"If there is no alternative it cant be immoral"

@Arjuna,

I think that in the end, morals fall into the background when survival is at stake. As much as something seems objectionable to me now, I can't say that it would in an extreme situation. If our morals were to necessarily override our will to survive I would say that we were a poorly designed species, but this is certainly not the case as is exemplified by many examples in history.

@hue-man,

hue-man;84510 wrote:

I'm starting this thread as an offshoot of a discussion I'm having in another thread. The subject title of this thread is quoted from a fellow member of the forum. Is moral judgment absolved when there is no alternative, and what does it mean for there to be no alternative? Theoretically speaking, isn't there always an alternative to any given action? Does there being no alternative mean that ultimately free will either doesn't exist or is a useless concept?

Here are some examples:

1. If I'm starving to death and there is no food around, is it OK for me to kill another person and eat their bodies for survival?

2. If there are only two people left on the planet, one man and one woman, and the woman doesn't want to have sex with the man, is it OK for the man to rape her to propagate the species?

hmm...
i see doing nothing as an alternative in the above two instances.

i guess i am an idealist-i would die for some principles of beliefs. for instance, in the first scenario i would be happy to allow another person to survive-i would give up my life because i am old and no one depends on me, i see myself as being less important than most of the people on earth. my potential is pretty much dwindling.

among the native people of alaska when a person gets old they go out and sit on an iceberg until a polar bear comes and kills them. they reason that the polar bear will be killed by their descendants and become food for their survival while the old person can no longer contribute but only be a drain on society. i find that very sensible. but not applicable to society in america of course.

in the second scenario an interesting question would be what would the woman do to prevent being raped if it was that important to her? would it be ethical for her to kill the man who tries to rape her? and then there was one...would it really be desirable?

@hue-man,

hue-man;84552 wrote:

It's not equal to power or to greed. Power is the realization of the will to transcend elements of the self or to transcend others. Greed is the excessive desire to acquire more than what you need or deserve..

In my opinion, if what your op suggests, the killing of one to satisify the will of the other if it is not mutually agreed upon, has everything to do with one over powering the other. If it were mutual, it could agreed by the two to share in the meal. "We'll have a piece of me today, next week a piece of you". Then both have at least a chance to surivive. Greed is evident if the one does overpower the other for they don't care to sacrifice any of themselves. If it is mutual, I agree, power and greed would not be an issue; that was not specified.

hue-man;84552 wrote:

The example of killing someone for food when there is no other source, though I couldn't see myself doing it, is due to the will to live.

In my opinion Hue, in that limited context, I just have to stay with my previous response. The way I personally see it, the will to live and the greed to survive are not the same, in all due respect. If it were truly a will to live, both should share in whatever it takes to do so. To "take" the life of another so "you" can live evokes power over the other to satisfy that greed to survive in lieu of him. Now if it were agreed to "fight to the finish" would be a different situation entirely. But that was not stipulated in the OP; though it would entail one over-powering the other.

william

@hue-man,

You don't need to reproduce. However, you should if you want the species to survive. As for killing another human, I would question the morality of it whether or not your life depends on it. Of course, you would do what you have to, even if you didn't want to kill a person, your intuition would guide you to kill them for survival. In a life or death situation, the brain does all it can do to let you survive, even damaging itself or doing something unthinkable and terrible.

@Arjuna,

Arjuna;84556 wrote:

So where there's no choice, there's no morality.

Well said Arjuna, and if I might add when there is the freedom to make a choice sans external power and greed, is all about morality, IMO.

William

@William,

Great thread, hue-man!

hue-man;84510 wrote:

1. If I'm starving to death and there is no food around, is it OK for me to kill another person and eat their bodies for survival?

What's the "no alternative" aspect here? Even if we imagine that, in order to survive, one must kill another human there remains the option to die. To allow yourself to perish. Thus, there is an alternative to eating other people.

It is always strange - even hypothetically, many people assume that self-preservation transcends morality - but morality exists specifically to temper the drive for self-preservation. Sometimes death is the moral route. Remember the Vietnamese monk who burned himself alive.

hue-man;84510 wrote:

2. If there are only two people left on the planet, one man and one woman, and the woman doesn't want to have sex with the man, is it OK for the man to rape her to propagate the species?

This is similar to the first, but instead of self-preservation we are dealing with what might be called species-preservation. Obviously we have an alternative: let the species die out.

Both self-preservation and species-preservation fall under the same header, under the same folly: selfishness. They are the notions that run like 'my existence, however depraved and terrible, is more important than me existing well'.

Zetetic11235;84566 wrote:

I think that in the end, morals fall into the background when survival is at stake. As much as something seems objectionable to me now, I can't say that it would in an extreme situation. If our morals were to necessarily override our will to survive I would say that we were a poorly designed species, but this is certainly not the case as is exemplified by many examples in history.

It is typical of humans to drop morality as survival becomes a problem - it's an instinctual drive. But this cannot be a justification; we cannot derive a moral ought from an is without at least one other moral premise.

