PlaneShift
Fan Area => The Hydlaa Plaza => Topic started by: Mekora on May 25, 2011, 12:24:47 am
-
Here's a simple philosophical question for all of you out there:
Real Story: There was a crew of 4 on a ship, abandoned and in turmoil. They had no food or water for 17 days. One of the people was a cabin boy and was sick, because he had drank sea water. The other 3 decided to kill the cabin boy and eat him. For three days they were eating the boy, and on the fourth day were rescued. Was this right or should all 4 have died? Would it be right if they asked for the cabin boy's consent first, before dying for them? Would dying for them make the boy a martyr?
Later on, the 3 went to trial. What would you do as the jury/judge? Was the situation morally permissible? Does the degree of necessity exonerate the 3 sailors from guilt?
Additional Details: The 3 men each had a family and children. The cabin boy was an orphan. But does this change anything?
Perhaps the question is less that of philosophy, but more of moral values.
-
I never got the thing about cannibalism being immoral anyway... Once something once alive is dead, it's meat.
Most religions (common moral is originally issued from religious values right?) consider soul (i.e what makes the difference between a human and an animal) separate from body at death. Thus in what a dead man is different from a dead animal?
People that doesn't believe in 'soul' but as a type of chemical exchanges in the cortex consider it disappears at death. So once again, a dead person is like a dead animal (with clothes).
As said Descartes: Body is soul's tomb.
But funeral rituals and all the fuss about the remaining material form of the dead always left me perplex, so I'm not sure I can add or understand anything significant in this matter.
-
I would have asked for the cabin boy's consent first, and hopefully he would know that it needed to be done. If he said no, im eating him anyways. 3 healthy people with families need the chance more.
I'm sure in the cabin boy's position my opinion would be different, but im not the cabin boy and can't be, so the blank 3rd person view tells me that decision.
-
They should have used him as bait for some delicious sharks.
-
I disagree with most of you. What right does one man have over another to kill. >:( Granted the 3 men had families, but they also, by that time had had lived a descent life. The boy could have still had his whole life ahead of him. Now, if he would have died first, then yes, I consent to the term of cannibalism, in its most basic form. They ate to stay alive. When hungry enough, it is surprising what one will eat. Of course, this is just my opinion, which doesnt count for much anyways.
-
It's not a philosophical, it's a moral question. And it was wrong.
-
Yeah, moral question.
Killing the dude sort of ignores the fact that instead of taking 3 days the rescue could have taken one. Kid was sick anyway, I'd just wait for my meal like a polite person. I wouldn't judge them guilty though, because it's pointless to put 3 people who went through a one of a kind situation and did a one of a kind mess to 20 years of jail.
-
Do your best to help the kid; you can live without food for months, three days won't kill you.
-
Do your best to help the kid; you can live without food for months, three days won't kill you.
They hadn't had food in 17 days, and between the 4 of them, 3 cans of vegetables in 24 days. They did not know that they would be rescued in 3 days, it could've taken weeks as it was a pure accident that they were rescued. Nobody went looking for them. It was about 1890 when it happened if I remember correctly.
-
Do your best to help the kid; you can live without food for months, three days won't kill you.
They hadn't had food in 17 days, and between the 4 of them, 3 cans of vegetables in 24 days. They did not know that they would be rescued in 3 days, it could've taken weeks as it was a pure accident that they were rescued. Nobody went looking for them. It was about 1890 when it happened if I remember correctly.
You can still go months without food and live. I wouldn't do it unless I was REALLY desperate, I'm talking about months without food.
-
knightspark, you can only go months without food if you have plenty of water. but the crew could have survived longer than 17 or 24 days without food. they may have not known that, or maybe the climate was so harsh they were beginning to die sooner than usual. i don't believe they survived that long without water. you'll die in a few days without it.
i wouldn't charge them with murder or anything. at that point, laws didn't matter. they did not know they would be rescued in 4 days. they were barely surviving and desperate. it's morally wrong to kill someone, but they had to do it. they probably wouldn't have killed the cabin boy under normal circumstances... their lives were threatened. so, it's kind of like being under duress by nature.
if they asked for consent, and the cabin boy agreed, then he would be a martyr. it's more likely he wouldn't agree. the three crewmen would have to honor his decision, though. they probably wouldn't.
-
If you've ever read the book, "The Sea Wolf" By Jack London... Good old wolf larsen most likely wouldn't hesitate to kill anybody on the first day.
And by the way Sarras, they had no water, but it probably rained a fair amount, which would be although poor, a substitute for water. And one can last up to 4 weeks without food, so they were coming close to their end if you think about it.
By the way, thanks everyone for your answers, some are quite interesting.
-
If you've ever read the book, "The Sea Wolf" By Jack London... Good old wolf larsen most likely wouldn't hesitate to kill anybody on the first day.
And we know, what others thought about him. So what's the idea of the topic? To figure out who would side with Larsen, and who won't?
