The Greater Good....

i never agreed with it. lives losts are still lives losts and you have to live with the consequence that someone will not be coming back to their loved ones.

^

@dbvse7: @lettsplay10: @kyrees: Playing devils advocate, by your opinion, wouldn't allowing more people to die mean less return to their families? Doesn't that justify the greater good? So less people suffer?

No.. suffering is a disease that will remain on this planet forever. You can't just get rid of it just because you shorten the amount of suffering to a selected group of people for just a moment.

People suffer all over the planet.. greater good doesn't mean sh*t to me in all honesty.

@dbvse7: If I gave you a choice, which one of these would you choose;

• Let a terrorist attack happen and 10 people die, and catch the terrorist responsible.
• Or don't let it happen, the terrorist gets away, and 20 people die because of future, larger attack or multiple attacks.

What would you pick? People make choices like that in real life.

cool

@pyrogram: It's kind of different when asking a person who's not responsible for others lives.

@dbvse7: Yeah, it just makes me wonder how hard it must be to make those choices. I mean, knowing you saved but were responsible for people dying must be hard.

@pyrogram: it doesn't justify it because lives are still lost regardless of numbers. one can try explaining it to families of the sacrificed for the greater good, especially to the young ones who don't understand its concept, and justify the merits but in the end it's their loved one that won't be coming back to them at all and they will be bear that sadness forever.

Its a tricky area, mostly because of uncertainty as a variable. Lets say in one example, you have a highly intelligent, knowledgable, wise, educated, competent, honest expert on city planning, structure, finances, the environment, weather, natural disasters, etc with support teams of highly intelligent honest people versed in various similar fields. Lets say they arrive to the neutral conclusion that there is a city near some natural feature that because of that proximity, in a few years, will suffer devastating destruction and loss, the likes that will definitely kill millions of people in that city, as it remains right now? They and some other experts in construction, other areas, with a few billion dollars can avoid that though - but thats a lot of money… so the people in that city and its leaders have to decide whether they will reallocate money from other things, to give to these other people to built safeguards/safety measures for their city? Except that means say… money that could go to upgrading hospitals, housing for homeless are reduced? Well if millions of people will be saved… lets call this Scenario A.

Now lets say some guy called Jeff walks up to you and says that there is a demon in his pants and if you light yourself on fire and then jump off… the Eiffel tower, then the demon will be unleashed and it will kill everyone, so… you should sacrifice yourself for the greater good? Lets call this Scenario X.

To many Scenario A, the greater good situation is more plausible, it would be unfortunate to reallocate resources that could assist people in other ways, but that probably would only be temporary if the city was in legitimate and real danger, as determined by neutral and well knowledgeable experts with no reason to lie. Therefore as tough a decision to sacrifice the wellbeing of a few to preserve and ensure the safety of the majority, its still most likely objectively the better decision between the two. With Scenario X, Jeff sounds like a mentally unwell sexual predator, like the Silver Surfer. What he thinks is the greater good, isn't actually the greater good, rather perhaps his belief, inaccurate or otherwise.

I gave two very polar opposite Scenarios. The practical problem in reality is that sometimes the scenarios aren't as cut and dry. Sometimes they are milky, crusty, mashed, ripped, uh metaphorically speaking. All grey and hard to value, weigh up, in both the short term and long term as far as consequences. In fiction of course like the sounds of this movie, you have some great entertainment and discussion points when the line between such decisions are blurry and you see the weight of decisions bare on people. Ethics/morality/philosophy porn.

@kyrees: So what would be the alliterative? Allowing a terrorist to escape and kill more etc? Just playing devils advocate.

@sc: That example about the construction was very interesting, I didn't give thought to it's implications like that. What's your opinion on torture for the greater good? If hurting one person to stop more dying works, is there a problem?

@pyrogram: For me it depends on the context and a few other details and variables. Like in a lot of scenarios torture is ineffective. A problem in some situations is torturing people for information, that they may not have. What use is the torture? To find out things they don't know, and just to make sure they don't know? Plus at some point people being tortured could be as likely to give false, inaccurate or wrong information just to try and stop the experience. So they may do anything to try and end the torture which limits how effective it could be. Things get tricker though say if you are certain that someone knows something, and that knowledge would indeed save lives or give some other benefit, and you know that they aren't willing to give up such information… but they might crack if enough torture is applied.

