AGDInteractive - Sierra Adventure Game Remakes Forum

Optimus Crime wrote:Seeing how there hasn't been any new replyes lately, I decided to add one. Here's a question for you to think about. If you have the power to bake plum cake to hundreds of thousands of people, but tens of thousands of plums must be sacrificed in the process for it to work, would you do it? Do post your reasons for whatever decision you make.

That was just as lame as your first reply to this topic. Could you be more serious and be on-topic for once?

Swift wrote:

Optimus Crime wrote:Seeing how there hasn't been any new replyes lately, I decided to add one. Here's a question for you to think about. If you have the power to bake plum cake to hundreds of thousands of people, but tens of thousands of plums must be sacrificed in the process for it to work, would you do it? Do post your reasons for whatever decision you make.

That was just as lame as your first reply to this topic. Could you be more serious and be on-topic for once?

The more you ask him to, the more he'll antagonize ya.  Speaking words of wisdom, let it be.


Bt

Swift wrote: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.

A decision isn't just about you. It's also about the impact of the decision on the others and what sacrifices they will have to make for it to succeed. This isn't a true solution because peace isn't achieved just by "sacrifice", but rather through a set of sensible laws and policies, a corruption-free environment and tight control of the gap between the classes in society and other factors.

A better way would be to sit down, tackle the situation and present it such that the common people accept the solutions.

That aside, what gives an individual or a group of people the right to decide what "world peace" is? The definition of peace is subjective although it should not entitle the right to use violence to ensure peace.

About whether the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki really brought about peace, that is open to debate. After all, it is often the lack of foresight that prolongs war.
(Edit: a page with some resources about Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the atomic bomb  http://www.japan-guide.com/e/e2125.html    )


To truly secure a victory with minimal casualties, it requires factors like foresight, planning, well-prepared troops combined with espionage to intercept and filter the enemy's intelligence. No, not just "eavesdropping" but contacts. If you can use a few "pawns" to stop a war, then so be it.

Ultimately, it is not just about victory but about prevention.

I think you guys miss the point of the question. The idea isn't to discuss the invalidity of the question; rather, we are to take the question, as it is, and try to answer it. Obviously the situation described would likely not work, or even ever occur. It is purely hypothetical. However, as far as the exercise is concerned, you have to accept it as fact.

In other words, the sacrifice of tens of thousands of people will bring about world peace, whatever your definition of that may be. The power to make that choice is in your hands. It is your decision to make, so would you do it or not?

I think you guys miss the point of the question. The idea isn't to discuss the invalidity of the question; rather, we are to take the question, as it is, and try to answer it. Obviously the situation described would likely not work, or even ever occur. It is purely hypothetical. However, as far as the exercise is concerned, you have to accept it as fact.

You also missed my posts aswell trying to explain what you just said over and over again.

anathoth8 wrote:I think you guys miss the point of the question. The idea isn't to discuss the invalidity of the question; rather, we are to take the question, as it is, and try to answer it. Obviously the situation described would likely not work, or even ever occur. It is purely hypothetical. However, as far as the exercise is concerned, you have to accept it as fact.

In other words, the sacrifice of tens of thousands of people will bring about world peace, whatever your definition of that may be. The power to make that choice is in your hands. It is your decision to make, so would you do it or not?

I think you missed the points some of the people were trying to make. Ever heard of "reading between the lines"?

anathoth8 wrote: In other words, the sacrifice of tens of thousands of people will bring about world peace, whatever your definition of that may be. The power to make that choice is in your hands. It is your decision to make, so would you do it or not?

Ok.  If it will, those people will be a sacrafice for the good of mankind.  No question.  To ensure world peace and the betterment of man, some will die - ushering in an era of complete harmony?  Sure.  Life IS fleeting; there is nothing we can do about that.  The progeny goes on - we have to stop thinking in 60-80 year increments.


Bt

To add another twist to this question, are these tens of thousands of sacrifices going to be the sacrifices of innnocents?  If so I would say absolutely not because the gains of peace for hundreds of thousands would have been tainted by the means by which that peace was gotten.  True peace cannot be obtained through any violent means, and the killling of thousands would definitely qualify as violent.  

On the other hand though.  What if those tens of thousands were the ones that were the cause of there being no peace? If they were the aggressors that were causing and perpetuating the violence then their elimination would seem much more justified.  Of course this argument is also used as a justification by almost all military actions, but in cases where it is actually valid and one people truly are simply defending themselves against another agressive people I think that argument still stands.

