The March Philosophy Book of the Month is Final Notice by Van Fleisher. Discuss Final Notice now.

The April Philosophy Book of the Month is The Unbound Soul by Richard L. Haight. Discuss The Unbound Soul Now

The May Philosophy Book of the Month is Misreading Judas by Robert Wahler.

Culling People

Discuss morality and ethics in this message board.
Featured Article: Philosophical Analysis of Abortion, The Right to Life, and Murder
User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 7661
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Culling People

Post by Greta » October 8th, 2018, 5:22 pm

Ok, then everyone who drives or is driven in a large 4WD vehicle who does not use it for rural driving or and usually is alone or being driven.

That should cover many of the irritants in Alias's list. While the approach would no doubt take out plenty of decent types, any model suggested inevitably would.

User avatar
ThomasHobbes
Posts: 1122
Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm

Re: Culling People

Post by ThomasHobbes » October 8th, 2018, 5:26 pm

I would cull every one that consciously aligns with a particular race, creed, or religion.
Anyone not accepting that we are humans first, football club supporters second.

User avatar
chewybrian
Posts: 352
Joined: May 9th, 2018, 7:17 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
Location: Florida man

Re: Culling People

Post by chewybrian » October 8th, 2018, 5:50 pm

Burning ghost wrote:
October 8th, 2018, 1:08 pm
Chewy -

I don’t really see how this question can be answered without resorting to some system of “merit”...
As you can see what begins to happen here is you’ll find yourself ordering different human qualities. You may find one way to go about this repulsive just as someone may find your views repulsive. Personally I find it to be a very intriguing exercise for a number of reasons.
Based on my contention that all human life has value, and that we have no moral right to pick survivors based on our opinions, I tried to create a system which did not require trying to decide what attributes or actions had merit. Everyone might be chosen, and anyone could volunteer to go.
So, my system would be drawing lots, with everyone being in the pool, then giving everyone drawn a chance to survive.

Those drawn would be dropped off in harsh winter environments with a few simple tools, as far as possible from each other, thereby having some small chance of surviving by their wits and will. Put tracking devices on everyone to see who is surviving and continue to draw lots and drop new people off until the number is reached. Anyone managing to build a boat and make their way back is removed from having their number drawn again. When the number is reached, we'll send everyone available to rescue all we can.
"If determinism holds, then past events have conspired to cause me to hold this view--it is out of my control. Either I am right about free will, or it is not my fault that I am wrong."

User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3037
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Culling People

Post by Burning ghost » October 9th, 2018, 2:16 am

Chewy -

You’re still choosing people based on survival skills and intelligence though. In your scenario those inept at the task would die. You’ve created a system based on the merit of intelligence and survival skills/experience.

That is why I found your view of merit strange. You cannot possibly assign people to die without some system of merit underlying it.
AKA badgerjelly

User avatar
chewybrian
Posts: 352
Joined: May 9th, 2018, 7:17 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
Location: Florida man

Re: Culling People

Post by chewybrian » October 9th, 2018, 10:17 am

Burning ghost wrote:
October 9th, 2018, 2:16 am
Chewy -

You’re still choosing people based on survival skills and intelligence though. In your scenario those inept at the task would die. You’ve created a system based on the merit of intelligence and survival skills/experience.

That is why I found your view of merit strange. You cannot possibly assign people to die without some system of merit underlying it.
I see where you get that, but that was not my intention. I only gave the people a small chance at survival for the same reason they put blank cartridges in one or more of the guns in a firing squad. The executioners can take some comfort in thinking they might not have fired the fatal shot.

In the same way, the people dropping off the lottery losers in Antarctica could take a bit of relief in thinking the people they are leaving might just make it back. It was not my intent to save people because they were fit or smart enough to survive. Perhaps I could have had a secondary lottery, or given them poison pills such that only 19 out of every 20 pills contained the poison. Somehow, letting nature take care of it seemed to let everyone off the hook to a greater extent. If my number were chosen, I'd rather get the drop off than the pill, but perhaps offering people either choice would be better. That way, if you knew you were not fit, you could still have pretty much equal odds with the fit folks.

