NationStates

I want to know how far the ‘distinguished’ users of this forum would go to defend their values. Let’s say that I am looking to invade your country and push my values onto its people and you. Let’s also say that in order to stop me you must kill the entire population of my country including those which are innocent. Even under the most repressive regime I could inflict on you I would still kill less people and cause less suffering than what you do to stop me over it’s entire existence (which is forever btw).

Is it ethical to stop me in this situation?

Or, put another way; “Would you kill innumerable innocents to stop me or anyone else from imposing my values on you and the rest of your society and destroying your values forever?”

My values are sincerity, honour, loyalty, etc. The massacre of millions is not compatible with those values. But, I would defend my country and values to the best of my ability, by responding to an invasion and fighting the enemy. A situation like this would not have only one solution as you’ve described, but would be much more complex and it wouldn’t require the death of an entire nation to achieve.

But, my nation and people take precedence over yours, so if push really came to shove, then I would consider the annihilation of the other in favour of mine, and spend the rest of my life atoning for those necessary sins.

I wouldn't kill anyone. However, if you try to ban my religion, you can't. I'll keep worshipping, even up until the point where you kill me

Floofybit wrote:I wouldn't kill anyone. However, if you try to ban my religion, you can't. I'll keep worshipping, even up until the point where you kill me

I prefer to just wait out your generation. Your religion will simply die of old age, which by itself should be enough to prove that it is false. Islam, wasn't it? Basically plagiarized from Christianity and Judaism, just like Mormonism.

“Would you kill innumerable innocents to stop me or anyone else from imposing my values on you and the rest of your society and destroying your values forever?”

Yes.


Let me try to give you a few reasons in a nutshell:

1. These "innocent" people are the backbone of the society attacking us, thus providing the means to do so.
2. These "innocent" people could take the burden on them to stop their government from trying to kill and oppress our people instead of expecting us to suffer for their survival and freedom.
3. When you're under attack, it's your right to fight back whatever the cost and consequences. There is no and can be no ethical obligation to surrender to an attacker.


Btw, I don't think it's really a version of the trolley problem. The trolley problem is about the amount of lives and the role of active intervention in an ethical dilemma. This here is something completely different, since you're in the position of a defender.

Orostan wrote:I want to know how far the ‘distinguished’ users of this forum would go to defend their values. Let’s say that I am looking to invade your country and push my values onto its people and you. Let’s also say that in order to stop me you must kill the entire population of my country including those which are innocent. Even under the most repressive regime I could inflict on you I would still kill less people and cause less suffering than what you do to stop me over it’s entire existence (which is forever btw).

Is it ethical to stop me in this situation?

Or, put another way; “Would you kill innumerable innocents to stop me or anyone else from imposing my values on you and the rest of your society and destroying your values forever?”

Everyone has an unquestionable obligation to take the act which preserves their values regardless of how many innocents it might kill. If their values are good and worth defending they must do it regardless of how much suffering the decision causes. The only reason I made this thread was because I saw someone argue that they wouldn’t pull the lever in the trolley problem. That’s why I decided to make this question which is a type of big trolley problem.

Just what is your ideology, anyway?

Soviet Socialist Kazakhstan wrote:

Floofybit wrote:I wouldn't kill anyone. However, if you try to ban my religion, you can't. I'll keep worshipping, even up until the point where you kill me

I prefer to just wait out your generation. Your religion will simply die of old age, which by itself should be enough to prove that it is false. Islam, wasn't it? Basically plagiarized from Christianity and Judaism, just like Mormonism.

This is a terribly vague question that only measures to what extent someone believes killing others is acceptable, rather than whether they actually have consistent beliefs. An dedicated anti-natalist and an uncompromising pacifist could, with the same level of commitment, answer in completely opposite fashions.

El Lazaro wrote:This is a terribly vague question that only measures to what extent someone believes killing others is acceptable, rather than whether they actually have consistent beliefs. An dedicated anti-natalist and an uncompromising pacifist could, with the same level of commitment, answer in completely opposite fashions.

Apart from the fact that this is almost always possible whenever there is the slightest possibility to take on different philosophical positions, what exactly does antinatalism have to do with this problem?

Well?

Wrong time to ask that. People are still childish in nature and happily resort to violence. With justification of course.

Situational questions aren’t always a factor for decided outcome. People always will say “Oh I would…..” and when faced with it? Did something else…..

I try to be humble in my day to days. If nobody is hurting you and you aren’t hurting anybody else?….I don’t care about it.

Anyways……

Soviet Socialist Kazakhstan wrote:I prefer to just wait out your generation.

Why? What's wrong with being devout?

Your religion will simply die of old age, which by itself should be enough to prove that it is false.

It won't die. It will be eternal. It's not false.

Islam, wasn't it?

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints

Basically plagiarized from Christianity and Judaism, just like Mormonism.

It was always there. And who cares if it's not the historic original? We used to think that bodies were made of earth, wind, water, and fire or some crap. Now we think they're made of cells. The cell hypothesis is more true. Why not my religion too?

Floofybit wrote:

Soviet Socialist Kazakhstan wrote:I prefer to just wait out your generation.

Why? What's wrong with being devout?

Your religion will simply die of old age, which by itself should be enough to prove that it is false.

It won't die. It will be eternal. It's not false.

Islam, wasn't it?

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints

Basically plagiarized from Christianity and Judaism, just like Mormonism.

It was always there. And who cares if it's not the historic original? We used to think that bodies were made of earth, wind, water, and fire or some crap. Now we think they're made of cells. The cell hypothesis is more true. Why not my religion too?

Ah, Mormonism, plagiarized from all three and proven false by archaeology, DNA, philology, anthropology, etc. Nice choice there.

Soviet Socialist Kazakhstan wrote:Mormonism

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints

proven false

Please, please, I don't want to laugh that hard today

Nice choice there.

Thanks

Hey guys, please don't jack the thread with another discussion about how dumb or enlightening religion is, the OP raised an interesting question and I'd like to read more opinions.

Najairadarethu wrote:Hey guys, please don't jack the thread with another discussion about how dumb or enlightening religion is, the OP raised an interesting question and I'd like to read more opinions.

Sorry, I just go far for my values

Basically plagiarized from Christianity and Judaism, just like Mormonism.

The Bible has incorrect syntax and facts on Babylon and Egypt. Surely if it copied the Quran would have copied the errors.

I don't know if I count as distinguished (doubt it) but this is an interesting question and I feel like it will sit in my mind until I let it out. I will say that if the action was taken solely against me and not my decedents nor my society. Then no I would not kill you or anyone else. I would go on in secret or in the open with my values/faith until such time as the regime ended me. But that is not where your example ended. Your example requires my family and people to give up those values. It requires my children to forever not only endanger their souls but to damn them. So I must ask myself if my soul is worth my wife's? My children's. In this case the answer would have to be yes. I would allow innumerable others to die. I would damn my soul and that of my entire generation if it came to it, to allow the next generation to have a chance. The future of my children would be worth any cost.

Orostan wrote:Everyone has an unquestionable obligation to take the act which preserves their values regardless of how many innocents it might kill. If their values are good and worth defending they must do it regardless of how much suffering the decision causes.

I've devoted a large part of my life to community service and political activity in the name of my ideals, and I plan to do a lot more. I'm a communist because I think the world can be better for everyone, so standing by as innocents are murdered would not only make me a hypocrite but also a monster. This isn't because of a belief in pacifism, just a general sense of morality.

What about Epicureanism? Fighting too hard for it would, by definition, place one in breach of it.

So, one of my favorite passages in Shakespeare comes from the one play I find silly, Romeo & Juliet, it comes from an Act III conversation between Benvolio and Mercutio (the best character):

BENVOLIO
I pray thee, good Mercutio, let's retire:
The day is hot, the Capulets abroad,
And, if we meet, we shall not scape a brawl;
For now, these hot days, is the mad blood stirring.

MERCUTIO
Thou art like one of those fellows that when he
enters the confines of a tavern claps me his sword
upon the table and says "God send me no need of
thee!" and by the operation of the second cup draws
it on the drawer, when indeed there is no need.

I think of this scene anytime people start listing off the conditions under which they would become violent.

I don't know and I submit that you don't know until the moment itself comes. So far, it hasn't. But I can't help but think there's something behind these kinds of questions.

I kill a goat and do what the entrails tell me.

Ask Atlanta.

The type of scenario described by the OP doesn't exist. There is no situation where one would have to commit genocide in self defense. It's nonsensical. I can't provide an answer for a paradoxical hypothetical.

This scenario is highly bizarre and unrealistic.

Orostan wrote:Or, put another way; “Would you kill innumerable innocents to stop me or anyone else from imposing my values on you and the rest of your society and destroying your values forever?”

Yes