An ethical question
Who is more ethically advanced: a person who has a larger set of things for which they will kill, or for which they will die?
And do you put yourself in the more advanced bucket?
I know that the question can be rendered silly by what you put in the sets, but I’m talking in very general terms and I’m just starting to think about things in this way, so my formulations are vague. But I’m pretty sure that some more precise form of the question signifies something, and that it’s the later group who would win for any definition of advanced that I might care to use. I’m also pretty sure I don’t qualify.
Tags: ethics
Ross Patterson
Phil
Ch4v3z!
Julian
Entries (RSS)![[Valid RSS]](http://www.chrismclaren.com/blog/wp-content/themes/homosum/images/valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed"){kind=small}
December 26th, 2007 at 8:29 pm
You’re assuming there’s an ethical improvement in one or the other, which to my mind is faulty. But I shouldn’t be saying so as I have no time to back it up or further argue the point. (I haven’t forgotten about the other thing, promise.)
December 26th, 2007 at 10:44 pm
Well, yeah.
Assuming we’re talking about a common set of things, I’m pretty sure (although still chewing) that the person who says he has more things he will die for than kill for is further up the ethical curve than someone who says the opposite. Or to put it another way, the barrier for “I would kill for this” should be higher than the one for “I will die for this”, I think.
December 26th, 2007 at 11:19 pm
To quote Duane “Dog” Chapman: “If I could kill myself and people would forgive me, I would do that.”
December 26th, 2007 at 11:52 pm
Wow. You lost me on that last left turn.
December 27th, 2007 at 11:36 pm
Sorry…I was punchy. Basically I was trying to show that the tendency to self-sacrifice can be just as foolish and ridiculous as the other thing.
December 28th, 2007 at 11:59 am
It’s much harder to ethically justify killing than dying.
So clearly a person who possesses a larger set for which they are willing to kill for (and presumably face the consequences for, both morally, legally and emotionally) is more ethical than a person who possesses a set they are willing to die for, since their involvement in the affair ends at that moment, despite the magnitude of their sacrifice.
I suddenly feel more ethical.