I hope you can see that the chance of survival was just an attempt at kindness, and not a merit system. Everyone would still be in the pool to get their number drawn, and fitness would not determine survival to any great extent. You have to put people off where there was very little chance of survival for the system to do what had to be done (in your contrived equation).
"If determinism holds, then past events have conspired to cause me to hold this view--it is out of my control. Either I am right about free will, or it is not my fault that I am wrong."

Alias
Posts: 2646
Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett

Re: Culling People

Post by Alias » October 9th, 2018, 10:38 am

I have some trouble characterizing starvation, frostbite and mauling by wolves as a kindness.
I'd opt for the poison pill, if it's all the same.
I do see the point of either the natural or Russian roulette selection: it might be hard on both winners and losers, but easy on the executioner. Well, sort of. Not sure it compares to the firing squad, really, since one soldier in that squad really doesn't kill the one condemned man. But the judge does condemn 19 out of 20 people. How much better do you feel not knowing ahead of time which 19 will die in each batch, and is it really that much lighter on the conscience than 20 - especially in light of the fact that the total will be a billion?

User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3037
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Culling People

Post by Burning ghost » October 9th, 2018, 10:38 am

Chewy -

Yeah, but in the OP I specified that a lottery system wasn’t allowed - although I am quite happy to accept ideas as answering the question if they at least provide some inkling of measurement (as given by the idea of surviving in nature.) If you refuse to answer then so be it. I merely hoped to get people to look into the darker recesses of their minds. Not that I would expect anyone to express such personal thoughts completely in the public sphere - that was also part and parcel of this hypothetical (to use the hypothetical rather than deny it.)

It is a curious spectacle to watch the thoughts flow through your own head to legitmizse this or that value structure. As guess at the base of this I am really questioning exactly how honest we are with ourselves when it comes to providing our positions on contentious moral topics and how much is little more than an attempt to paint ourselves as “decent” people - hence my very early comment about all answers being deemed as “posturing” (which then includes myself of course!)
AKA badgerjelly

Karpel Tunnel
Posts: 610
Joined: February 16th, 2018, 11:28 am

Re: Culling People

Post by Karpel Tunnel » October 9th, 2018, 11:45 am

I would cull anyone actually setting in motion plans to cull. I would allow myself to carry this out before committing suicide.

User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3037
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Culling People

Post by Burning ghost » October 9th, 2018, 12:06 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
October 9th, 2018, 11:45 am
I would cull anyone actually setting in motion plans to cull. I would allow myself to carry this out before committing suicide.
Putting a bullet in your head is not an option given in the OP. This is little more than an empty moral gesture :P

Of course, given the scenario I guess you’ve opted to destroy all life on Earth due to your dislike of the position you’ve been put in. How “moral” is that?
AKA badgerjelly

User avatar
chewybrian
Posts: 352
Joined: May 9th, 2018, 7:17 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
Location: Florida man

Re: Culling People

Post by chewybrian » October 9th, 2018, 2:07 pm

Burning ghost wrote:
October 9th, 2018, 10:38 am
Chewy -

Yeah, but in the OP I specified that a lottery system wasn’t allowed - although I am quite happy to accept ideas as answering the question if they at least provide some inkling of measurement (as given by the idea of surviving in nature.) If you refuse to answer then so be it. I merely hoped to get people to look into the darker recesses of their minds. Not that I would expect anyone to express such personal thoughts completely in the public sphere - that was also part and parcel of this hypothetical (to use the hypothetical rather than deny it.)

It is a curious spectacle to watch the thoughts flow through your own head to legitmizse this or that value structure. As guess at the base of this I am really questioning exactly how honest we are with ourselves when it comes to providing our positions on contentious moral topics and how much is little more than an attempt to paint ourselves as “decent” people - hence my very early comment about all answers being deemed as “posturing” (which then includes myself of course!)
My mistake in missing the "no lottery" part.

I really dislike the idea of deciding who stays based on my own flawed perception of who is good or useful, etc. I suppose that is the point for most people taking it seriously.

So, without any lottery option, I will allow people to play games of their own choosing to decide their fates. Everyone would have to play something. Say we need to lose 1/6 of the population. Then, whoever finishes in the bottom 1/6th after a suitably sized series of contests gets to go. Everyone can compete in games in which they might think they have an edge: Olympic games or other sports with age grouping, card games, board games, video games. If you don't think you are smart or strong then you can play bingo (It's still considered a game of skill by law, since you have to recognize the numbers and fill in the card).

I am curious if anyone wants to say what game they would play. I am tempted to say chess, but then I quickly realize I won't be playing against a sample of the general public, but against people who, one assumes, already know they are very good at chess. I might also take long distance cycling, disc golf, or handicapping horses. I suppose when it gets down to it I would take my chances at the windows at the track.
"If determinism holds, then past events have conspired to cause me to hold this view--it is out of my control. Either I am right about free will, or it is not my fault that I am wrong."

Alias
Posts: 2646
Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett

Re: Culling People

Post by Alias » October 9th, 2018, 2:14 pm

I suppose when it gets down to it I would take my chances at the windows at the track.
Or betting on any game where somebody else has to do the actual running, kicking, swimming, etc. Then why not roulette or dice? Isn't that skirting the lottery system again? I can see the appeal.

User avatar
chewybrian
Posts: 352
Joined: May 9th, 2018, 7:17 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
Location: Florida man

Re: Culling People

Post by chewybrian » October 9th, 2018, 2:33 pm

Alias wrote:
October 9th, 2018, 2:14 pm
I suppose when it gets down to it I would take my chances at the windows at the track.
Or betting on any game where somebody else has to do the actual running, kicking, swimming, etc. Then why not roulette or dice? Isn't that skirting the lottery system again? I can see the appeal.
Definitely not. Betting on sports is not strictly a game of chance; it is about finding value in a universe where true value is not known. By contrast, the real values on the roulette wheel are known. Nobody knows the real odds of a horse, or the Patriots, winning. Yet, there are people who make a living betting on football or horses--not many, but some. Over a sufficiently long series of races or games, the true handicapping ability of the player will emerge. The outcome of the handicapping contest would not differ in effect from playing in a series of bowling or golf games. Some luck is there, yet in the end, the better players would usually win.
"If determinism holds, then past events have conspired to cause me to hold this view--it is out of my control. Either I am right about free will, or it is not my fault that I am wrong."

User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3037
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Culling People

Post by Burning ghost » October 9th, 2018, 2:34 pm

Chewy -
My mistake in missing the "no lottery" part.
You weren’t the only one! Another point of this exercise. I am sure you’ve tried to answer a moral question before and then discovered that your brain had conveniently over simplified it so as to make your choice/reply much easier to manage (I know I have!)

It is a horrible question. The two most common approaches I’ve witnessed are bends the hypothetical question (purposefully or not) and resorting to making the problem a purely logical one and ignoring the moralistic element as much as possible.

As an add on think about this nasty little segway ... what if you had two choices and no one knew you made the decision. On one hand you can opt for the lottery and on the other you can decide who dies. No one would consider anything but the lottery ... or would they? Obviously I have though. Given some power over the course of human history who of us would really not even pause to consider the possible effect (naively as it may form in our mind or not?)
AKA badgerjelly

User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3037
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Culling People

Post by Burning ghost » October 9th, 2018, 2:36 pm

Chewy -

Some people make a tidy living betting on horses. Roulette is “random”. Same goes for Poker - there is a method and art to “playing the game”.
AKA badgerjelly

User avatar
Halc
Posts: 294
Joined: March 17th, 2018, 9:47 pm

Re: Culling People

Post by Halc » October 9th, 2018, 3:31 pm

Burning ghost wrote:
October 9th, 2018, 2:36 pm
Chewy -

Some people make a tidy living betting on horses. Roulette is “random”. Same goes for Poker - there is a method and art to “playing the game”.
Roulette yes. Poker is not a random game. Plenty of professional players out there. Never heard of a professional roulette player, but maybe there are some. Can't see how anyone could expect to come out on top.

Post Reply