Do you, or Don't you?

[The Master]

A question was asked in general among a group that I often debate with concerning a rather interesting and though provoking topic.

The debate is of course, of no concern, but the question is. I'll ask it here and leave a few examples and wait for discussion before presenting my answer.

If you had the power to totally and completely wipe out a particular portion of humanity, with no harm to yourself, would you? If say, a virus in a vial was presented to you that would instantly kill all those of a particular ethnic make up, would you break the seal and condemn them to extinction?

On the surface, a racist question. Look deeper. Consider carefully.

Perhaps expand it, to include all of humanity, except for a choosen few, inoculated and impervious to the virus.

Would that change your answer? Would it not?

Would you, if the power of a god to destroy was placed in your hands, would you use it?

 

[JadecloudAlchemist]

No I would not.

Problems and suffering are our own design and are the result of being born into this world. Destroying something because you do not agree with it or what you term as harmful does not mean in the grand scheme of things does not have benefit in some shape the same visa versa.

I guess in some ways how would you feel if I used such a concept on everyone who had master in their screen name simply because I think its ego centeric and evil.:wink1:

 

[Empty Hands]

No. Whatever negative traits I thought would be wiped out by such an action would eventually crop up elsewhere. That is only the cold-blooded logic of it, of course. That ignores the fact that such an action would be deeply wrong under any moral or ethical system you would care to name.

 

[The Master]

I guess in some ways how would you feel if I used such a concept on everyone who had master in their screen name simply because I think its ego centeric and evil.:wink1:

Bravo! An excellent retort. Still, I shall hold my answers for a brief period.

 

[JadecloudAlchemist]

Bravo! An excellent retort. Still, I shall hold my answers for a brief period.

I can't compete with the master.

Cheers

 

[theletch1]

No, I wouldn't. If it were a vial that would destroy TRAITS of individuals instead of individuals then I may. Destruction of ANY entire group of individuals forgets that the group is made up of, well, individuals. There are people of every race, creed, color, whatever that I admire. To destroy the entire group would mean giving up the chance that one or more members of that group that could bring so much good to the world would be thrown out with the "chaff".

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I might.

It would depend on the situation.

"Wait! How can you condone genocide?" I can hear already.

Easily, when the alternate might be worse. "kill instantly" to me implies fast and painless.


But, to do it because I might have an issue with some brown, yellow, red, or not-my-shade-of-white people, no that I wouldn't do.

 

[exile]

Godgod, no. Why would I want to do that? The question is posed as follows:

If say, a virus in a vial was presented to you that would instantly kill all those of a particular ethnic make up, would you break the seal and condemn them to extinction?

Why would I want to kill any particular person of a given ethnic makeup, on strictly that basis—let alone all of them?

Race and ethnicity are social constructs; they have no grounding—none—not one shred—in biology. One of the few things I took away from my undergraduate courses in physical anthropology is that New Guinea pygmies and Copenhagen Danes share something like 99.9% of their genes. We are them and they are us.

Every human group has moral greatness and evil, and everything in between, represented there. Our differences are minute, ethnically speaking. How could anyone sane contemplate doing anything strictly on the basis of ethnicity??

 

[Kacey]

In diversity lies strength - why destroy that diversity for the acts of a few members of a group?

 

[Lisa]

No, I don't have the ability to remove any person from this earth, let alone play god with a certain race/ethnic group, etc.

 

[The Master]

Expand the scope of your thinking. You are focusing on one simple aspect of the example, but are missing the grander scope of the question.

So, change it somewhat. Under what circumstances would it be acceptable to condemn a large portion of the populace to instant death? Ignore the issue of race. Ignore the issue of religion. Ignore the issue of patriotic allegiance. Ignore that I said "vial" and "virus". Replace them with another means of mass death.

There is no right or wrong answer here. Unless you are focusing on the wrong question.

Remember, this is a philosophic exercise.

 

[grydth]

Can you expect fully honest answers?

Polling is said to have been off this primary season because many who would never vote for a black man would not openly admit it.

Can you expect any more here? Who should wish to be labelled the next Hitler? How many would - rightly - think an affirmative answer would follow them the rest of their time on the Forum, if not beyond?

I suspect most anyone who would snuff the accursed - - - - - - s at first chance will not admit it outside a close circle of like minded friends.

Your question is very relevant in this age of genocide, and supposedly post "mutually assured destruction'... but let's see how many yes's you get, with specifics.

 

[Lisa]

Expand the scope of your thinking. You are focusing on one simple aspect of the example, but are missing the grander scope of the question.

So, change it somewhat. Under what circumstances would it be acceptable to condemn a large portion of the populace to instant death? Ignore the issue of race. Ignore the issue of religion. Ignore the issue of patriotic allegiance. Ignore that I said "vial" and "virus". Replace them with another means of mass death.

There is no right or wrong answer here. Unless you are focusing on the wrong question.

Remember, this is a philosophic exercise.

Find me an indisputable way of knowing that these "people" with this certain gene will kill innocent people and I may consider it.

For me to bend my ethics I need absolutes

 

[Sukerkin]

What a question, Master :tup:.

It is one of those internal dialogues that strikes to the core of what we are as humans. It most certainly challenges our conception of what we are as compared to what we aspire to be.

Could I ever forsee me using such a device? It depends on it's scope and the finese of it's operation. Wipe out all of a certain ethnicity? What purpose would that serve?

Remove those of a certain 'type'?

Hmmm, that weakens my moral resolve.