But anyway,  I think that's something else that should be considered.

Death is death, be it innocents or aggressors.  

If the deaths can pave the way for everlasting peace, so be it - let it commence.

The POV on innocents is all relative to.  To the Germans and Japanese,the Allied Forces were the aggressors.


Bt

Lucifiel wrote:

anathoth8 wrote:I think you guys miss the point of the question. The idea isn't to discuss the invalidity of the question; rather, we are to take the question, as it is, and try to answer it. Obviously the situation described would likely not work, or even ever occur. It is purely hypothetical. However, as far as the exercise is concerned, you have to accept it as fact.

In other words, the sacrifice of tens of thousands of people will bring about world peace, whatever your definition of that may be. The power to make that choice is in your hands. It is your decision to make, so would you do it or not?

I think you missed the points some of the people were trying to make. Ever heard of "reading between the lines"?

As a matter of fact, I have. Unfortunately, that isn't what you were doing. Instead of answering the question as is, you examine the merit of the question itself. You start off by saying that the question isn't valid, because the solution given isn't actually a solution. Interesting logic, for sure, but not very useful in addressing the issue.

Incidentally, this is a tactic often used by high school students and politicians. The idea is to fill the audience with a lot of irrelevant information in the hopes of disguising the fact that they haven't answered the question at all.

Bromios, I did notice your efforts to point this out earlier. I just thought it was time for some reiteration.

anathoth8 wrote:

Lucifiel wrote:

anathoth8 wrote:I think you guys miss the point of the question. The idea isn't to discuss the invalidity of the question; rather, we are to take the question, as it is, and try to answer it. Obviously the situation described would likely not work, or even ever occur. It is purely hypothetical. However, as far as the exercise is concerned, you have to accept it as fact.

In other words, the sacrifice of tens of thousands of people will bring about world peace, whatever your definition of that may be. The power to make that choice is in your hands. It is your decision to make, so would you do it or not?

I think you missed the points some of the people were trying to make. Ever heard of "reading between the lines"?

As a matter of fact, I have. Unfortunately, that isn't what you were doing. Instead of answering the question as is, you examine the merit of the question itself. You start off by saying that the question isn't valid, because the solution given isn't actually a solution. Interesting logic, for sure, but not very useful in addressing the issue.

Incidentally, this is a tactic often used by high school students and politicians. The idea is to fill the audience with a lot of irrelevant information in the hopes of disguising the fact that they haven't answered the question at all.

Bromios, I did notice your efforts to point this out earlier. I just thought it was time for some reiteration.

Duh... the question itself is too open and too absurd. Whatever floats your boat.

Very well, then, I'll state my answer.

I don't mind the act of slaughter to achieve a solution. Why? Because the victor determines the code and set of ethics.  In fact, a dictatorship regime would best suit this "ideology".

After all, nothing beats the fun of watching men, women and children participating in the bloody massacre of one another. Afterwhich, it is time to plunder the national treasure and reinvent the cultures of the country.

And how does this tie into "world peace"? Why! Brilliant question! Well, this is my idea of "world peace". :P And the mass shall bow to me and call me "Honourable One".

Is the question open to interpretation? Yes. I intended it to be that way. But I disagree that the question itself is absurd. I think there might be other examples that might illustrate how violence was used to bring about a greater good (eg. civil war), but that's not really the reason why I'm posting this. The question is to test our views of human life, if people feel that some people are more deserving to live than others. If one were to hold the view that human life is precious and everyone is equal, then also holding the view that some people should die so that others will have a better life is contradictory.

One of the reasons why I posted this question is because I've seen two tv series so far with the exact same problem posed to the characters. The superpowers who could bring about World Peace had to kill many innocents in the process, and interestingly enough, these superpowers in both shows were portrayed as the bad guys by the producers. So part of me wonders how many people would choose sacrificing some people in order to bring about a greater good, and how many wouldn't. Hence my posting this topic.

Swift wrote:Is the question open to interpretation? Yes. I intended it to be that way. But I disagree that the question itself is absurd. I think there might be other examples that might illustrate how violence was used to bring about a greater good (eg. civil war), but that's not really the reason why I'm posting this. The question is to test our views of human life, if people feel that some people are more deserving to live than others. If one were to hold the view that human life is precious and everyone is equal, then also holding the view that some people should die so that others will have a better life is contradictory.