-
There was a real story with a Soviet ship crew being in a similar prefering to die than becoming cannibals.I would do the same with them.Luckily for them they were found and picked up by a US ship.
-
you should all read Stranger in a Strange Land
-
As the proud owner of a Klyros-eating Enkidukai, I agree with the cannibalism.
/me eats Travosh and then gets sick due to the sour Klyros
Nah, just kidding. I for one, wouldn't be able to eat human meat. Just… no. Also, I heard you can get mad and that it's too salty.
-
you can't go mad from eating human flesh. that's a myth to discourage cannibalism. and it's not too salty. kinda tastes like pork. some say veal, but it's always been pork in my experience.
-
Apparently it does taste like pork. According to a fishing show when they tried to catch piranhas they used pork because it tasted most like human flesh. >.>
And @Gilrond That's not the idea of it, I just said that as a side story.
-
... Didn't know there were cannibals who played this game.
-
you can't go mad from eating human flesh. that's a myth to discourage cannibalism. and it's not too salty. kinda tastes like pork. some say veal, but it's always been pork in my experience.
In your experience??? :o I'm afraid to ask what that means... :(
-
Maybe they used pork because piranhas like pork. That's not as half a good story as what you told is, though. :P
-
Kuru or laughing sickness is not a myth, it is a very, very similar to Mad Cow disease but in humans. Cannibalism engenders diseases. No species should eat of, or be fed of its own species.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuru_(disease)
-
That is not true. Insects eat their own and they don't seem to mind it.
-
That is not true. Insects eat their own and they don't seem to mind it.
Insects and humans are.... Different. Very different.
-
No species should eat of, or be fed of its own species.
Pay attention bro.
-
I chew callouses, peeling skin and the fleshy buildup at the sides of my fingernails, doesn't everybody?
According to my grandfather who spent some time with his missionary sister and brother-in-law in Papua / New Guinea around 1910, the natives there called human meat "long pork."
-
If anyone has interesting info like this by bilbous edit the wikipedia.
-
In my opinion those who believe in God should well know that God is the only one having the right to take someone's life (and only God, not humans who claim to speak on his behalf) and those who do not believe in any God should well know that this right isn't owned by anyone.
So I do not think the point is that 3 people have eaten the boy, the point is that they killed him.
So, for me, the question is quite simple: no one should think to be allowed to kill anyone.
[clarification for Sarras: what's writed up here ::) is my answer to the question 'Was this right?'... I think that was wrong and this has nothing to do with religion or religion in courts... by the way I think right places for religion are churches or temples... not courts]
So, of course, in this case I don't think the degree of necessity exonerate the 3 sailors from guilt (that could have been different if the boy was tryin' to kill them and they had killed him trying to save their life... but that's not what happened).
[clarification for Sarras: THIS ::) is my answer about the trial]
Furthermore, from what I remember, it is quite dangerous to start thinking that the weak, or sick, or the 'different' is less important than the healthy or the 'normal'.
So the additional details do not change what I have said so far.
-
religion in the court? rewind a thousand years. hooray.
-
Furthermore, from what I remember, it is quite dangerous to start thinking that the weak, or sick, or the 'different' is less important than the healthy or the 'normal'.
+1. That kind of thinking is in line with Nazism.
-
In my opinion those who believe in God should well know that God is the only one having the right to take someone's life (and only God, not humans who claim to speak on his behalf) and those who do not believe in any God should well know that this right isn't owned by anyone.
So I do not think the point is that 3 people have eaten the boy, the point is that they killed him.
So, for me, the question is quite simple: no one should think to be allowed to kill anyone.
[clarification for Sarras: what's writed up here ::) is my answer to the question 'Was this right?'... I think that was wrong and this has nothing to do with religion or religion in courts... by the way I think right places for religion are churches or temples... not courts]
So, of course, in this case I don't think the degree of necessity exonerate the 3 sailors from guilt (that could have been different if the boy was tryin' to kill them and they had killed him trying to save their life... but that's not what happened).
[clarification for Sarras: THIS ::) is my answer about the trial]
Furthermore, from what I remember, it is quite dangerous to start thinking that the weak, or sick, or the 'different' is less important than the healthy or the 'normal'.
So the additional details do not change what I have said so far.
Ok ok ok ok ok... We don't want a religious debate here.
-
Furthermore, from what I remember, it is quite dangerous to start thinking that the weak, or sick, or the 'different' is less important than the healthy or the 'normal'.
+1. That kind of thinking is in line with Nazism.
Excellent comments, Toltha... +1000!
@Gilrond: Exactly... it's an unfortunate reality that society at large justifies killing "the unfit" and does not recognize Nazism for what it is. We justify euthanasia by saying that it isn't worth it to keep the person alive, and we justify abortion by saying that it doesn't matter because we're just "removing a blob of tissue". Regardless of the human being in question, somebody somewhere could justify killing them. Somebody somewhere could find you, me, or anyone else to be "unfit for survival", but we don't think of that, do we? We like to pat ourselves on the back because we are so "open minded", "tolerant", "civilized", "enlightened", yet at the same time we justify the basest and most horrifying of all human atrocities: murder. We can call it by all of the "politically correct" and "nice" names we want to, but it's still murder, plain and simple.