If I could denude humanity of those members that fester cruelty and hatred in their hearts, whose only delight is in conflict and whose ascendency is only in their stupidity ... that is a tempting power to hold before someone.

I'm more or less convinced that there is no such being as 'God' but does that justify my playing the role of a vengeful one?

A vital thing to consider is that I cannot see all consequences of my choice, so, even on purely pragmatic grounds, it's a decision I would be reluctant to make (for unless you are sure, you should not do what you cannot undo). The moral compass is more sure - it simply would not be a moral act to exterminate an entire race or social strata (however tempting it may be).

As Galadriel said, "Even the very wise cannot see all ends".

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I think people missed the actual question.

It was this:

If you had the power to totally and completely wipe out a particular portion of humanity, with no harm to yourself, would you?

expanded to this:

Would you, if the power of a god to destroy was placed in your hands, would you use it?

The rest was just frosting.

I might, as I said, do it... it depends on the situation. Here's a few.
- An enemy fleet was sailing towards my nation. If a wave of my hand would destroy them, and save the lives of those I love, I would do it.
- An enemy is threatening my family. If I could call down fire to roast them, I would.
- Plague. Long slow painful and certain stalks the land. I hold in my hands a vial with a virus that kills instantly and painlessly. I would open it and end their pain.
- Famine. People are starving, death is certain but slow. If I had the power to release them, I would.

People are looking at the example and focusing on the racist part. I think that was in fact the intent. A distraction.

 

[tellner]

If you're willing to kill an entire people root and branch who cares if you do it painlessly? At that point it's just massaging your own ego about what a kind and compassionate mass murderer you are. If that's what you want to do then pile the skulls so high you can't see over the top and revel in it.

The nice thing about wiping out a particular ethnic group is that you would almost certainly wipe yourself out as well. We're that closely related except maybe to the Khoi and San.

 

[KenJoe]

Well look at it this way, so you are given the power to wipe ot a certian group, regardless of situation. You are given the power of a god in the palm of your hand, one of the bigger questions might be, do you act with human rational or with the rational of a god.

A man would let emotions and feeling get into his logic...people are suffering so I will end their suffering, instant death is better than slow death right. Who ever said that...a slow death may just be a long trial to build someone stronger to survive in other lesser situations. How many times of you yourself endured pain, only to find out later that lesser things no longer bothered you. Plus, isn't the statement of ending people suffering more of a ego thing, you are choosing to end their suffering. But who asked you.

I think the deeper root of this question is given the choice of whether or not I would choose to have the power to end an entire section of people, would I choose to have it, there is no depends...of course I would I am human. If I could have the power to flood the entire world then of course I would choose to have it, my human logic would take over, but I would hope I would only take it if I was willing to accept the responsibilty that that kind of power comes with.

As far as whether or not I would use the power. Seeing as how I was given the choice of whether or not I would use it, I would give the same question to those people, be it the suffering that wanted a quick end or whatever. A choice for a choice, control as much of a situation as you can...whether yes or no, no one can truly judge you harshly if all parties were given a choice.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Well look at it this way, so you are given the power to wipe ot a certian group, regardless of situation. You are given the power of a god in the palm of your hand, one of the bigger questions might be, do you act with human rational or with the rational of a god.

A man would let emotions and feeling get into his logic...people are suffering so I will end their suffering, instant death is better than slow death right. Who ever said that...a slow death may just be a long trial to build someone stronger to survive in other lesser situations. How many times of you yourself endured pain, only to find out later that lesser things no longer bothered you. Plus, isn't the statement of ending people suffering more of a ego thing, you are choosing to end their suffering. But who asked you.

I think the deeper root of this question is given the choice of whether or not I would choose to have the power to end an entire section of people, would I choose to have it, there is no depends...of course I would I am human. If I could have the power to flood the entire world then of course I would choose to have it, my human logic would take over, but I would hope I would only take it if I was willing to accept the responsibilty that that kind of power comes with.

As far as whether or not I would use the power. Seeing as how I was given the choice of whether or not I would use it, I would give the same question to those people, be it the suffering that wanted a quick end or whatever. A choice for a choice, control as much of a situation as you can...whether yes or no, no one can truly judge you harshly if all parties were given a choice.

Now that's an interesting twist.

 

[Topeng]

Upon reading the OP, I instantly thought of the hypothetical question of whether or not I would have killed Hitler prior to him taking power or all the Nazis. In both the OP and the other question, my answer is still "No".
Though our history consists of many periods we consider horrible, the world has been shaped by it and we have learned from those events.
I also believe there is a balance. Who is to say wiping away one evil will not cause the rise of a greater one.

 

[tellner]

Killed Hitler? Yes. He wanted to kill everyone like me. His people were responsible for a hell of a lot of violence against my relatives. They were in the ascendancy. They made no bones about their intentions. Purely as a matter of my peoples' survival it would have been an easy decision.

1935? Yes.
1919? No.
In between? That depends.
Given omniscience? Hell, yes. In a heartbeat. And I wouldn't regret it for a second.

But would I kill all Germans? No.
These days would I kill all Arabs or Persians? Not a bit.
Hamas, the current President of Iran, large chunks of the Saudi religious establishment? If I thought it would help, then sure. They want to kill or enslave all Jews everywhere. They're completely upfront and unapologetic about it.

But again, the difference is that I would only kill those who are a threat. Anyone else could become an ally, a friend or at least be content to mind his garden while I mind mine. By a number of standards that makes me overly sentimental and stupidly willing to let potential enemies survive. Oh well. That's the way it is.