friendship in incredibly valuable to an individual.

 

Destroying this potential (killing the person) is self-destructive and as such is irrational.  In countless ways including the ramification for your life if you were ever forced from the island by nature or men, and chose one day to live with other people.

 

 

Irrational self-destruction is "wrong" if you choose life and reality.

 

 

Note:  Objectivists do not believe in a floating morality in the sky or edicts of right and wrong written in the stars.  The beneficiary of morality, YOUR morality, is YOU.  Your actions, must be guided by this and an acceptance of reality as a whole a sum a total, which means thinking long term and taking everything in reality in to account... including the chance of being captured, deposited in New York and asked at a job interview if you every "harmed anyone".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Devil’s Advocate,

 

You make an interesting point. If I understand your answer correctly, you are saying that since I was given life and I choose to continue living that means that I value life. Therefore, it is wrong to take the life of another because it is contradictory to what I value. Do I understand you correctly?

 

If so, why is it contradictory to what I value? I value my life; demonstrated, as you pointed out, by the fact that I keep on living and I take actions that preserve and further my life. Why would the killing of another person mean that I value my life any less than I did before I killed the other person?

 

As for the Golden Rule, or ethical reciprocity, where does that come from and why does it mean anything? If I ask a Christian that question, he or she would most likely respond that the Golden Rule comes from God, that is why it is right, and if you do not obey it, God will punish you. Is this your answer as well or is it something different?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

StrictlyLogical,

 

Thank you for your answer.

 

Just to be clear, it seems that you are saying that it would be wrong for me to kill the person who washed up on the beach because it is possible that that person could have contributed to my life in some way or ways and by killing this person I have destroyed this potential and that there may be some consequences for killing the person that I have not yet taken into account. Am I correct? Is your position on whether it is right or wrong to kill someone based only on the potential of getting some value from that person?

 

If so, then would it be your position that, if it was determined that a person provided no value to your life, it would not be wrong to kill that person?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

StrictlyLogical,

 

Thank you for your answer.

 

Just to be clear, it seems that you are saying that it would be wrong for me to kill the person who washed up on the beach because it is possible that that person could have contributed to my life in some way or ways and by killing this person I have destroyed this potential and that there may be some consequences for killing the person that I have not yet taken into account. Am I correct? Is your position on whether it is right or wrong to kill someone based only on the potential of getting some value from that person?

 

If so, then would it be your position that, if it was determined that a person provided no value to your life, it would not be wrong to kill that person?

 

My position is that a "person", except in the VERY extremely rare cases, DOES provide value, material, intellectual, and emotional, to other people in general, and it would likely be the case in your scenario.

 

As for your hypothetical person who provides "SPECIFICALLY "no value"... given the nature of man this would be very improbable.  Man is an actor, a thinker, is creative and has volition, the most likely alternatives are that the person is a value or a disvalue, rather than having "no value".  Technically speaking this person having "no value" would have to be comatose or in a permanent vegetative state.

 

To assess whether a person, in combination with the sum of all things and all possibilities, constitutes a disvalue, would likely necessitate the person's CONSISTENTLY, SOLELY, and ACTIVELY attempting to reduce your values, steal from you, kill you, hurt you in some way.  It also would require that the person is irrational and not willing to live peaceably or to enter into trade.

 

Then the question is to ask is: is it better for you to be constantly on the run, in fear of your life, never at peace, BUT at the same time having the peace of mind that you never killed a person WHILE at the same time having a nagging SHAME and anti-ESTEEM of leading a life where you have discarded your own welfare and defaulted on your own life, OR is it better to live a life with the experience of having HAD to kill a person?

 

IN ANY CASE, the ESTABLISHMENT of the value or disvalue of a person is not something, due to the complexity of Man, you can determine in the short term, NOR is it something which is static.  Man is volitional, and can be befriended and persuaded and educated.  The amount of effort you SHOULD rationally spend in both determining/judging this other person and in fact attempting to "live with" him is ONLY limited by the potential returns.

 

 

Considering EVERYTHING, killing a  person is extremely rarely the answer.

 

 

If you asking whether killing a person can EVER be right?  OF COURSE. 

