Do the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few?

[syrenn]

If 85 individuals control more wealth than the bottom 50% of the whole planet's population, would murdering those 85 and seizing their assets then distributing it among the ~3.5 billion poorest be ethically justifiable?

really? Seriously? this political occupy garbage in Philosophy?????

 

[syrenn]

Reason for asking was to spark debate on the value of a human life. Lotta great replies. A similar conundrum comes from World War 2 when having broken the German's Enigma encryption system, Prime Minister Churchill learned of an impending attack on the city of Coventry, England. PM Churchill knew that he evacuated the city before the attack the Germans would piece together their encryption system had been broken and alter their codes for future operations. Do nothing and thousands of British men, women, and children would die. So how much is a human life worth compared to the possible outcome of the war? As it happened, PM Churchill didn't evacuate and many died. But the Allies went on to win the war the Germans never learning Enigma had been cracked.

So clearly, for a greater good like winning a war, some may need to be sacrificed. If the deaths of thousands or millions can be prevented giving them ample food by causing the deaths of just 85 is that not ethical?

sorry.... your examples are apples and oranges.


but good to know you feel its right to murder for money.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

A) I haven't maintained a position either way. Am simply posing the questions to spark debate and stimulate thought. B) Since wars are over control of resources, isn't every war about money ultimately? If wars can be justified, and ultimately it's over some resource, then the deliberate killing of other people is also justifiable. Whether you call it "war" or "redistribution of wealth" or "revolution" the result's the same - dead people whose deaths benefit live people.

 

[syrenn]

A) I haven't maintained a position either way. Am simply posing the questions to spark debate and stimulate thought. B) Since wars are over control of resources, isn't every war about money ultimately? If wars can be justified, and ultimately it's over some resource, then the deliberate killing of other people is also justifiable. Whether you call it "war" or "redistribution of wealth" or "revolution" the result's the same - dead people whose deaths benefit live people.

Only meaning of life is that thanks to gravity, matter crashes itno other matter forming more complex systems like stars, planets, and organic molecules. Over billions of years, every so often organic molecules become living things like human beings, whales, and koala bears. But life existing ultimately is no more remarkable or significant or meaningful than stars and planets existing. Because they can exist, they do exist. It's just the human brain and ego that makes a simple process and statistical probability into something spiritually significant.

When our star enters its red giant phase in 3 or 4 billion years and expands incinerating the Earth, all questions of how meaningful life is will be answered - it isn't. Of course, a big rock like Apophis could take us out in 2029 and answer things much sooner.

so square up this bit of crap will ya.....


if that is the ONLY meaning of life ...


then your question of murdering a few to give to the many is just a load of occupy crap.


thanks for playing. .

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The premise is wrong as well as giving the poor the money does not help them except for a short time. With no means to earn more money they will simply spend it and be poor again. What then? Murder the next group of richest people?

 

[westwall]

If 85 individuals control more wealth than the bottom 50% of the whole planet's population, would murdering those 85 and seizing their assets then distributing it among the ~3.5 billion poorest be ethically justifiable?

really? Seriously? this political occupy garbage in Philosophy?????

It IS a philosophical discussion. It also demonstrates the completely bankrupt ideals of these "people". Heydrich and Himmler would be so proud of them.

 

[westwall]

A) I haven't maintained a position either way. Am simply posing the questions to spark debate and stimulate thought. B) Since wars are over control of resources, isn't every war about money ultimately? If wars can be justified, and ultimately it's over some resource, then the deliberate killing of other people is also justifiable. Whether you call it "war" or "redistribution of wealth" or "revolution" the result's the same - dead people whose deaths benefit live people.

When you look at the results of war and revolution invariably ONE fact emerges. A few wealthy people are murdered and a few poor people become wealthy and the cycle begins again. No war or revolution has ever benefited the MAJORITY of a population.

Just like Pete Towshend wrote in "Won't Get Fooled Again" "here comes the new boss, same as the old boss".

Anyone, and I mean anyone, who doesn't realize that, is incredibly ignorant.

 

[Unkotare]

If 85 individuals control more wealth than the bottom 50% of the whole planet's population, would murdering those 85 and seizing their assets then distributing it among the ~3.5 billion poorest be ethically justifiable?

It wouldn't be ethical or rational. You shouldn't need this explained to you.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

I personally don't no. But our current leadership would seem to need a refresher opting to start wars and invade countries to seize energy resources using the actions of individuals and non-national groups as justification. I.E. Al-Qaeda attacked us on 9/11 so let's invade Iraq and Afganistan.

Using the 85 richest was simply extending this crummy logic to a stat that was just in the news. If you supported those wars, yet don't support killing those 85 you need to recalculate.

 

[Spiderman]

If 85 individuals control more wealth than the bottom 50% of the whole planet's population, would murdering those 85 and seizing their assets then distributing it among the ~3.5 billion poorest be ethically justifiable?

Murder and theft are never justifiable.

 

[Unkotare]

I personally don't no. But our current leadership would seem to need a refresher opting to start wars and invade countries to seize energy resources using the actions of individuals and non-national groups as justification. I.E. Al-Qaeda attacked us on 9/11 so let's invade Iraq and Afganistan. .

You being too dimwitted to understand foreign policy does NOT qualify as "Philosophy," champ.

 

[PredFan]

The needs of the many NEVER trump the liberty of even one.

You have no right to income equality. There needs to be equality of opportunity not equality if outcome. The outcome of the opportunity is entirely up to you.

 

[Capstone]

Why shouldn't monetary considerations be set apart from the notion of an equitable intrinsic value shared by all human lives?

Sorry, if I misread the original post, but disregarding the reduction to absurdity (as if "murder" were something that could be justified in any context), the question in the OP seems geared more toward the issue of "needs", namely those of the many versus those of the few (What, does Larry Silverstein need another palatial abode or something? ), as it stands in relation to the question of morally justifiable courses of action to level the playing field in today's society.

The ethics of war (or discussing potentially justifiable reasons for killing in general) would have been better served by a more appropriate question, to which I probably wouldn't have mustered a response. I'm just not entirely there yet.

Have fun.

 

[Daktoria]

[MENTION=46449]Delta4Embassy[/MENTION]

Killing very few to save many seems logical. Is it not? And if it is in fact logical, should logic be our guide for choosing what to do on issues? If not, why not?

What's logical is quality comes before quantity.

You can't count something if you don't have something to count. If you're going to kill some to help many, then the difference between those who are killed and those who are helped is a matter of luck.

It's even worse when those who are killed are at least partially in their status because of applying themselves. Now, you're combining bad luck with disapproval of skill.

In other words, people's well being is not only subject to factors out of their control, but also those who try to control it get shoved down to the bottom of the pile.

It's like you have some sick and twisted version of the lottery going on.

 

[Doubletap]

The needs of the many NEVER trump the liberty of even one.

You have no right to income equality. There needs to be equality of opportunity not equality if outcome. The outcome of the opportunity is entirely up to you.

Absolutely correct.

 

[syrenn]

If 85 individuals control more wealth than the bottom 50% of the whole planet's population, would murdering those 85 and seizing their assets then distributing it among the ~3.5 billion poorest be ethically justifiable?

really? Seriously? this political occupy garbage in Philosophy?????

It IS a philosophical discussion. It also demonstrates the completely bankrupt ideals of these "people". Heydrich and Himmler would be so proud of them.

ah yes

the philosophy of murder and theft to achieve your own political agenda...... how special.

how very liberal minded that is

 

[Tor Hershman]

Do the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few?

The dudes who insisted on The Bill Of Rights did NOT think so.

 

[SayMyName]

If 85 individuals control more wealth than the bottom 50% of the whole planet's population, would murdering those 85 and seizing their assets then distributing it among the ~3.5 billion poorest be ethically justifiable?

Murdering? It depends on if those 85 can be shown to have benefited by providing aid and comfort or financial support to those directly or indirectly involved in modern slavery, aggressive war, planned shortages leading to starvation, assassination, manipulation of legal elections, and so forth. Yes, I can see instances where people could demand justice. Perhaps, not murder, but accountability.

 

[emilynghiem]

If 85 individuals control more wealth than the bottom 50% of the whole planet's population, would murdering those 85 and seizing their assets then distributing it among the ~3.5 billion poorest be ethically justifiable?

No because
1. there are enough people willing to share or invest resources voluntarily where there is no need to seize this by force by illegal means
2. the spirit of such actions would negate the good done by the money; this is why govt is such a mess and cannot use resources wisely that were taken by forced or unwilling taxes. while the charity done by voluntary giving is managed more effectively, the spirit is different
3. the poor people can be taught how to build up from their current resources without redistributing or seizing or depending on wealth of others
for example microlending can grow businesses without welfare, handouts or theft
and campuses can be organized where people barter goods and services while earning education and serving the community as in work study jobs or internships

so there is no need to steal or force taxation that people do not consent to
more sustainble good can be done voluntarily by charity or microlending or investments

 

[emilynghiem]

If 85 individuals control more wealth than the bottom 50% of the whole planet's population, would murdering those 85 and seizing their assets then distributing it among the ~3.5 billion poorest be ethically justifiable?

Murdering? It depends on if those 85 can be shown to have benefited by providing aid and comfort or financial support to those directly or indirectly involved in modern slavery, aggressive war, planned shortages leading to starvation, assassination, manipulation of legal elections, and so forth. Yes, I can see instances where people could demand justice. Perhaps, not murder, but accountability.

I agree there would have to be due process to prove which people committed any kind of fraud, abusive oppression, or other wrongful actions where restitution is owed to poor workers they exploited enslaved or trafficked, for example. If a crime or violation has occurred, this could be investigated and if found legally could be negotiated for restitution.

however, instead of just giving money to the poor, as with the billions in vouchers given to Katrina evacuees without any management counseling, I woud recommend investing in longterm programs to build sustainable wealth and facilities for the workers to break out of poverty and economic oppression. otherwise, the cycle and division of rich and poor will merely repeat. there should be investment made in sustainable growth such as through microlending and business training, bulding schools and clinics and longterm development.