Lifeboat Morality ... "Deep Impact"

[LittleNipper]

RE: Lifeboat Morality ... "Deep Impact"
⁜→ LittleNipper, et al,

BLUF: The Idea of morality (What is it? Where does it come from in origin? Who oversees the application of morality?) and the concept of survival (what are the necessities?) together in the story of Noah's Ark (made possible through the hand of the Supreme Being or Supernatural Power) is mixed set of faith-based beliefs that contain the triad notions of mysticism, dogmatic ritual, and moral traditions. Those that maintain a belief in the Supreme Being, are believers in the supernatural → manna from heaven, alchemy (transmutation of wine and bread into the blood and body of the Supreme Being), and subordinate associated mystical entities (the appearance of holy biblical beings, archangels, cherubim, seraphim, a demonic presence, etc). All this comes together to gradually build, not only complex religious systems but the moral and ethic codes that we have today.

I would say that under the circumstances, the need would be for farmers, weavers, metal workers, hunters and builders. There were no politicians on the ARK (though Noah was called a preacher of righteous).

(COMMENT)

Scientific development and historical evolution of various spirituality and religion are not logically (philosophically) connected. Neither disrupts the other and neither can disprove the other. But in the human development of societies all is required in some measure to have some sort of progress in the species.

While our friend "LittleNipper" makes a pearl of brilliant observation wisdom on aspects that might need to be included in an otherwise life extinction event if humanity survives and grows, at some point, there will be a need for leadership. And that is germination for politics and the embryonic struggle for power. Out of that, conflict arises.

MEME

Most Respectfully,
R

I would submit that the one most concerned with the well being of everyone else, both spiritually and physically would be the most obvious choice for a leader. These overly concerned for their own welfare would not. These that didn't care one way or another, would keep everyone else on their toes.

 

[Picaro]

Don't know what 'wealth' would be hoarded, outside of foods that could be preserved, some tools and metal stockpiles, etc., so what would these be 'traded' for? Concentration of wealth would be impossible in any society starting from scratch; the hoarders would soon die out or be displaced by the others with more expansive outlooks. The 'billionaires' of today would be impossible in small cultures; they accumulate wealth by nipping off little pieces of wealth generated from the productivity of billions of people, not their own productivity. Try doing a North Korea and they will fail almost immediately; North Korea relies on Red China to maintain its oppressive regime, for instance. Political skills would be even more important, not less.

 

[ding]

Would the national leaders have any right to govern the millions of people they left for dead when they decided to shelter from the disaster?

Wouldn't that resolve itself in the next election cycle?

 

[FredVegbarfuss]

I re-watched the 1998 disaster flick "Deep Impact" with the incomparable Morgan Freeman as President of the United States.

In the movie, a giant meteor approached Earth and the mission to deflect it failed.

The President chose a cadre of experts and then held a nation lottery for a million people who could be accommodated in shelter caves for two years and re-populate The Earth. The rest of the nation 300 + million people were left to die.

Spoiler Alert -- the disaster is averted and the population of the US is saved (except for a few million folks on the East Coast).

The ethical question is this. Would the national leaders have any right to govern the millions of people they left for dead when they decided to shelter from the disaster?

Would those who abandoned their fellow citizens to the meteor be entitled to retake their wealth and property when they emerged to find that the disaster didn't happen?

View attachment 375629

No, they are not justified, but consider, why are leaders justified anyway? Many people who lived outside of civilization did not need to be policed in their groups and settlements. Problem people were much fewer then, when all were provided from resources nearly equally, and those who were were dealt with in ways other than corporal punishment or confinement, and people in the community managed fine that way. Larger communities might be the problem, inequality would be. But most people are not needing to be ruled by others to live right, there could be a way to raise young people that more live in a right way, while still we should not lose freedoms where that is not necessary.

 

[LuckyDuck]

I think that "Tijn von Ingersleben, is most likely correct about what the government would do in such a situation. The president, vice-president, cabinet, their families and numerous military personnel would sequester themselves into a large bunker in a mountain and just sit it out, without even giving anyone a warning, to prevent a massive mob from trying to get into the facility. After all, there will only be a finite amount of food and supplies inside the bunker and they would want it to last. I can accept that, it's good that there might be some who survive and I would expect it to be a number of people that could hold out in a bunker for the duration of their food and supplies, but no more people than that, as that would just ensure that everyone dies.