Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In simplest terms, there are harmless people preyed upon by harmful people. Each seeks to meet their needs. If the harmful people prevail, they will destroy or enslave the harmless people. If the harmless people prevail, predators will need to be destroyed or at the least contained and isolated. Tolerance of predators is unmerciful to their next victim.
This is an interesting moral conundrum.
Who has the morally superior right to life?
The predatory consumer who will ruthlessly dominate, or the harmless producer who will generate surplus necessary for civilization to endure?
In simplest terms, there are harmless people preyed upon by harmful people. Each seeks to meet their needs. If the harmful people prevail, they will destroy or enslave the harmless people. If the harmless people prevail, predators will need to be destroyed or at the least contained and isolated. Tolerance of predators is unmerciful to their next victim.
This is an interesting moral conundrum.
Who has the morally superior right to life?
The predatory consumer who will ruthlessly dominate, or the harmless producer who will generate surplus necessary for civilization to endure?
Neither and both. Take your pick because both are in the same position regardless of perceived harmfulness/harmlessness.
Every antagonist is the protagonist of his own story.
In simplest terms, there are harmless people preyed upon by harmful people. Each seeks to meet their needs. If the harmful people prevail, they will destroy or enslave the harmless people. If the harmless people prevail, predators will need to be destroyed or at the least contained and isolated. Tolerance of predators is unmerciful to their next victim.
This is an interesting moral conundrum.
Who has the morally superior right to life?
The predatory consumer who will ruthlessly dominate, or the harmless producer who will generate surplus necessary for civilization to endure?
The one that acts first.
Ethically violence only acceptable use is for defense. Until one faction acts, there is no side who has the high ground.
While it can be rationalized that preemptive action by the "harmless" against the predatory is warranted (since they're acting against predators), it merely results in the "harmless" becoming predatory.
That said in reaction to an assault, the assaulter loses all rights, thus, the reaction may proceed to include elimination of the assaulting faction (if possible) and even displaying of remains as a warning to others.
In regards to "their next victim" who is "they" the "predators" who may be proactively excised, or the "harmless" who may have preemptively excised the "predators"?
In simplest terms, there are harmless people preyed upon by harmful people. Each seeks to meet their needs. If the harmful people prevail, they will destroy or enslave the harmless people. If the harmless people prevail, predators will need to be destroyed or at the least contained and isolated. Tolerance of predators is unmerciful to their next victim.
This is an interesting moral conundrum.
Who has the morally superior right to life?
The predatory consumer who will ruthlessly dominate, or the harmless producer who will generate surplus necessary for civilization to endure?
From the replies so far, it appears that there is no moral distinction between a farmer who produces surplus crops and a loan shark who skims great wealth via usury (the abomination).
One works hard, and the other sits back and collects his skim, offering nothing valuable in exchange.
Producers have the moral high ground over Predators.
Producers exist because of themselves.
Predators exist only because they take from others.
A society needs Producers to function. A society does not need Predators.
Make > Take
Shades of this argument are brought up in regards to a video game (of all things) only the words Predators and Producers are replaced with Raiders and Settlers. If all you do is Make but, you never Take, you will survive in perpetuity. If all you do is Take but, you never Make, you will live large until you run out of other people's stuff ...and then die out.
Status:
"Moldy Tater Gangrene, even before Moscow Marge."
(set 12 days ago)
Location: Dallas, TX
5,790 posts, read 3,606,656 times
Reputation: 5697
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics
In simplest terms, there are harmless people preyed upon by harmful people. Each seeks to meet their needs. If the harmful people prevail, they will destroy or enslave the harmless people. If the harmless people prevail, predators will need to be destroyed or at the least contained and isolated. Tolerance of predators is unmerciful to their next victim.
This is an interesting moral conundrum.
Who has the morally superior right to life?
The predatory consumer who will ruthlessly dominate, or the harmless producer who will generate surplus necessary for civilization to endure?
Morality seem more about preventing or reducing bad than it is about doing good. There is a moral obligation to prevent actual badness (as opposed to mere irritations and inconveniences), but there's no moral obligation to provide good - especially "surplus good". Exception: if there's no other way to stop or reverse a bad than what's normally called a "surplus good"
So I'd say the predatory person has less right to life, even if they are usually more capable of surviving. It's a conundrum only if you believe any number of these statements, especially if all at the same time:
(1) Life (and especially convenience and pleasure) should continue just for the sake of it (them) continuing.
(2) "Nature" (in the dog-eat-dog wilderness sense) is the proper paradigm on which to pattern our laws, principles, values, and such.
(3) Productivity, strength, intelligence, courage, competence, social and cognitive skills, etc. are the main measure of a person's worth.
In fact, I hold none of the above as true on the deepest level - for the following reasons.
(a) Humans, even as conscious, creative, self-aware, and capable of partial freedom of will as we are, still consciously and deliberately choose to hurt, harm or degrade others (HHD) - even when the HHD act or expression is not necessary to advance the vital interests of the individual or group.
(b) Humans, as social creatures, invented morals/ethic, laws, and general rules of conduct primarily to prevent or punish HHDs against others. If an act or expresssion doesn't cause HHD to others, then it's difficult to see any justice in a social rule (formal or not) against that act or expression.
(c) Nothing about being productive, strong, smart, competent, or fearless prevents a person from HHD'ing others outside the scope of reasonable and proportionate levels of defense, retaliation, or punishment.
Also, if one insists on point (3), then if we develop superhuman AI that's smarter, stronger, more task competent, and more fearless than humans are, then the superhuman AI will have more right to exist (or even not experience HHD) than humans do. Yet if we reject (3), then we have no basis for claiming that the "weak", "timid", "incompetent", "stupid", etc, segment of humans have less right to not experience HHD than the strong, smart, brave, competent humans. I simply see no way around this one.
Last edited by Phil75230; 03-30-2019 at 03:02 AM..
When all else fails in one's moral compass, the default should revert to the Golden Rule.
It's almost foolproof.
Those so-called "harmful people?"
Be a mirror to them.
Yes. The question is based on false premises.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So, life is a simple zero sum game?