P.S. My comments aren't pointed at you or anyone in particular, just elaborating on my agreement with you and Toltha on this subject...
-
i'm just trollin' ya, toltha :P
the reason people support euthanasia is because they've had to witness others go through immense pain before death. there's a point when people sort of give up and are literally asking to be killed. i've seen it. it's not pretty. still, i'm not really a kevorkian.
geceni, sometimes that "blob of tissue" can kill the woman carrying it. even my mother nearly died from blood loss. imagine a twelve-year-old girl, not physically able to give birth, having to die in order to avoid the murder of an unwanted child. doesn't that seem a bit ridiculous?
-
From my knowledge, thinking that the 'weak' are less important falls more under the philosophy of nietzscheism. It is described as the "power as the chief motivating force of both the individual and society."
I believe that 'Nazism' is kind of like racism and global domination combined ;)
It's nice to see all your answers though.
-
geceni, sometimes that "blob of tissue" can kill the woman carrying it.
That's a different situation from when the fetus does not threaten mother's life. I don't think Geceni claimed that even in that case the abortion is not acceptable.
-
species
Yes, I said species when I should have said taxa ... so sue me. Cannibalism in insects and arachnids has vastly different motivations and outcomes than cannibalism in mammals. My point remains that cannibalism in mammals does not produce positive outcomes in a population or individuals, and it isn't based on a myth.
-
verden, people don't get kuru from eating other people. they only get it from eating people infected with that disease. just like mad cow. and it's not very common, either. it's rather safe to consume the flesh of most people you see walking the streets of your own city.
gilrond, wait until geceni has a say.
-
geceni, sometimes that "blob of tissue" can kill the woman carrying it. even my mother nearly died from blood loss. imagine a twelve-year-old girl, not physically able to give birth, having to die in order to avoid the murder of an unwanted child. doesn't that seem a bit ridiculous?
If a person can't give birth, then the baby can be surgically delivered safely for both the mother and child. In the hypothetical case that if a pregnancy continued that had an extremely high chance of killing both mother and child, then it's a bit of a gray area, but "let's just kill the kid for convenience and forget about it" isn't an acceptable answer. I honestly can't say what I'd think in such a situation.
And if you are going to be cruel enough to say that you don't want your own child, you can give it to an adoption center.
-
I honestly can't say what I'd think in such a situation.
See for example: http://www.aish.com/print/?contentID=48954946§ion=/ci/sam
-
uhm, I think we went far further than the initial question...
anyway, I think we must be very careful to talk about euthanasia and/or abortion.
these are two extreme cases, completely uncomfortable and that no one would probably choose, having the chance to avoid them.
so, I'm pretty sure that since people who feel compelled to make such choices simply exist, well, they must have valid reasons, reasons that can not be neglected or trampled by someone else who is living a different (and presumibly easier) life.
in my opinion such situations are very complicated, and to me it is impossible to imagine what I would choose in a situation whose complexity and suffering I can not even imagine.
so I think at the moment I have little to say about it ... and noticing how often (about these situations, at least in the country where I live) it is easier to hear the views of those who are not involved much more than the views of those involved depresses me a lot.
that's why I think the choice should be entirely up to who is living these situations and knows how it really is.
I mean, as I think that no one has the right to sacrifice someone else, I also believe that no one has the right to impose the 'right' life to someone else.
please Sarras, don't troll poor Toltha :( !
-
I honestly can't say what I'd think in such a situation.
See for example: http://www.aish.com/print/?contentID=48954946§ion=/ci/sam
Looks interesting... I'll read it as soon as I get a chance...
@Toltha: I don't believe that anyone has the right to impose the 'right' way to live, think, etc. on someone else either, but abortion, euthanasia, etc. isn't about "imposing" lifestyles on somebody. It's about acknowledging that things like murder (abortion and euthanasia included) are outright wrong. It's not "imposing" on somebody, it's drawing a line in the sand about just how far you let people violate each others basic human rights. All people have certain rights, and it isn't "imposing" to keep other people from violating those rights. By your own argument, if I believed that I had a right to walk down main street and kill anyone I wanted to, it would be "imposing" for the police to throw me in jail for it. Defending the basic human rights of an unborn child or a demented senior citizen is no more "imposing" than stopping me from going on a killing spree on main street. It would, however, be "imposing" for me to tell you how you must dress, talk, or think, but defending a basic human right is not imposing on anyone. On the contrary, it is stopping an aggressor from "imposing" on the victim's right to life.
I understand that most cases involving abortion or euthanasia are very difficult and painful, but if you start justifying murder because of how painful not killing the unborn child, etc. would be, you're right back to square one, justifying murder. I've seen the pain of slow death firsthand, multiple times. It's easy to say that it would be easier just to end it, but you have to draw a line in the sand somewhere. