My Five Wills/Code of Ethics

[Mystical]

Why is your life worth more than anyone else's?

[pineapplebunnybounce]

I think there are multiple possible reasons people give their lives up for another, outside of religious influences.

1. There's a possibility that you have a strong innate sense of justice (or think you do), and you truly believe that if you could prevent someone dying at the risk of your own death, that sense of justice doesn't allow you to not do it.

2. Giving up your life for a loved one is easier. You'd rather die than live knowing you let them die. If you play out a scene in your head where you choose your own life and allow someone you love(enough) to die, it's easy to come to the conclusion that you'll very much regret that decision.

3. While 2. may sound rational, in the absence of the outcome you are able to live with, you choose death with a bonus that your loved one will get to live, it's hard to see someone logically come to this conclusion and because of this, choose to die. Rather I think it's because we have evolved to behave this way towards kin, we die so that our genes live on, and perhaps the mechanism of differentiating kin and nonkin got a little muddled up as our brain evolved, and now we do it for people we love.

As for why do people choose not to die for others, it's because our brains allow us to consciously resist our instincts, or because self-preservation wins over. Or because in our diversity, some people just have less of 3. or more of something else that makes them unwilling to die for someone else.

I think either choices are personal, and i don't think you can call either one moral/immoral. I don't really believe they're actual "choices" either. I think if you "choose" an option, it's because you find the alternative impossible to do.

[deactivated01089]

Why is your life worth more than anyone else's?

Because I valuate it (i.e., my life) as such.

I think, generally, human lives carry different values. Life in general does. The life of a murdering rapist, for instance, is worth much less than the life of the common man, and even less than the common dog. But among men, I more highly value my own life not because of my race, or my sex, or my nation, or what beliefs I hold, but simply because it is my life and I wish to live it more than I wish to die so that another might live theirs. Does that mean I wouldn't try to save someone who was dying, if there was a reasonable chance I'd live? Not necessarily. But I would not put a noose around my neck knowing there was elsewhere an option to live.

---

I think there are multiple possible reasons people give their lives up for another, outside of religious influences.

1. There's a possibility that you have a strong innate sense of justice (or think you do), and you truly believe that if you could prevent someone dying at the risk of your own death, that sense of justice doesn't allow you to not do it.

Justice is doing the right thing. But who's to say what that is? Someone else might say dying is the right thing, if another might live. But there's no real way to prove that idea. If anything, one life lost for another life gained is morally neutral, unless one life is particularly good or another life particularly evil. I prefer to see justice as simply repayment. If someone sows goodness, they reap goodness. If someone sows evil, they reap evil. So for me, justice doesn't come into the question of giving my life for another. It becomes a matter of value.

2. Giving up your life for a loved one is easier. You'd rather die than live knowing you let them die. If you play out a scene in your head where you choose your own life and allow someone you love (enough) to die, it's easy to come to the conclusion that you'll very much regret that decision.

This, I understand. The person for whom I would give my life in order that he may live is the one being whom I love more than anything. While I do love others, I do not love them more than my own life. I would feel no regret in preserving my own life rather than theirs.

As for why do people choose not to die for others, it's because our brains allow us to consciously resist our instincts, or because self-preservation wins over.

Couldn't it accurately be said that self-preservation is the primal instinct from which most other instincts tend to arise? Thus, to act in accordance with self-preservation is not conscious resistance to instinct, but conscious acceptance of it. The only time I can imagine it being instinctual to die so that another may live is in the cast of #2.

I think either choices are personal, and i don't think you can call either one moral/immoral. I don't really believe they're actual "choices" either. I think if you "choose" an option, it's because you find the alternative impossible to do.

I agree. It doesn't make me immoral to save my own life anymore than it makes someone else moral to throw theirs away. These come down to our personal valuations and, depending on how the word is defined, our ethics. That is subjective to each individual.

[pineapplebunnybounce]

Justice is doing the right thing. But who's to say what that is? Someone else might say dying is the right thing, if another might live. But there's no real way to prove that idea. If anything, one life lost for another life gained is morally neutral, unless one life is particularly good or another life particularly evil. I prefer to see justice as simply repayment. If someone sows goodness, they reap goodness. If someone sows evil, they reap evil. So for me, justice doesn't come into the question of giving my life for another. It becomes a matter of value.

Agreed for the most part that it wouldn't be justice, but I do think that some people believe that it's morally wrong to not save a life if they could, even if it's at the cost of their own life. Perhaps this would go under the same influence as religious belief. But what i really think why people give up their life for strangers is as dawkins said, it's an evolution malfunction, a misfiring of instinct/feelings for a wrong person (evolutionarily the right person would be a kin).

This, I understand. The person for whom I would give my life in order that he may live is the one being whom I love more than anything. While I do love others, I do not love them more than my own life. I would feel no regret in preserving my own life rather than theirs.

I don't know if i'm understanding you correctly. You love one person enough that you will die if it's the only way they'll live, correct? You do not love anyone else in your life to this extent. If that's the case we do not contradict here, unless you're saying that you'd rather die so they could live but at the same time you do not value their life over yours. Because the act of trading your life for theirs shows that you do. (up till this point i'm talking about this person you're willing to die for.) The only reason to die for anyone else, that I can come up with, i said in 1.