While you think that if morals were to override our survival instinct that we would be a poorly designed species? I take the opposite view.

@salima,

salima;84628 wrote:

hmm...
i see doing nothing as an alternative in the above two instances.

i guess i am an idealist-i would die for some principles of beliefs. for instance, in the first scenario i would be happy to allow another person to survive-i would give up my life because i am old and no one depends on me, i see myself as being less important than most of the people on earth. my potential is pretty much dwindling.

among the native people of alaska when a person gets old they go out and sit on an iceberg until a polar bear comes and kills them. they reason that the polar bear will be killed by their descendants and become food for their survival while the old person can no longer contribute but only be a drain on society. i find that very sensible. but not applicable to society in america of course.

in the second scenario an interesting question would be what would the woman do to prevent being raped if it was that important to her? would it be ethical for her to kill the man who tries to rape her? and then there was one...would it really be desirable?

I took the title of this thread from you, Salima. In short, there is always an alternative, and I think that we can all agree on that.

@hue-man,

i think it is possible that the instinctual drive to survive IS moral, with the levels directly corresponding to the capability of over-riding it for the sake of species preservation and species enhancement (trying to reach perfection through ideals) being the highest. i think a system of formal ethics could be based on these principles.

in fact i think there is an instinct to transcend our instinct...and that is why we are here talking about it now. in human history morality has often been set up as a means of controlling others-but we are philosophizing about what is or is not moral theoretically without ulterior motives to control segments of humanity. why would we do that if it were not instinctive (inherent) in our nature? this too is a 'drive'. how many centuries have we (humanity) persisted in philosophizing about ethics!

i think the issue is that most of humanity is not in touch with their true instinctual values. what is commonly believed and justified as will to survive is actually harmful selfishness (self gratification) rather than self interest, which is a healthy instinct.

@William,

William;84634 wrote:

In my opinion, if what your op suggests, the killing of one to satisify the will of the other if it is not mutually agreed upon, has everything to do with one over powering the other. If it were mutual, it could agreed by the two to share in the meal. "We'll have a piece of me today, next week a piece of you". Then both have at least a chance to surivive. Greed is evident if the one does overpower the other for they don't care to sacrifice any of themselves. If it is mutual, I agree, power and greed would not be an issue; that was not specified.

In my opinion Hue, in that limited context, I just have to stay with my previous response. The way I personally see it, the will to live and the greed to survive are not the same, in all due respect. If it were truly a will to live, both should share in whatever it takes to do so. To "take" the life of another so "you" can live evokes power over the other to satisfy that greed to survive in lieu of him. Now if it were agreed to "fight to the finish" would be a different situation entirely. But that was not stipulated in the OP; though it would entail one over-powering the other.

william

While I agree that overpowering or defeating someone is an example of power, my example in the OP is not one of overpowering for the sake of overpowering. In other words, the overpowering is due to an extrinsic value of power, not an intrinsic value of power.

You are corrupting the meaning of the word greed; hunger and greed are not synonymous.

@hue-man,

As for "Allied powers" and "Axis powers" I wonder you always try represent Hitler and Nazis as a company of mad monstors. Actually Hitler was a product of a system which haven't change even by now. Many people want to find someone who is guilty (sure it must be they themselves), and all elections are of the same nature as antisemitism: you live bad and you find who is guilty: democrats, republicans, conservatives, labourists, communists, Bush, Obama, Putin, Blair... The common idea may be expressed as: "I should live better if that person or thing disappear from my life". We always seek the reason outwardly, whereas it is always within.
That was a little degression I made after reading some posts. As for the main topic I think it has just been said that alternative always exists. But I think that if we have hesitation as to what to do, it is not true morality, rather it is tension between two patterns of behaviour we have in our minds. If thou really thinkst that eating someone for the sake of surviving is better (read: "more pleasant") for thee than dying, than I see there no reasons to prevent thyself from it. And the same thing with sex. But violence ALWAYS causes some reactions in brain which are unpleasant. Therefore there is absolutely no difference between self-defence and illegal violence. Everyone who has some knowledge in psychology knows that the reason why we think there is "just violence" is our conditioning. That is to say, we are conditioned that some actions are pardonable and others are not.

@hue-man,

Ok Eudaimon, what would you do if someone is attacking you?

@hue-man,

hue-man;84510 wrote:

I'm starting this thread as an offshoot of a discussion I'm having in another thread. The subject title of this thread is quoted from a fellow member of the forum. Is moral judgment absolved when there is no alternative, and what does it mean for there to be no alternative? Theoretically speaking, isn't there always an alternative to any given action? Does there being no alternative mean that ultimately free will either doesn't exist or is a useless concept?

Here are some examples:

1. If I'm starving to death and there is no food around, is it OK for me to kill another person and eat their bodies for survival?

2. If there are only two people left on the planet, one man and one woman, and the woman doesn't want to have sex with the man, is it OK for the man to rape her to propagate the species?

