Dying a hero, w/o the belief of afterlife

[TheProbst]

Reply to the evolutionary peeps:

Obviously, due to evolution we have a built in set of impulses, one of these being defend our species. However, 10k people will not put a dent in the evolution of man whatsoever. I guess a point could be made a scientist with the cure for death may be killed but, highly unlikely.

I do not want to die due to my evolutionary impulse to save thyself. For me this question is easy, if it is a random 10k people or me, I hit the button for 10k people. Its not enough to alter my thoughts of saving our race. 1 billion, then I probably change my stance. I don't think I'm being unreasonable. However, keeping on these evolutionary impulses, I would die instantly for my wife/children. No questions asked. By genes > than everyone else's.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Reply to the evolutionary peeps:

Obviously, due to evolution we have a built in set of impulses, one of these being defend our species. However, 10k people will not put a dent in the evolution of man whatsoever. I guess a point could be made a scientist with the cure for death may be killed but, highly unlikely.

I do not want to die due to my evolutionary impulse to save thyself. For me this question is easy, if it is a random 10k people or me, I hit the button for 10k people. Its not enough to alter my thoughts of saving our race. 1 billion, then I probably change my stance. I don't think I'm being unreasonable. However, keeping on these evolutionary impulses, I would die instantly for my wife/children. No questions asked. By genes > than everyone else's.

[/ QUOTE ]

All very true. But the thing is, your evolutionary impulses are usually very general, vague programs, stuff like "protect yourself and those like you." If you were raised thinking your adopted sister was biological (or actually, even knowing she was adopted) you would feel just as protective of her as anyone else, even though she doesn't share any more of your genes than I do. Thats because your program isn't specific enough to determine who is actually your relative, but simply tells you to protect those you consider to be your relatives.

What does this mean? Well, it means that if you screw up your perceptions as much as, say, I have, you start to consider EVERYONE to be pretty close to you. I don't quite consider them as related as my family, but its probably fairly close. Thus, killing 10,000 people raises similar, but not quite the same, negative feelings in me as killing your family would to you. Its the exact same impulse, except my 'in group' is larger.

From a practical standpoint, each of our strategies have pros and cons. Your approach is going to destroy 10,000 copies of most of your genes, whereas mine will destroy 1 copy of ALL of my genes. It probably makes a difference whether I've already had kids or not, or if I plan on having more.

[gull]

Game theory says in this repeatable game we call life, a cooperative utilitarian strategy will do best. Obviously, in a single iteration of the game, cooperation is pointless. But since life is not a single event, I think it's reasonable to pursue utilitarianism.

By the way, there are a bunch of unstated assumptions in all of these posts. It might do well to make them explicit.

[Benholio]

[ QUOTE ]
I would probably devote the rest of my life to save at least an equal amount through extensive charity work.

[/ QUOTE ]

It could be reasoned then, that if you have the ability to do this (save 10,000 people through extensive charity work) and choose not to, then you are murdering them/letting them die.

[SinK]

I let them die for 3 extremely un-philisophical reasons.
1)10,000 is not a meaningful number of people to me its too big. Kinda like the quote about one man's death being a tragedy. I can dissascosiate myself from what I'd be letting happen...
2)I beleive in the afterlife but am in no hurry to get there, in Christianity as far as my reading tells me selfishness is frowned upon but not punished. So I take the weasels way out ...
3)I still get to be remembered; as the guy that let 10,000 people die. So, I get the fame and will be remembered after I'm gone...

On the other hand if it were 10,000 2+2ers; then guys, I'd bite the bullet for you :P

[Iconoclastic]

The 10,000 people you save are going to die sooner or later anyways. So your choice makes no difference.

Ultimately, this is another one of those questions where no answer is "better" than another.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
The 10,000 people you save are going to die sooner or later anyways. So your choice makes no difference.

Ultimately, this is another one of those questions where no answer is "better" than another.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow....really?

[dknightx]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The 10,000 people you save are going to die sooner or later anyways. So your choice makes no difference.

Ultimately, this is another one of those questions where no answer is "better" than another.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow....really?

[/ QUOTE ]

in the big picture (1 million+ years), does your choice make a difference?

[m_the0ry]

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps we should just jump to the end where it's decided you don't need some religious dohicky for your moral foundation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually as an atheist I have zero empathic or altruistic capability - biological or otherwise. Although this would clinically define me as a sociopath in the god-fearing world, since I am an atheist it is just expected of me.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The 10,000 people you save are going to die sooner or later anyways. So your choice makes no difference.

Ultimately, this is another one of those questions where no answer is "better" than another.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow....really?

[/ QUOTE ]

in the big picture (1 million+ years), does your choice make a difference?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure.