Philosophy topic

Message

Swift · #1 Post by **Swift** » Fri Apr 15, 2005 12:25 pm

Seeing how there hasn't been any new topics lately, I decided to create one. Here's a question for you to think about. If you have the power to give World Peace to the hundreds of thousands of people, but tens of thousands of people must be sacrificed in the process for it to work, would you do it? Do post your reasons for whatever decision you make.

Swift · #2 Post by **Swift** » Fri Apr 15, 2005 1:51 pm

*looks at the title of the topic, and then at Optimus Crime's post*

Err.... how is this related to Philosophy?

Broomie · #3 Post by **Broomie** » Fri Apr 15, 2005 1:58 pm

That's erm... quite some interesting philosophy.

How about we read the topic next time we post in order not to look like an idiot.

For your question, yes I would. Think about it, due to wars occuring in countries there are many people dying everyday. Living in a world of peace would be a dream. If I said no wouldn't people die anyway? There could be terrorist attacks in the future, why let innocent people die more and more as time goes on when you could stop it all by sacrificing a number of people? Yet it really depends on who you mean with people, not to be biased but if you meant people I knew as friends and family then it would be an extremely difficult decision for myself to make, possibly rendering down to no, yet people I don't know, perhaps people who are dying anyway in less developed countries I may. It would be a horrific result yet it would bring peace and harmony for the future. Disagree if you must, yet this is my opinion.

Swift · #4 Post by **Swift** » Fri Apr 15, 2005 2:04 pm

Interesting view, Bromios. Thanks for taking the trouble to post a meaningful reply.

Original Jigen · #5 Post by **Original Jigen** » Fri Apr 15, 2005 2:07 pm

What gurantee do you have that this slaughter of innocents will bring peace?

What makes you think people could handle real peace once it was achieved? What would stop us getting into stupid arguments with each other and going right back at it again?

Parhelion · #6 Post by **Parhelion** » Fri Apr 15, 2005 2:10 pm

The question is open to interpretation. If you asked me: if you could bring about World Peace, but would have to personally kill one innocent person to do so, would you do it, then I would say absolutely not. I don't have the right to make that decision.

However, world leaders have had to make decisions like the question you posed throughout history. If I was in the position of, say, president of the United States, I might make a military decision which would fit your question and I wouldn't necesarily feel guilty about it.

The differences are, as I see it, 1) the military consists of volunteers who are there for exactly that reason, and 2) there is only a chance that any given individual will die, so I wouldn't be in the moral position of killing anyone exactly.

edit: Good point, OJ.

Swift · #7 Post by **Swift** » Fri Apr 15, 2005 2:18 pm

Welcome to the forums, Jigen.

Ooh, more and more people are bringing in interesting questions and perspectives. I do tend to agree that the question I asked is rather open-ended, and certain factors need to be taken into consideration first before making a decision. If I were faced with a decision to kill many innocents to bring about World Peace, I guess I wouldn't do it, since I don't believe in playing God.

Broomie · #8 Post by **Broomie** » Fri Apr 15, 2005 2:22 pm

What gurantee do you have that this slaughter of innocents will bring peace?

From the topic. C'mon do you actually think this would really work in real life? Of course not, it's philosophy. Seriously, how would killing thousands of innocent people bring peace? It wouldn't unless there was some sort of magical aroma in the air. It's a question concerning would you do this to stop that. Questions like these would be impossible to do, it's to do with opinions. My opinion is I'd do anything for world peace, even if it meant having to sacrifice many innocent lives in order doing so.

#9 Post by **Erpy** » Fri Apr 15, 2005 2:26 pm

Your solution basically implies the option of turning every unstable region in the world into a glowing parking lot. That's not peace in my opinion. That's the inability for one side to continue fighting due to the other side being totally annihilated. Such a predicament certainly wouldn't FEEL like peace.

Original Jigen · #10 Post by **Original Jigen** » Fri Apr 15, 2005 2:27 pm

Yeah but for how long would peace reign? As human beings we're far from perfect we make stupid mistakes and do terrible things for bad reasons. You're saying you'd willingingly slaughter thousands of innocent strangers for world peace, but what if that peace only last five years?
Would the sacrifice of so many strangers mean anything if all it became was a bizarre footnote in history?

Swift · #11 Post by **Swift** » Fri Apr 15, 2005 2:30 pm

One possible example I can think of where peace was supposedly brought about through killing others was the bombing of Hiroshima. Many people were killed, but history states that's what finally brought an end to the war.

Brainiac · #12 Post by **Brainiac** » Fri Apr 15, 2005 2:34 pm

Swift wrote:If you have the power to give World Peace to the hundreds of thousands of people, but tens of thousands of people must be sacrificed in the process for it to work, would you do it?

True world peace would be for around 6 billion people (right now, anyway). If we extrapolate the approximate ratio (hundreds of thousands versus tens of thousands), we're talking about 600 million sacrifices. That's more than half the population of China!

Hypothetically, if there was a way to grant a form of utopia by sacrificing others, I could do it, but not alone. I would not choose who would die. I would leave that to the people. After all, peace must be something the people want for it to work. I would call for volunteers and if there were not enough, I would take that as a sign that the people of the world do not yet truly want peace yet.

Practically, Erpy's right; pretty much the only way this would work is by turning several countries into glassed-over craters, and that's not peace...it's annihalation. Jigen is most likely right too; human nature is a tricky thing and we all too often keep repeating the mistakes of the past.