Couldn't it accurately be said that self-preservation is the primal instinct from which most other instincts tend to arise? Thus, to act in accordance with self-preservation is not conscious resistance to instinct, but conscious acceptance of it. The only time I can imagine it being instinctual to die so that another may live is in the cast of #2.

If you look into evolution, the main concept to grasp is that the survival of the fittest, is actually all for the survival of the gene. You are fit to pass on the your gene. Your gene is the main character that lives on forever if it were lucky enough to live through fit bodies. So you have to look at primal instincts as preserving genes, not preserving self. Because traits were selected if they preserve the gene, not themselves.

A simple example would be a 70 year old grandmother refusing to die for her only live relatives: 2 grandsons. She has 100% of her own genes. Her grandsons each have 25%. It may make no sense for her to die (losing 100%), in return for a total of 50%. But she has reached the age where she can no longer reproduce. So if she chooses not to die, her grandsons die, she dies without reproducing again, all of the genes are lost. If she chooses to die, her grandsons live, 50% of the genes live to reproduce another day.

This is observed in the wild, in dangerous situations, animals exhibit self sacrificing acts that appear to be against their evolutionary advantage. And they do this more often if their relatives are in the line of danger.

Of course no one does this math in their head (well some would) the moment they "choose" to give up their life, I'm saying that the reason you feel like you would die for someone, is because you are "predisposed" to feel this way, your ancestors have felt this way, and it's in your genes and it was passed on to you. If your ancestors all lack this ability to die for their children, their children (you included) have lower chances of survival, and so are "less fit", and you will unlikely come to the conclusion that you'll die for someone, just like it's unlikely for a family that has had only brown eyes for generations to suddenly have a baby with green eyes.

evolutionarily speaking, i would say refusing to die for your kin (or mistaken kin/loved ones) could be for or against your "instincts" depending on your reproductive ability/genetic makeup. It would be different for different people. Dying would require you suppress your self preservation, and not dying would require you suppress the overwhelming feeling that you need to preserve the other person's life. Which would be hard for a lot of mothers to do to their babies, for example.

[deactivated01089]

Justice is doing the right thing. But who's to say what that is? Someone else might say dying is the right thing, if another might live. But there's no real way to prove that idea. If anything, one life lost for another life gained is morally neutral, unless one life is particularly good or another life particularly evil. I prefer to see justice as simply repayment. If someone sows goodness, they reap goodness. If someone sows evil, they reap evil. So for me, justice doesn't come into the question of giving my life for another. It becomes a matter of value.

Agreed for the most part that it wouldn't be justice, but I do think that some people believe that it's morally wrong to not save a life if they could, even if it's at the cost of their own life. Perhaps this would go under the same influence as religious belief. But what i really think why people give up their life for strangers is as dawkins said, it's an evolution malfunction, a misfiring of instinct/feelings for a wrong person (evolutionarily the right person would be a kin).

This, I understand. The person for whom I would give my life in order that he may live is the one being whom I love more than anything. While I do love others, I do not love them more than my own life. I would feel no regret in preserving my own life rather than theirs.

I don't know if i'm understanding you correctly. You love one person enough that you will die if it's the only way they'll live, correct? You do not love anyone else in your life to this extent. If that's the case we do not contradict here, unless you're saying that you'd rather die so they could live but at the same time you do not value their life over yours. Because the act of trading your life for theirs shows that you do. (up till this point i'm talking about this person you're willing to die for.) The only reason to die for anyone else, that I can come up with, i said in 1.

Couldn't it accurately be said that self-preservation is the primal instinct from which most other instincts tend to arise? Thus, to act in accordance with self-preservation is not conscious resistance to instinct, but conscious acceptance of it. The only time I can imagine it being instinctual to die so that another may live is in the cast of #2.

If you look into evolution, the main concept to grasp is that the survival of the fittest, is actually all for the survival of the gene. You are fit to pass on the your gene. Your gene is the main character that lives on forever if it were lucky enough to live through fit bodies. So you have to look at primal instincts as preserving genes, not preserving self. Because traits were selected if they preserve the gene, not themselves.

A simple example would be a 70 year old grandmother refusing to die for her only live relatives: 2 grandsons. She has 100% of her own genes. Her grandsons each have 25%. It may make no sense for her to die (losing 100%), in return for a total of 50%. But she has reached the age where she can no longer reproduce. So if she chooses not to die, her grandsons die, she dies without reproducing again, all of the genes are lost. If she chooses to die, her grandsons live, 50% of the genes live to reproduce another day.

This is observed in the wild, in dangerous situations, animals exhibit self sacrificing acts that appear to be against their evolutionary advantage. And they do this more often if their relatives are in the line of danger.

Of course no one does this math in their head (well some would) the moment they "choose" to give up their life, I'm saying that the reason you feel like you would die for someone, is because you are "predisposed" to feel this way, your ancestors have felt this way, and it's in your genes and it was passed on to you. If your ancestors all lack this ability to die for their children, their children (you included) have lower chances of survival, and so are "less fit", and you will unlikely come to the conclusion that you'll die for someone, just like it's unlikely for a family that has had only brown eyes for generations to suddenly have a baby with green eyes.

evolutionarily speaking, i would say refusing to die for your kin (or mistaken kin/loved ones) could be for or against your "instincts" depending on your reproductive ability/genetic makeup. It would be different for different people. Dying would require you suppress your self preservation, and not dying would require you suppress the overwhelming feeling that you need to preserve the other person's life. Which would be hard for a lot of mothers to do to their babies, for example.

I think we're in agreement.

[Mystical]

All this is nice and all, but when you're looking death in the face unless I intervene: are you gonna be like, ah naw she's fine just standin there doing nothing; its not an evolutionary benefit for her to die saving me.
NO
You're going to scream and beg for that life and when I give it to you in exchange for mine, then everything you do with the rest of your life will be because of me; children for our species who otherwise would not have existed will exist and down the line my sacrifice will be responsible for an entire population. What's the difference between you and me if we both lack god?

[deactivated01089]

All this is nice and all, but when you're looking death in the face unless I intervene: are you gonna be like, ah naw she's fine just standin there doing nothing; its not an evolutionary benefit for her to die saving me.
NO
You're going to scream and beg for that life and when I give it to you in exchange for mine, then everything you do with the rest of your life will be because of me; children for our species who otherwise would not have existed will exist and down the line my sacrifice will be responsible for an entire population. What's the difference between you and me if we both lack god?

I wouldn't likely be in a situation where I would be so helpless. If ever I am, it is nothing more than my own weakness and, as such, I must bear the consequence of that. I would not expect you to give your life for mine, nor would my worldview and values change if you decided to anyway. What is the difference between us? The difference is that you're you and I'm me, and I don't frankly care of your fingers slip from the side of a cliff.

[FlyingNarwhal]

While I find your assessment of who I am—namely a conservative gun nut running around shouting TEOTWAWKI and waving my confederate flags—amusing, it is entirely incorrect. I am not conservative in the general sense, nor liberal, nor really libertarian. I disagree with the social principles of most conservatives, the fiscal principles of most liberals, and the utter lack of pragmatism among most libertarians. I disagree with conservative justification if bigotry as much as I disagree with the liberal wet dream of making everyone absolutely equal in every way imaginable. I don't really have a label that suits what I believe. But I am not a Confederate nut, a pro-life seceder, a homophobic traitor to the American nation; I am generally self-described as some sort of liberal, I would have supported most of what Abraham Lincoln did, and while I enjoy the craftsmanship of firearm manufacture and the beauty of a well-trained fighter, I do agree with certain regulations on firearms.

Good day.

This. All of it. All day every day.


Good stuff there.

[Mystical]

We all find ourselves helpless at one point or another in our lifetimes. Fact of the matter is, you don't know how you'll react till you find yourself in that predicament. If there's one thing I've learned, its that when you are in that position--the position of facing the last few moments of your life--your instincts for survival kick in. You'll be begging, and you'll be pleading for help. Every inch of you including that reasonable brain of yours will want one and one thing only. Survival. The difference between you and I is that when faced with myself I would be saved and if faced with yourself, you would die with a feeling of injustice.

[pineapplebunnybounce]

All this is nice and all, but when you're looking death in the face unless I intervene: are you gonna be like, ah naw she's fine just standin there doing nothing; its not an evolutionary benefit for her to die saving me.
NO
You're going to scream and beg for that life and when I give it to you in exchange for mine, then everything you do with the rest of your life will be because of me; children for our species who otherwise would not have existed will exist and down the line my sacrifice will be responsible for an entire population. What's the difference between you and me if we both lack god?

Hm. Let's assume that this person does beg for you to relinquish your life for theirs, by doing so they're, in a way, refusing to die for you. If you die for this person, who is a not a kin (does not carry your genes), the genes that gave you the ability to die for them, would die with you. Yes their children will live on, but they will have the gene of begging others to die for them. This is of course oversimplification, but that is the difference between your next generation, and someone else's next generation. In other words, they're begging because it's evolutionarily beneficial to them, your dying is not beneficial to you.

I assume of course that you're speaking about the difference in value in the evolutionary term.

We all find ourselves helpless at one point or another in our lifetimes. Fact of the matter is, you don't know how you'll react till you find yourself in that predicament. If there's one thing I've learned, its that when you are in that position--the position of facing the last few moments of your life--your instincts for survival kick in. You'll be begging, and you'll be pleading for help. Every inch of you including that reasonable brain of yours will want one and one thing only. Survival. The difference between you and I is that when faced with myself I would be saved and if faced with yourself, you would die with a feeling of injustice.

I agree that in the end it'll all be up to fear and instinct. Interesting, you're saying that a culture of everyone willing to die for others would be very beneficial to me if i am ever in the situation of having to die, so contributing to this culture is a good thing.

Except that if you contribute to this culture, not just by encouraging others to die (begging for your own life), but by actually dying, all the potential benefits are gone. So yes you are right that if this culture exists and you ever find yourself in this situation it'll do you a lot of good, but only if you play the role of a freerider.