That kind of goes to the root of many social contract theorists such as (I think it was) Thomas Hobbes - the idea that, without a system of law/governance, humans are naturally in a state of war with one another.
It also draws comparison to the old, basic caveman days - the prevailing idea of human survival - food, shelter, water.
I think that, in this situation, if it is 'okay' to kill another living being to save one's own life, then it is therefore/presumably a socially accepted practice/collective morality (and ethics) of society and no law prohibiting it, so... it would be ok to kill in these circumstances (food/defence). Right?
2007-08-29 20:12:00
·
answer #1
·
answered by deedee 2
·
0⤊
1⤋
Well, we can only answer this question if we have some kind of standard by which we provide for a balance between the needs of one being and another.
I know that you don't want to bring up religion, but those of us who believe in God believe that the human person is created in the image and likeness of God. That's one of the reasons that it is considered sinful to take a human life. However, it is not necessarily wrong to take the life of an animal, especially when the animal can provide you with food to sustain your own life. There's a clear difference, then, between taking the life of a human being and taking the life of an animal. Even civil law deals with these matters differently.
Thus, it couldn't be permissible to sustain your own life indefinitely at the expense of other human lives. Animals would be a different matter - although the law regulates the hunting and harvesting of animals, as well.
2007-09-02 14:05:45
·
answer #2
·
answered by kcchaplain 4
·
0⤊
1⤋
For every meal you've had, something had to die.
And you don't have to eat very much to go through a billion cells. And you are only here because your parents ate well, and their parents ate well, and so on.
The question isn't very hypothetical. Billions die to sustain the life of our species. (indefinitely?)
Life and death are blended. Living is the process of causing death. Dying is the result of letting everything else live.
But none of this has anything to do with ethics, because ethics is the agreement we have with creatures that are partners rather than prey.
The only ethical dilemma in killing something outside your tribe is if the death will negatively affect the tribe. I.e. don't hunt buffalo to extinction if the tribe needs buffalo.
2007-08-29 20:32:56
·
answer #3
·
answered by Phoenix Quill 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
If you're asking about a philosophical justification for preserving your own life at the expense of millions or billions, then there are at least two different sources of justification.
The first comes from utilitarianism. Utilitarianism claims that what is right is whatever maximizes pleasure for the greatest number of people. Suppose that, if you were to survive, you would bring massive amounts of pleasure to massive amounts of people. The millions of deaths could be justified on the grounds that you bring a lot of pleasure to a lot of people. Of course, the fact that you say your life will continue "indefinitely" makes this justification trivial. If you bring more pleasure than pain to people (even one person) for an infinite amount of time, then eventually any number of deaths could be justified.
Another source of justification comes from a sort of libertarianism. You could justify your survival at the expense of millions on the grounds that you have an inalienable right to preserve your own life, no matter what this entails. This is probably more controversial, but a source of justification nonetheless.
2007-08-29 20:39:32
·
answer #4
·
answered by justsomeguy 2
·
1⤊
1⤋
If you have a simple syllogism:
1) If killing someone is a necessary condition of your continued existence, then you are morally justified in killing someone.
2) Killing one person (among billions of people) is a necessary condition of your continued existence
3) Therefore, it is ok to kill this one person (among billions)
(repeat this justification a billion times for every person)
So in that sense, yes.
Remember, this only works if killing billions is the ONLY WAY to sustain your lifespan indefinitely.
The question is further complicated with questions of risk. What if you attempt to kill people, but fail? Then you have caused suffering for nothing. What if you are wrong, and killing billions doesn't in fact save your life. You would have to be POSITIVE that the killing would extend your life. If you were, then kill away.
2007-08-29 20:35:53
·
answer #5
·
answered by bob135 4
·
1⤊
1⤋
the basis of your argument, the justification of killing in order to feed yourself or protect yourself is rooted in an idea of natural-ness. it's natural to eat other things and natural to protect yourself.
but the hypothesis you propose, to prolong your life indefinitely is unnatural. nothing lives forever.
furthermore, if you look at the math there, questions re: the ways justifying the means come up. how much is 1 human life worth?
so no, it wouldn't be ethical to unleash an unknown horror to decimate the human race in order to ensure immortality of a single person.
i don't claim to know the answers, but thems my 2 cents.
ps. - this sounds like a discussion a james bond villain would have with 007 as he's revealing his diabolical plan.
2007-08-29 20:26:04
·
answer #6
·
answered by Pepito111 5
·
2⤊
1⤋
Our wellness care equipment isn't "in step with HMO's." i've got not got an HMO - and that i decide on which frequently used practitioner or wellness facility to circulate to whilst mandatory. costly to hide such service with coverage? You wager this is - by way of fact the service itself is extremely costly to furnish. all and sundry that thinks that the government can extra advantageous modify, distribute, produce or administration our potential of production - which incorporates wellness care - would desire to objective and clarify how usa has exchange into controversial the suitable u . s . a . on earth in a sprint over 2 hundred years under a private possession, capitalistic equipment collectively as different super, socialist international locations have failed miserably. Our modern-day equipment isn't ideal with the aid of any potential - yet we extremely do not would desire to take an ax to a project that needs purely a scalpel. As an further observe, this is extremely misleading whilst one bases the argument on how a lot of human beings have not got scientific coverage considering the undeniable fact that's not the comparable as asking how a lot of human beings have not got get right of entry to to wellness care.
2016-10-17 06:55:08
·
answer #7
·
answered by rud 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
The ethics of killing another human being is limited to a self-defense situation where the other person is trying to kill you. To kill a human who is not threatening you to somehow sustain your life would be similar to cannibalism, which is not ethically accepted in most cultures.
2007-08-29 20:10:22
·
answer #8
·
answered by Rob B 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
'Take the life of millions, maybe billions.'....What? Our human instinct and needs don't lead us to attack or kill each other. Evolve, plan, strategize, and prevent. It isn't necessary to eat or kill another human being to sustain life, or for nourishment and nutrition. No more zombie movies or Sci fi channel for you.
2007-08-29 20:46:40
·
answer #9
·
answered by Compass Rose 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
No it would not be ethical, or justifiable. It would be considered human nature which is a basic human instinct.
Hypothetically speaking??????
2007-08-29 20:12:21
·
answer #10
·
answered by michelebaruch 6
·
0⤊
0⤋