 

Is it because you "have no other choice"?  NO.  It's because in THAT CONTEXT, the EXTREMELY RARE context, in which it is right for you to kill the person, IT IS THE ONLY choice.

Edited by StrictlyLogical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

StricklyLogical,

 

Thank you for your response. The position that it is wrong to kill someone because they, except in rare cases, provide value is a very interesting point of view.

 

However, it seems to me that your definition of value is unclear. You state that value “is not something, due to the complexity of Man, you can determine in the short term, NOR is it something which is static.” What is value? Is there a clear and objective definition of value?   

 

Without a clear and objective definition of value, it appears as if you have simply substituted the concept of God for the concept of Value. Instead of saying that it is wrong to kill someone because the concept of God, something that cannot be determined in short run (being revealed to us only after death in many religious traditions) and something that is not static (the revelation and interpretation of the word of God constantly changes), has dictated that it is wrong to kill someone, you say that it is wrong to kill someone because the concept that a person has Value dictates that it is wrong to kill them.

 

Please excuse my confusion, but I still do not completely understand your position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

StrictlyLogical,

 

Thank you for your answer.

 

Just to be clear, it seems that you are saying that it would be wrong for me to kill the person who washed up on the beach because it is possible that that person could have contributed to my life in some way or ways and by killing this person I have destroyed this potential and that there may be some consequences for killing the person that I have not yet taken into account. Am I correct? Is your position on whether it is right or wrong to kill someone based only on the potential of getting some value from that person?

 

If so, then would it be your position that, if it was determined that a person provided no value to your life, it would not be wrong to kill that person?

How would you determine that? Do you have any precogs floating around in your tub? Speaking of which, The Minority Report is a Philip K. Dick story that addresses the very issue of free will vs. determinism, which you inadvertently raised. It's a fun read. Or you could just watch the movie, Spielberg does a decent job with it. But I digress.

To answer your question, in Oist Ethics, decisions are ultimately the consequence of selfish value judgments, and nothing else, sure. From that, in an imaginary world in which you could make such a determination, it would make sense to conclude that it's fine to kill someone once you made such a value judgment about them. And, in fact, ethical and political systems which are based in determinism often advocate the making of such judgments, and the subsequent murdering of millions as a result. Ergo, Hitler and Stalin.

But, of course, Objectivism affirms the existence of free will. In other words, you cannot DETERMINE that someone will be of no use to you, because every individual can choose to be or not be of use, to rely on trade or violence to interact with others, etc., in the future. This is a crucial assumption, the end result of which is the formulation of the moral principle of justice, by which men must be judged based on their actions, not any kind of attempt to determine what they will do in the future.

Edited by Nicky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

StricklyLogical,

 

Thank you for your response. The position that it is wrong to kill someone because they, except in rare cases, provide value is a very interesting point of view.

 

However, it seems to me that your definition of value is unclear. You state that value “is not something, due to the complexity of Man, you can determine in the short term, NOR is it something which is static.” What is value? Is there a clear and objective definition of value?   

 

I have not defined value.

 

The value ANY existent in reality has for you depends upon its nature.  It IS objective.  The nature of man is complex hence to determine the nature of a person and hence value of that person in the context to you is not easy.. i.e. it takes time.

 

The NATURE of man is also NOT STATIC.  So a person's value to you may be change, or may change over time.  E.g. a psychotic trying to kill you due to a virulent infection may upon healing be your best ally.

 

The concept of value according to Objectivism is complex. 

 

 

 

Without a clear and objective definition of value, it appears as if you have simply substituted the concept of God for the concept of Value. Instead of saying that it is wrong to kill someone because the concept of God, something that cannot be determined in short run (being revealed to us only after death in many religious traditions) and something that is not static (the revelation and interpretation of the word of God constantly changes), has dictated that it is wrong to kill someone, you say that it is wrong to kill someone because the concept that a person has Value dictates that it is wrong to kill them.

 

Please excuse my confusion, but I still do not completely understand your position.

 

This unfortunately is incoherent.

 

If you are trying to say "Value" sounds arbitrary (for which you substitute God) because value is complex or contextual, you would be wrong, about the arbitrariness, but correct about the complexity and context.

