This is purely hypothetical, if you were given a chance to see every single event in the world and judge whether humanity was worth saving would you be able to handle that responsibility.
Now this is not a religious questions in any way, this is merely asking after all that you have seen in the world what would you choose.
Nice answers please.
2007-01-04 20:45:18 · 5 answers · asked by Engel 3 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
To be honest, I have seen enough already to know the human race is disgusting as a whole (I'm not speaking on a person to person basis, I know many good people) and I'm looking forward to the extinction of the human race. It cant be denied that it will happen at some point, but the answer I want to know is how far humans will go to save themselves. We already know that when a human is put into a life or death situation they can do unspeakable things to live. So when the time comes how far will the human race go to save itself. What will be the last step before humans finally free the earth from our destruction. I'm just facing the reality of the situation that we have created for ourselves, the sad part is many people don't realize humans have already lost, its just a matter of waiting it out.
2007-01-04 23:31:41 · answer #1 · answered by pingpong 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
And how would the criteria be? For what other end should humanity be judged? Rather is it not moral to judge everything else based on its use to humanity? Isn't humanity itself the end that justifies all means?
If ever an environmentalist would say that to save the earth, we must kill every human being living on it, what would you do? Hey I thought all the arguments against global warming was that banning greenhouse gasses be beneficial to mankind in the long run. I would certainly feel deceived if I later learn that people had a higher end than that. (Sorry tree huggers!)
And what about violence and wars? Why do we judge them to be immoral? Again its because we believe that human life is the ultimate end. War is judged to be just or not based on whether its purpose is to destroy or to protect that life.
All our moral codes are instinctively created to protect humanity. The laws exists for humanity's benefit. Humanity does not exist for the benefit of the law.
2007-01-05 05:50:45 · answer #2 · answered by ragdefender 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I believe that when you have seen everything and known everything, the gist that may come out would be a perfect balance between good and evil, long and short, high and low and deep and shallow.... that is to say that the positives completely negate the negatives...... so I would really not have any strong views for change except as time brings on in a natural way. The dynamic balance that this world is makes it difficult to judge one way or the other!!
2007-01-05 05:04:19 · answer #3 · answered by small 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Humanity is worth saving, as long as Nature -Gaea- decides that we shalt survive. However, we are polluting and doing much harm to the Earth, and this could at the end call for punishment.
When you are sick, eventually you cough to get out the germs.
Earth is already coughing: AIDS, Avian flu, pandemic, natural disasters ... those are more or less free warnings.
I would not like to know what the punishments would be!
2007-01-05 04:55:43 · answer #4 · answered by jacquesh2001 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
i am not authorized
2007-01-05 05:10:48 · answer #5 · answered by nodumgys 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