Broomie · #13 Post by **Broomie** » Fri Apr 15, 2005 2:37 pm

Look, I didn't say it would work. I'm just saying if it was possible to stay like that forever, I would do it. The question implies that if you did it, it would be like that forever. No strings attached, peace forever. Something entered our minds like a paranormal phenomenon which made us not fight. That is what Swift was asking, there is no "buts," there wouldn't be a sudden change, it would be peace.

Would you allow more people to die in the future or would you want to put a stop to it? I am still skeptical about killing thousands of innocents to do it, yet think about it, except for accidents, that could be the last time ever many people die altogether. If I knew it wouldn't last, I wouldn't touch a single soul. It's a sickening thought and if it was actually going to happen and someone told me it was all up to me whether to allow it or not. I wouldn't know if I could actually do it. It really is a hard decision, but if it was to allow world peace defintely, it could be a choice I may have to make.

This is my opinion though, I'm not saying it is the answer, it's just what I think. We all have different opinions on these matters.

KKuhlman · #14 Post by **KKuhlman** » Fri Apr 15, 2005 2:38 pm

I wouldn't bother. As Jigen already said, humans are born with strange hobby of grandly screwing things up, and the peace wouldn't last for too long. And thats my philosophy..
Humans+World Peace= -ERROR-

Original Jigen · #15 Post by **Original Jigen** » Fri Apr 15, 2005 2:40 pm

I get what you're saying (In fact I got it the first time). What I'm saying is that unless we can ground these philisophical questions in reality we are wasting our time even talking about them.

Broomie · #16 Post by **Broomie** » Fri Apr 15, 2005 2:48 pm

That is correct, but it is interesting to talk about and hear other's people views.

Swift · #17 Post by **Swift** » Fri Apr 15, 2005 2:53 pm

I agree. There's no right or wrong answer to this question, and everyone's entitled to an opinion. Still, it's fun to read and see what different people have to say, and you get to learn something from it as well.

Klytos · #18 Post by **Klytos** » Fri Apr 15, 2005 3:45 pm

Bromios wrote:From the topic. C'mon do you actually think this would really work in real life? Of course not, it's philosophy. Seriously, how would killing thousands of innocent people bring peace?

Hiroshima. Negosaki. Seriously they killed 1000's of people and it brought about peace. Whats the go dude?

I reakon if we could choose the 10000 people we killed and got all those stupid muslim extremist weirdo moron's, then yeah that'd work.

Broomie · #19 Post by **Broomie** » Fri Apr 15, 2005 3:52 pm

Klytos wrote:
Bromios wrote:From the topic. C'mon do you actually think this would really work in real life? Of course not, it's philosophy. Seriously, how would killing thousands of innocent people bring peace?
Hiroshima. Negosaki. Seriously they killed 1000's of people and it brought about peace. Whats the go dude?

Okay except for that. Me and history are like... well... not good. :p

ThreeHeadedMonkey · #20 Post by **ThreeHeadedMonkey** » Fri Apr 15, 2005 3:59 pm

Optimus Crime wrote:In order to bake plum cake follow these directions:

DIRECTIONS:
Preheat oven to 375 degrees F (190 degrees C). Grease and flour one 9 inch tube pan.
Separate the eggs. In a small bowl, beat the egg whites until stiff peaks form, and set aside.
In a large bowl, cream the butter or margarine with the sugar. Beat in the egg yolks and the lemon zest.
Stir together the flour and baking powder and then beat the flour mixture into the creamed mixture. Gently fold in the egg whites. Spread the batter evenly into the prepared pan. There will only be a little over an inch of batter. Arrange the plums, skin side down, attractively over the batter.
Bake at 375 degrees F (175 degrees C) for 40 minutes or until cake tests done. Transfer to a cooling rack and allow to cool before serving. Makes 6 servings.

I like plum cake.

#21 Post by **Erpy** » Fri Apr 15, 2005 4:01 pm

I reakon if we could choose the 10000 people we killed and got all those stupid muslim extremist weirdo moron's, then yeah that'd work.

Ironically enough, this sort of position is usually dead at the center of military conflicts to begin with.

Broomie · #22 Post by **Broomie** » Fri Apr 15, 2005 7:58 pm

What is it with you and Plum cakes? Do plum cakes and philosophy even mix? No pun intended.

KKuhlman · #23 Post by **KKuhlman** » Fri Apr 15, 2005 8:02 pm

I'd destroy tens of thousands of plums, bake hundreds of thousands of them, throw them in a bottomless pit and while humans would be at their weakest from the lack of plum cakes I would force them to worship the demonic Tree Stump of Unspoken Evil and with that army I would take over the rest of the world! Muhahahaa!!
*cough*
...Did that make sense? No? Well neither do you..

anathoth8 · #24 Post by **anathoth8** » Fri Apr 15, 2005 8:08 pm

I don't know why Optimus's post made me laugh so hard. Probably just the juxtaposition of it all. Swift's response was good too. :rollin

Anyway, I like to think that most people on earth would be quite content to live in peace. If it were possible to remove the most aggressive, greedy, selfish people, then those that are left would be able to continue the peace.

Blackthorne519 · #25 Post by **Blackthorne519** » Fri Apr 15, 2005 9:54 pm

Star Trek II - The Wrath Of Khan

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one."

If it truly could bring lasting peace and harmony, it would have to be done.

But that is a utopian dream that is not a reality, so the question is really a moot point.

Bt

Philosophy topic

Philosophy topic

Re: Philosophy topic

Re: