Yes, You Have A Moral Duty To Save As Much Lives As You Can

Debates: 270

Posts: 7,779

4

6

10

04.20.2023 10:16PM

4

6

10

04.20.2023 10:16PM

If I asked: Would you sacrifice your life to save 5 random people, most people would say no.

So most people think that 1 life > 5 lives.

I guess they failed at moral math.

They will say things like "My life is precious to me". So in their eyes, one life is more precious than five lives. Then when I ask "Why is your one life more precious than five other lives?" I get no answer, as expected. There is no answer to it. You cannot explain why you are more important than 5 other people, because you are not more important than 5 other people.

Thats why the abortionists cant explain why

1 woman is more important than 1000 children.

Or why 1>1000.

Its hard to explain indeed, because to do that you have to pretend to care about life and at the same time be supportive of an action that destroyed over 1 billion lives.

So yes, logically, you have moral obligation to save lives.

#2

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,901

3

2

04.20.2023 10:52PM

3

2

04.20.2023 10:52PM

-->

@Best.Korea

So yes, logically, you have moral obligation to save lives.

Why? Can you prove life is valuable to me in the abstract?

#3

Debates: 4

Posts: 2,186

3

7

04.20.2023 11:47PM

3

7

04.20.2023 11:47PM

-->

@Best.Korea

Thats why the abortionists cant explain why
1 woman is more important than 1000 children.
Or why 1>1000.

Name one female that has had 1,000 children.

A real woman, not a fictitious biblical figure.

#4

Debates: 18

Posts: 2,806

3

4

9

04.21.2023 01:15AM

3

4

9

04.21.2023 01:15AM

-->

@Best.Korea

There isn't an ethical duty to save as many lives as possible. If there were you would be required to live in a tent in LA while working as a heart surgeon. Which means you would simultaneously make 500k a year while spending 500k a year on life saving charities.

This asks way too much of individuals

#5

Debates: 18

Posts: 2,806

3

4

9

04.21.2023 01:16AM

3

4

9

04.21.2023 01:16AM

-->

@TWS1405_2

Name one female that has had 1,000 children.
A real woman, not a fictitious biblical figure.

Technically your mom swallowed and killed about 1000 of my children.

Mike drop

#6

Debates: 4

Posts: 2,186

3

7

04.21.2023 01:21AM

3

7

04.21.2023 01:21AM

-->

@PREZ-HILTON

Hypocrite

Troll

#7

Debates: 22

Posts: 11,307

3

6

04.21.2023 07:12AM

3

6

04.21.2023 07:12AM

-->

@Best.Korea

Would you sacrifice yourself to save 5 random people.

And math is relative to the mathematician, moral or immoral.

Whereas abortion issues tend to get over-blown with emotion by the over-conditioned over-emotional.

So will you happily give up your life to save a zygote BK.

And abortionists (whatsoever they maybe) might suggest that a woman's life choice is more important than a bundle of zygotic matter.

Whereas no reasonable person would down play the importance of a child's potential.

Children are not aborted, because they were not aborted.

Hence they are children.

And more zygotic material gets pissed down the pan everyday than will be surgically aborted in a lifetime.

Sorry, being a tad over conditioned, over emotional and not statistically accurate there.

But you get my drift.

Topic's author

#8

Debates: 270

Posts: 7,779

4

6

10

04.21.2023 10:00AM

4

6

10

04.21.2023 10:00AM

-->

@ADreamOfLiberty

Why? Can you prove life is valuable to me in the abstract?

If life is not valuable, what is valuable then? Nothing.

Topic's author

#9

Debates: 270

Posts: 7,779

4

6

10

04.21.2023 10:03AM

4

6

10

04.21.2023 10:03AM

-->

@TWS1405_2

Name one female that has had 1,000 children.

The number wasnt suggesting that a female has 1000 children.

It suggests that 1 woman dies per 1000 births.

Therefore, saying "woman risks her life in pregnancy, so abortion is okay"

Is equal to saying 1>1000.

Topic's author

#10

Debates: 270

Posts: 7,779

4

6

10

04.21.2023 10:06AM

4

6

10

04.21.2023 10:06AM

-->

@PREZ-HILTON

This asks way too much of individuals

Its a moral duty. Doesnt mean you have to do it. It just means it would objectively be the best thing for everyone to do.

Topic's author

#11

Debates: 270

Posts: 7,779

4

6

10

04.21.2023 10:22AM

4

6

10

04.21.2023 10:22AM

-->

@zedvictor4

And math is relative to the mathematician, moral or immoral.

Yes. If mathematician thinks "me > 5 people", we could say he is immoral.

So will you happily give up your life to save a zygote BK

Do I think that my life is more important than 1000 fetuses who will obviously be born and grow unless someone aborts them? No.

My life is valued as one life. Not 1000 lives.

And more zygotic material gets pissed down the pan everyday than will be surgically aborted in a lifetime.

It is so in great amount because of porn. But still does not diminish that it is immoral.

#12

Debates: 18

Posts: 2,806

3

4

9

04.21.2023 10:52AM

3

4

9

04.21.2023 10:52AM

-->

@Best.Korea

Its a moral duty. Doesnt mean you have to do it.

I don't think you know what the word duty means

Topic's author

#13

Debates: 270

Posts: 7,779

4

6

10

04.21.2023 11:24AM

4

6

10

04.21.2023 11:24AM

-->

@PREZ-HILTON

I did say "moral duty". Not "legal duty".

You dont have to fulfil moral duty when no one is forcing you to.

#14

Debates: 167

Posts: 3,837

5

8

11

04.21.2023 02:25PM

5

8

11

04.21.2023 02:25PM

So suppose I have a parasite on my body that is killing me but not so much so I am still barely alive, I shouldn't get chemotherapy. ?

You are discussing cases where population is good. It isn't necessarily.

Topic's author

#15

Debates: 270

Posts: 7,779

4

6

10

04.21.2023 02:48PM

4

6

10

04.21.2023 02:48PM

-->

@Intelligence_06

So suppose I have a parasite on my body that is killing me but not so much so I am still barely alive, I shouldn't get chemotherapy. ?

I believe the parasite is not a human life? While I do have respect for non-human life forms, I dont exactly trade human life for that of a worm. Therefore, anything that diminishes human life is bad. So yes, if a parasite decreases life by making work impossible, the parasite is harming human life.

You are discussing cases where population is good. It isn't necessarily.

Population is always good. Unless of course, you hate life. Do you hate life? Is life good or bad?

#16

Debates: 167

Posts: 3,837

5

8

11

04.21.2023 02:58PM

5

8

11

04.21.2023 02:58PM

-->

@Best.Korea

Population is always good. Unless of course, you hate life. Do you hate life? Is life good or bad?

Have you ever been to China, India or Bangladesh? No? You know what, just tell me how to immigrate to Mars or something, because if we are stuck on earth, we are sure as hell overpopulating.

#17

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,977

3

2

3

04.21.2023 03:05PM

3

2

3

04.21.2023 03:05PM

A trolley is heading towards five people, if you pull a leaver it changes tracks and only kills one person. .

What should one do. ?

Back in the day, ( the trolly problem ) answer was ALWAYS ,

Pull the lever and kill one person instead of five.

Now if asked.

WHAT SHOULD YOU DO ?

The correct response is.

Quickly Get ya mobile phone out and record that shit.

Then maybe Post it on youtube and get like a million veiws.

Topic's author

#18

Debates: 270

Posts: 7,779

4

6

10

04.21.2023 03:10PM

4

6

10

04.21.2023 03:10PM

-->

@Deb-8-a-bull

Back in the day the trolly problem answer was ALWAYS , Pull the lever and kill one person instead of five.

Yeah, because the idea of saving 1 life instead of 5 lives sounds wrong.

#19

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,977

3

2

3

04.21.2023 03:14PM

3

2

3

04.21.2023 03:14PM

-->

@Best.Korea

5 people being killed by a out of control trolley makes for a wayyyyy better vid then one.

#20

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,977

3

2

3

04.21.2023 03:34PM

3

2

3

04.21.2023 03:34PM

If someone chucks a hand granade anywhere near you and others , you have to jump on top of it.

Taking all the grunt and saving others.

Thats like ummm, a good kind of Suicide.

Moral suicide.

Also Imagine two "moral" people jumping on it when one would of been enough.

Surly a god Would be ok with you killing yourself for the sake of others.

#21

Debates: 22

Posts: 11,307

3

6

04.21.2023 08:13PM

3

6

04.21.2023 08:13PM

-->

@Best.Korea

Well, my wife has never watched a moment of porn in her entire life and she still managed two miscarriages.

Porn has got f**k all to do with it.

Sometimes you say the most stupid things.

Topic's author

#22

Debates: 270

Posts: 7,779

4

6

10

04.21.2023 08:18PM

4

6

10

04.21.2023 08:18PM

-->

@zedvictor4

I thought you talked about masturbation lol

#23

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,901

3

2

04.23.2023 07:28PM

3

2

04.23.2023 07:28PM

-->

@Best.Korea

Why? Can you prove life is valuable to me in the abstract?
If life is not valuable, what is valuable then? Nothing.

Self-determination is more important to a suicidal person than life, and that's their life. I asked about life in the abstract. Why should I care if ants die?

Topic's author

#24

Debates: 270

Posts: 7,779

4

6

10

04.23.2023 07:59PM

4

6

10

04.23.2023 07:59PM

-->

@ADreamOfLiberty

Self-determination is more important to a suicidal person than life, and that's their life.