1. In neither case is it true that there is no alternative.
2. There is a difference between the agent (the one who does the action) being immoral, and the action, itself, being immoral. It may be that if I (really) had no alternative, I was not immoral for doing something, but what I did can still be immoral.

@Caroline,

Caroline;86024 wrote:

Ok Eudaimon, what would you do if someone is attacking you?

Me?! No one can attack me. What you could do is to attack something which I identify with myself. You may say you hate Russians, or males, or that my features are ugly, and so long as there is identification with these things I shall feel angry. But what happens when there is no more identification? I think that if one doesn't think he is such and such, "he is that", there is no place for offence.
But maybe thou meanst physical attack? Everything said above remains valid in this situation. Why do we value this life, this BIOLOGICAL life, so much. Because there is an idea that we must preserve it, and many other ideas. I think if thou whantest to know why the life is dear for thee, ask thyself why. There are many answers: "I want to do something more, I want to see my grandchildren, etc." But when one understands the vanity of all this, there comes freedom, freedom from the Will to Life.
So long as there is no understanding that life itself has no value, the vanity of life, so long as there is no understanding that ONLY life in love has any meaning -- and it is impossible to love person and hurt him -- so long as there is no such understanding any of my answers will be useless for thee. I should say: "Turn the other cheek" but these words are invalid when there is no love, because thou mayest do this, follow this, even die for this and yet be extremely angry within. I hope I answered thy question.

@Eudaimon,

Eudaimon;86227 wrote:

Me?! No one can attack me. What you could do is to attack something which I identify with myself. You may say you hate Russians, or males, or that my features are ugly, and so long as there is identification with these things I shall feel angry. But what happens when there is no more identification? I think that if one doesn't think he is such and such, "he is that", there is no place for offence.
But maybe thou meanst physical attack? Everything said above remains valid in this situation. Why do we value this life, this BIOLOGICAL life, so much. Because there is an idea that we must preserve it, and many other ideas. I think if thou whantest to know why the life is dear for thee, ask thyself why. There are many answers: "I want to do something more, I want to see my grandchildren, etc." But when one understands the vanity of all this, there comes freedom, freedom from the Will to Life.
So long as there is no understanding that life itself has no value, the vanity of life, so long as there is no understanding that ONLY life in love has any meaning -- and it is impossible to love person and hurt him -- so long as there is no such understanding any of my answers will be useless for thee. I should say: "Turn the other cheek" but these words are invalid when there is no love, because thou mayest do this, follow this, even die for this and yet be extremely angry within. I hope I answered thy question.

So what you're basically saying is that you would willingly let someone kill you without even putting up a fight because you don't value life or existence? I would usually call a statement like this irrational, but I think that would be an understatement in this case.

You're basically a metaphysical nihilist who devalues not only the existence of your self, which you barely seem to acknowledge, but also the existence of others. You imply that we shouldn't value this BIOLOGICAL life as if there is anything but biological life (all life is biological my friend). I personally find this nihilistic pessimism to be repugnant. I believe in the affirmation of this life because it is the only life that we are certain of having. I don't believe that we can ever entirely rid ourselves of the will to life. Do you still eat and drink? Well that's an expression of the will to life. Would you move out of the way of a fall building? Well that's another expression of the will to life. Could you starve or dehydrate yourself to death with a gallon of water and a huge plate of food in front of you? That's the will to life. Conscious freedom of the will is an illusion. All behaviors and thoughts are rooted in the subconscious mind. You're more mechanical than you may want to believe.

I believe that we shouldn't be attached to life so much that we develop an irrational fear of the "state" of death, but we also shouldn't become so detached from life that we fall victim to nihilism, pessimism, and an irrational lack of self-concern.

@hue-man,

hue-man;86253 wrote:

So what you're basically saying is that you would willingly let someone kill you without even putting up a fight because you don't value life or existence?

No. I am saying that there is something much more valuable than this physical existence per se. I think there are some circumstances when it is better to give up life.

hue-man;86253 wrote:

You're basically a metaphysical nihilist who devalues not only the existence of your self, which you barely seem to acknowledge, but also the existence of others. You imply that we shouldn't value this BIOLOGICAL life as if there is anything but biological life (all life is biological my friend). I personally find this nihilistic pessimism to be repugnant. I believe in the affirmation of this life because it is the only life that we are certain of having.

Whether there is something besides this biological life, I don't know. That's an absolutely idle question for me, which I could discuss out of mere curiosity, I actually don't unite my worldview with existence something like "afterlife" or "spiritual life". What I am saying here is that biological existence, that is eating, drinking, defecating etc. has no value. What is really worthwhile is life in peace and love, so long as there is no these too life has no meaning. It is even, I think, cannot be discussed: if thou feelst that, if thou knowst that life without it is mere I don't know how to express that is the life of an animal whose only concerns are only to eat and propagate, there can't be even hesitation what to do. Not because I despise animals, but just because it's stupid: life for life.

Philosophy Forum

"If there is no alternative it cant be immoral"

Quick Links

My Account

able2know