 

 

 

I think a closer look at what you believe constitutes "right" and "wrong" and what "morality" is (i.e. the wider picture) versus Objectivism, would be more instructive.

 

Do you believe something is "right" .. JUST BECAUSE it is right?  What does it mean to say you "ought" to do something or not?  Is morality a duty?  A duty to whom and for what?  Who is the proper beneficiary of morality?  BY WHAT STANDARD do you judge right and wrong?  Who does your life belong to? The state a god your neighbor or yourself?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You make an interesting point. If I understand your answer correctly, you are saying that since I was given life and I choose to continue living that means that I value life. Therefore, it is wrong to take the life of another because it is contradictory to what I value. Do I understand you correctly?

Yes; there may be a reason to kill that also promotes the value of your life, e.g., the elimination of a mortal threat, but your scenario dismisses this possibility.

 

If so, why is it contradictory to what I value? I value my life; demonstrated, as you pointed out, by the fact that I keep on living and I take actions that preserve and further my life. Why would the killing of another person mean that I value my life any less than I did before I killed the other person?

Because of the contradictory position this assumes towards the value you pursue.  I think StrictlyLogical covers this, so I will only add that the man on your beach represents another potential resource.

 

As for the Golden Rule, or ethical reciprocity, where does that come from and why does it mean anything? If I ask a Christian that question, he or she would most likely respond that the Golden Rule comes from God, that is why it is right, and if you do not obey it, God will punish you. Is this your answer as well or is it something different?

"We should behave to our friends as we would wish our friends behave to us" ~ Aristotle

 

Ethical reciprocity comes from applying an understanding our own nature towards others; a kind of empathy based on personal experience.  While variations exist in all religious philosophies, it's primarily a means to identify ethically consistent behavior for interactions with others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nicky,

 

Thank you for your response.

 

Your post (#13) appears to support the position that it is wrong to kill the person who washed up on the beach because that person has the potential to be of value. Is this your answer to the question in the original post? Is it your position that in making the determination of whether it is right or wrong to kill someone is based on the value that that person may provide?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nicky,

 

Thank you for your response.

 

Your post (#13) appears to support the position that it is wrong to kill the person who washed up on the beach because that person has the potential to be of value. Is this your answer to the question in the original post? Is it your position that in making the determination of whether it is right or wrong to kill someone is based on the value that that person may provide?

No, not quite. My position is that Objectivist Ethics and Politics is based in value judgments.

My position also is that it's impossible to make a determination on whether someone will be of value or not, because of free will. The most you can do is think in probabilities.

My position also is that, short of proving to have no regard for people's fundamental right to life, people are LIKELY to be of value (this is based on the fact of reality that most people are productive, at least to some extent). So any determination that a peaceful, rights respecting person is likely to not be of value is necessarily false.

In conclusion, the only people you are justified in killing are those who have shown to have no regard for human life. Obviously, on a deserted island, things are different than in modern society. In modern society, even most of the people who are anti-social can just be put in jail. You are only justified in killing actual murderers. On a deserted island, you'd have no choice but to kill a person dead set on stealing your stuff and making your life impossible. Such a person would otherwise still be a threat to your life, even if they won't outright murder you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, not quite. My position is that Objectivist Ethics and Politics is based in value judgments.

My position also is that it's impossible to make a determination on whether someone will be of value or not, because of free will. The most you can do is think in probabilities.

My position also is that, short of proving to have no regard for people's fundamental right to life, people are LIKELY to be of value (this is based on the fact of reality that most people are productive, at least to some extent). So any determination that a peaceful, rights respecting person is likely to not be of value is necessarily false.

In conclusion, the only people you are justified in killing are those who have shown to have no regard for human life. Obviously, on a deserted island, things are different than in modern society. In modern society, even most of the people who are anti-social can just be put in jail. You are only justified in killing actual murderers. On a deserted island, you'd have no choice but to kill a person dead set on stealing your stuff and making your life impossible. Such a person would otherwise still be a threat to your life, even if they won't outright murder you.

 

tjfields

 

I agree with Nicky, and moreover insofar as I can tell, his position is completely consistent with the position of Objectivist Philosophy on the matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

StricklyLogical,

 

In post #14, you stated, “The value ANY existent in reality has for you depends upon its nature.  It IS objective.  The nature of man is complex hence to determine the nature of a person and hence value of that person in the context to you is not easy.. i.e. it takes time.”