One of the reasons why I posted this question is because I've seen two tv series so far with the exact same problem posed to the characters. The superpowers who could bring about World Peace had to kill many innocents in the process, and interestingly enough, these superpowers in both shows were portrayed as the bad guys by the producers. So part of me wonders how many people would choose sacrificing some people in order to bring about a greater good, and how many wouldn't. Hence my posting this topic.

Oh okay, you got me. I thought the question was absurd 'cos it seemed kind of naiive. ^^;; But then again, naiiviety counts as part of human nature.

anathoth8 wrote:Instead of answering the question as is, you examine the merit of the question itself.

The intent of a question is every bit as important as it's answer. Hell without the question, the answer is irrelevant, only once you have looked the question over thoroughly, can you give the best answer.

But there is nothing wrong with the question. It is saying that killing tens of thousands of people *will* bring world peace. Since it isn't saying how, there isn't anything to argue with. So far the arguments that the question doesn't make sense is by saying that killing tens of thousands of people wouldn't bring world peace. But since the question is hypothetical, and says that it would, the question is ok and that argument doesn't make sense.


Anyway, I would do it. In fact, even if... there are what? 6 billion people? If the choice was killing 5 billion to create world peace, I would do it. In fact, that would almost be the better option over just killing ten thousand. If there was world peace, then technology would become better at a huge rate, including things like medicine. More people would live to an old age, since there is no murder, less disease, safer technology. More children would be born, and more would survive. The world's population would increase at a much larger rate then it does now.

This means the human population would quickly outgrow what the planet could hold. Our resources would run out. We'd be left with 20 billion people who are all sick and starving. Most would die before the population could support itself again. So in the end, many more would suffer and die because of world peace.

Lucifiel wrote:Duh... the question itself is too open and too absurd. Whatever floats your boat.

Very well, then, I'll state my answer.

I don't mind the act of slaughter to achieve a solution. Why? Because the victor determines the code and set of ethics.  In fact, a dictatorship regime would best suit this "ideology".

After all, nothing beats the fun of watching men, women and children participating in the bloody massacre of one another. Afterwhich, it is time to plunder the national treasure and reinvent the cultures of the country.

And how does this tie into "world peace"? Why! Brilliant question! Well, this is my idea of "world peace". :P And the mass shall bow to me and call me "Honourable One".

Aha! Now we're getting somewhere.  :p

Yeah I'd kill them, if it makes my life better, why not?

How about we make this more interesting? To those that have already answered "Yes", would you still do it if you were one of the sacrificed?

Thepal wrote:How about we make this more interesting? To those that have already answered "Yes", would you still do it if you were one of the sacrificed?

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.  If my death made the world a better, place, I'd do it.

Bt

Blackthorne519 wrote:

Thepal wrote:How about we make this more interesting? To those that have already answered "Yes", would you still do it if you were one of the sacrificed?

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.  If my death made the world a better, place, I'd do it.

Bt

Wasn't that a Spock (sp?) quote? And meant to be inhuman?

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

How cool a quote.

Klytos wrote:

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

How cool a quote.

Indeed it is.  If I recall, it is originally from Sun Tzu's The Art of War, not Spock from Star Trek (though that is its most famous popular reference).   If you actually want a reasonably intriguing response to that arguement, I refer you all to the Star Trek novel Spock's World.

As to my opinion, under my original premise of calling for volunteers for the sacrifice rather than forcing it, I would be willing to volunteer myself if the need arose.

Finally, to help ground some of the philosophical hypotheticals in reality, let's consider a question my father (a European history major in college, actually) posed concerningHiroshima and Nagasaki.  It is indeed a prime example of the "sacrifice some to save many mentality."  However, ask yourselves this question...

...what if the country that would have been required to be attacked by US nuclear weapons had been predominantly Caucasian instead?

Think about it.

Thepal wrote:
Wasn't that a Spock (sp?) quote? And meant to be inhuman?

Heysuess Christmas!!!

I said that it was in a previous quote,though, as Brainiac said, it's a Sun Tzu quote.


Bt

Brainiac wrote:...what if the country that would have been required to be attacked by US nuclear weapons had been predominantly Caucasian instead?

Think about it.

I don't understand the question.

I think it would have been looked at much differently if we bombed a European city, even if it brought about the end of WWII.  I'm sure the bombing of Hiroshima was a difficult decision, and I'm not at all sure it was the right one.

The Japanese were guilty of war crimes against the Chinese that were just as bad as those of Nazi Germany.  The fact that those war crimes aren't remembered in the same way in the mind of Western history is probably attributable to the same human faults that your question brings to light.