There are situations (hypothetical or otherwise) I can imagine with enough complexity, grey area, severe consequences, that I am not entirely sure how I feel as far as ethics go. I am glad I am not put in that situation. Generally though I think it is ineffective and sets a dangerous precedent and that it dehumanizes both the torturer and tortured, also that there is this slippery slope that exists, I mean… lets say a law enforcement agency manages to capture a terrorist leader and they know for certain he knows the location of and date of a large terrorism attack? Well… what if they find out that there is this civilian teenager in the area who knows where the local terrorists meet because his father is a member… potentially torturing him could give valuable information on where to find the terrorists and their leader right… and there could be a good deal of chance he may know some information that could also save lives…

Its a pretty big and complex topic really, with lots of caveats. Ideally, I'd like to imagine there are other ways to obtain information that could help prevent tragedies, save lives without torture, then again we do not live in an ideal world and if I am starting off my sentence with ideally, I might as well wish for no reason or need for torture as well.

@sc: I'll reply in more detail soon as I'm busy but I really want you to elaborate on one point, it intrigued me, how does torture dehumanize the torturer?

@pyrogram: In general? I don't think most people are equipped to handle such actions against others. Psychologically or emotionally. The weird thing as well, is which would be better for a situation? Someone who is going to torture another person, who won't enjoy the actions they will be inflicting on another, but believes there is no alternative and so a necessity and one that they will struggle with because of their conscious and ethics, or someone who won't really care or be affected. Those aren't the only two mindsets of course, but yeah, its like studies (Stanford prison experiment for example) where people are given authority and are encouraged to punish others can often become more brutal/abusive over time, slowly but surely. I imagine many people would not be equipped with the sort of power and authority that comes with inflicting torture on others.

Also the kinds of people who might be able to go through with such actions on others, but in a human and ethical way? What a burden they must carry for the rest of their lives. Plus look at Jack Bauer and how messed up his life is! 0_0.

For me when you state an attack on the greater good, it alludes to the potential harm of large body of people that can have a global effect both directly and indirectly. It's all well and good for us to choose our own stance as individuals on the matter. But for me the real question is, in these circumstances who is the one who should make these difficult choices. Do you leave it to a single representative or perhaps utilize a voting system, both of which have positives and negatives. You also need to take into account potential repercussions from making either decision. This isn't a simple yes or no answer question, because you need to look a multiple variables for each individual case.

Greater good is not being a poopy head.

Hmmm....

Well, if it's in a terrorist situation and he threatens to harm more people, I guess I try to save those who he's already captured. I mean, assuming he hasn't taken any more hostages yet.

I guess if he already has two groups of hostages, I'll call for backup. If he threatens to kill us all if I do, I guess I'd say "kill me, let the others go".

I guess I agree with the concept, but I don't necessarily always agree with everything...about...it....I don't know, man!

I just don't know!

It is justified as long as I'm not the victim.

No IMO.

It's not always true, but ends can justify the means.

That movie sounds interesting to watch.

if you are going to allow a terrorist to escape, what's the point of the greater good then ?

@kyrees: Allowing them to escape and catch them after. It's what happened in that movie, the terrorist was caught because the dude (nearly) allowed the act to happen. He was able to trace the terrorist's inside leak or something, watch the movie xD I forgot :P

the greater good requires you to make a decision that would sacrifice lives. allowing the terrorist to escape would only increase the lives you will sacrifice for the greater good.

@kyrees: I forgot the point I was making, but I think it was like, would you let a terrorist kill people so you can catch him, or let him escape so he kills more? Yeah, I think we agree. I just forgot my own point for a moment :P

i never agreed with it in the first place. i had enough of that "greater good" when i was tasked to be the bearer of bad news to the sacrificed

Hasn't this been discussed by Alan Moore fans for like three dozen times after Watchmen came out?

Jon Snow is always right!

Most times, it's in hindsight that opinions about this are formed. It's when the situation is happening, in the present, that can make it so difficult. So many unknowns, not many assurances. Hope is pesky, we are geared to have some, maybe more due to denial than anything else. Waiting until the last possible moment kind of thing.

For me, I wouldn't hesitate to place many lives over one or a few. I am very decisive, and don't have a problem making choices that perhaps most people would find themselves grappling with. If things work out differently, so be it. I don't think I'd feel guilt over it, or remorse. I'd be very aware of the unfortunate outcome, but it wouldn't change my viewpoint, or make me second guess any decisions going forward. Logic needs to come into play here, not sentiment. Might appear cold, but it really isn't. Just...common sense, really.

I think Utilitarianism is a immoral and emotionless way to achieve happiness for everyone. It is a necisary evil imo.