 

For clarification, when you state, “It IS objective.” what are you claiming is objective? Do you mean that value of any existent is objective, or do you mean that the nature of an existent is objective?

 

Further, does your statement mean that I, as an individual, must determine whether or not an existent has value and that in the case of another human it will take time to determine if and what that value is?

 

You then state, “The NATURE of man is also NOT STATIC.  So a person's value to you may be change, or may change over time.” Are you saying the determination of value, in the case of a person, that I make, may or may not change based on the changing nature of that person?

 

If the answer to the two questions above is yes, does this mean that I could determine that an existent, even another human, has value and you could determine that the exact same existent, even the exact same human, does not have value? Does this mean that my determination of value and your determination of value could at some point change to be the exact opposite of what you and I first determined?

 

You state, “If you are trying to say "Value" sounds arbitrary (for which you substitute God) because value is complex or contextual, you would be wrong, about the arbitrariness, but correct about the complexity and context.” Why am I wrong about the arbitrariness of value as you have presented? How do I determine value? How do you determine value? How does John Doe determine value? How much time does it take for me to determine value? How much time does it take for you to determine value? If I determine value by whatever means that I use to determine value in whatever time frame that I use to determine value, and you determine value by whatever means you use to determine value in whatever timeframe you use to determine value, and John Doe determines value by whatever means John Doe uses to determine value in whatever timeframe John Doe uses to determine value, and all of these different means and timeframes could lead to different conclusions, conclusions which can change over time, how is this anything but arbitrary?

 

In regard to the question in the original post, do you agree that if I determine that the person who washed up on the beach has no value, by using whatever means I use to determine whether or not something or someone has value within whatever timeframe I use to determine value, then it would not be wrong for me to kill the person?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Devil’s Advocate,

Thank you for clarifying your position.

However, I am still unclear about what you mean when you state, “Because of the contradictory position this assumes towards the value you pursue.” What is the contradictory position? I value my life and I pursue that value.

As to your Aristotle quote with regard to the original post, the man who washed up on the beach was not my friend. However, if you wish to interpret ‘friend’ to mean anyone, I can see the similarity to Christ’s Golden Rule. What I do not understand is the concept of empathy based on personal experience as a guide to ethical behavior. Is empathy that is based on personal experience objective? Or would everyone have different personal experiences therefore have a different feeling of empathy therefore a different code of ethical behavior? To the question in the original post, if I did not have any empathy for the person who washed up on the beach because my personal experience did not give me a base for any empathy for this person, would you agree that killing the person would not be wrong?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nicky,

In post #17, you mentioned the concept of “people's fundamental right to life.” This is an interesting concept that would answer the question posed in the original post. If your concept is valid, then the answer would be, it is wrong to kill the person who washed up on the beach because this person has a fundamental right to life. If you could please explain this concept of a fundamental right to life and why people have it, I would greatly appreciate it. Of course, a simple, easy to understand explanation would be the most helpful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

StricklyLogical,

 

In post #14, you stated, “The value ANY existent in reality has for you depends upon its nature.  It IS objective.  The nature of man is complex hence to determine the nature of a person and hence value of that person in the context to you is not easy.. i.e. it takes time.”

 

For clarification, when you state, “It IS objective.” what are you claiming is objective? Do you mean that value of any existent is objective, or do you mean that the nature of an existent is objective?

 

Further, does your statement mean that I, as an individual, must determine whether or not an existent has value and that in the case of another human it will take time to determine if and what that value is?

 

You then state, “The NATURE of man is also NOT STATIC.  So a person's value to you may be change, or may change over time.” Are you saying the determination of value, in the case of a person, that I make, may or may not change based on the changing nature of that person?

 

If the answer to the two questions above is yes, does this mean that I could determine that an existent, even another human, has value and you could determine that the exact same existent, even the exact same human, does not have value? Does this mean that my determination of value and your determination of value could at some point change to be the exact opposite of what you and I first determined?