Yes, but such self-determination destroys itself, leaving nothing. So we could say that his morality commits suicide with him, and becomes nothing.

I asked about life in the abstract. Why should I care if ants die?

Well, why care about an ant? You shouldnt care too much about an ant, since caring too much about an ant is bad for human population. Human population actually kills lots of ants in order to survive, as agriculture destroys ant's nests. However, if you see an ant, should you step on it? I would say no. After all, the ant is not harming your life or life of other humans, and stepping on him would not save any lives.

#25

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,901

3

2

04.24.2023 03:23AM

3

2

04.24.2023 03:23AM

-->

@Best.Korea

Self-determination is more important to a suicidal person than life, and that's their life.
Yes, but such self-determination destroys itself, leaving nothing. So we could say that his morality commits suicide with him, and becomes nothing.

We could also say that valuing life destroys itself, since no matter how much you value a life nothing is immortal. This is an incoherent criticism of a moral theory. Values are values whether they are held for one second or one millennium

I asked about life in the abstract. Why should I care if ants die?
Well, why care about an ant? You shouldnt care too much about an ant, since caring too much about an ant is bad for human population. Human population actually kills lots of ants in order to survive, as agriculture destroys ant's nests. However, if you see an ant, should you step on it? I would say no. After all, the ant is not harming your life or life of other humans, and stepping on him would not save any lives.

Be technical, everyone sane values humans more than ants, and ants more than sand (if they stop to think about it); but few can formalize and categorize these preferences. None that I have ever met have been able to prove the value is universal no matter the degree nor target.

Thus I have, in the past, learned to always preface moral statements flowing from a value of life as "to me and those who value life".

Topic's author

#26

Debates: 270

Posts: 7,779

4

6

10

04.24.2023 11:49AM

4

6

10

04.24.2023 11:49AM

-->

@ADreamOfLiberty

Values are values whether they are held for one second or one millennium

So we could say a millennium is longer than one second. Therefore, they are not the same. So if valuing life lasts longer and is in greater amount compared to not valuing life, the first is much better.

everyone sane values humans more than ants

True. Unless, of course, a certain human group becomes so bad. Then people value them less than they value ants.

None that I have ever met have been able to prove the value is universal no matter the degree nor target

Well, the universal value is a bit tricky. You cant value all life equally. But you can, for example, have value such as "increase human life".

#27

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,901

3

2

04.24.2023 04:25PM

3

2

04.24.2023 04:25PM

-->

@Best.Korea

Values are values whether they are held for one second or one millennium
So we could say a millennium is longer than one second. Therefore, they are not the same. So if valuing life lasts longer and is in greater amount compared to not valuing life, the first is much better.

Then valuing chaotic energy is the greatest of all, for it will endure longer than anything else.

None that I have ever met have been able to prove the value is universal no matter the degree nor target
Well, the universal value is a bit tricky. You cant value all life equally. But you can, for example, have value such as "increase human life".

I apologize for the confusion. There is everyone valuing life, and there is valuing every life. Two different universalities are possible.

I meant universal as in every cognizant being must logically admit that they also hold the value.

You can't prove to me that I value life. I can prove to you (and everyone else) that they value their own liberty.

Topic's author

#28

Debates: 270

Posts: 7,779

4

6

10

04.24.2023 04:56PM

4

6

10

04.24.2023 04:56PM

-->

@ADreamOfLiberty

You can't prove to me that I value life

Well, that is true. Valuing life is not present in every human or every other being.

#29

Math_Enthusiast

Debates: 8

Posts: 184

0

2

6

Math_Enthusiast

04.24.2023 06:08PM

0

2

6

04.24.2023 06:08PM

Should I sacrifice my life for the lives of five rogue at-large serial killers who are so far gone mentally that they could never become functioning members of society again? I don't think so. After all, their deaths would probably save lives. Even so, sacrificing myself for five random people would almost certainly save lives.

Now imagine that I run a charity organization that saves hundreds of lives per day. It doesn't get much support, and I'm really the only thing that keeps it afloat. Should I sacrifice my life for the lives of five random people? Probably not, as those five people are nothing compared to how many I could save.

Now imagine that I am a brilliant medical student, and I think that I have a small chance of finding a cure to cancer. Should I sacrifice my life for the lives of five random people? Even though I only have a small chance to find a cure to cancer, if I did, it would save millions upon millions of lives.

Now imagine that I am an inspirational public figure, and I indirectly get hundreds of people through difficult times in their lives. Should I sacrifice my life for the lives of five random people? I am preventing a lot of suffering, and perhaps numerous suicides, without even realizing it, but exactly how valuable is this in comparison to the lives of those five people?

Hopefully at this point it is clear that this moral dilemma isn't quite so simple.

Topic's author

#30

Debates: 270

Posts: 7,779

4

6

10