 

You state, “If you are trying to say "Value" sounds arbitrary (for which you substitute God) because value is complex or contextual, you would be wrong, about the arbitrariness, but correct about the complexity and context.” Why am I wrong about the arbitrariness of value as you have presented? How do I determine value? How do you determine value? How does John Doe determine value? How much time does it take for me to determine value? How much time does it take for you to determine value? If I determine value by whatever means that I use to determine value in whatever time frame that I use to determine value, and you determine value by whatever means you use to determine value in whatever timeframe you use to determine value, and John Doe determines value by whatever means John Doe uses to determine value in whatever timeframe John Doe uses to determine value, and all of these different means and timeframes could lead to different conclusions, conclusions which can change over time, how is this anything but arbitrary?

 

In regard to the question in the original post, do you agree that if I determine that the person who washed up on the beach has no value, by using whatever means I use to determine whether or not something or someone has value within whatever timeframe I use to determine value, then it would not be wrong for me to kill the person?

 

What do you mean by "determine"?

 

If you convince yourself the moon is made of cheese have you "determined" that the moon is made of cheese?  OR have you simply misapprehended the nature of the Moon, and hence have in fact "determined" nothing? Why 'nothing',  because you are simply absolutely in respect of reality, incorrect in your assessment.  This is central to your hypothetical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, I am still unclear about what you mean when you state, “Because of the contradictory position this assumes towards the value you pursue.” What is the contradictory position? I value my life and I pursue that value.

And yet you dispose of a resource that may help you to pursue that value? 

 

As to your Aristotle quote with regard to the original post, the man who washed up on the beach was not my friend. However, if you wish to interpret ‘friend’ to mean anyone, I can see the similarity to Christ’s Golden Rule. What I do not understand is the concept of empathy based on personal experience as a guide to ethical behavior. Is empathy that is based on personal experience objective? Or would everyone have different personal experiences therefore have a different feeling of empathy therefore a different code of ethical behavior? To the question in the original post, if I did not have any empathy for the person who washed up on the beach because my personal experience did not give me a base for any empathy for this person, would you agree that killing the person would not be wrong?

He may or may not have been friendly; the point is were the situation reversed, would you expect to be killed by the first person who discovered you washed up on a beach?  If so, why??

 

Empathy based on personal experience, as opposed to empathy without any experience, means there's some rational expectation of what one might expect behaviorally from another in similar circumstances when no other knowledge based on an existing relationship is available.  Again, your scenario presents you obviously coming from somewhere with parents, therefore prior to the arrival of another you had some experience dealing with others that led you to kill unprovoked; either irrationally, or in expectation of what the other might do if allowed to awaken, i.e., you were motivated to act according to how you thought the other might interact...

 

As to "Christ's Golden Rule", please refer to the following link and note the numerous instances of statements about ethical reciprocity, e.g., Aristotle's, that significantly predate Christ's assertion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule

 

"The only 'obligation' involved in individual rights is an obligation imposed, not by the state, but by the nature of reality (i.e., by the law of identity): consistency, which, in this case, means the obligation to respect the rights of others, if one wishes one’s own rights to be recognized and protected." ~ ARL, Individual Rights

 

Sound familiar??

Edited by Devil's Advocate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

StricklyLogical,

My use of the word ‘determine’ was based on your post #14 where you stated, “The nature of man is complex hence to determine the nature of a person and hence value of that person in the context to you is not easy.. i.e. it takes time.” So I was using the word in the same manner that you used it.

My answer to your question, “If you convince yourself the moon is made of cheese have you "determined" that the moon is made of cheese?” is no. Convincing yourself that the moon is made of cheese is not the same as determining whether or not the moon is made of cheese.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you mean by "determine"?

 

If you convince yourself the moon is made of cheese have you "determined" that the moon is made of cheese?  OR have you simply misapprehended the nature of the Moon, and hence have in fact "determined" nothing? Why 'nothing',  because you are simply absolutely in respect of reality, incorrect in your assessment.  This is central to your hypothetical.

 

IF you ACTUALLY determine the person has NO VALUE, this would be necessitated by the person being permanently and irrevocably comatose or permanently and irrevocably in a vegetative state, your appropriate action/reaction in regard to this person is to simply ignore the person.  Being comatose or vegetative, any attempts to interact with the person would be ineffective, and a waste of time/energy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...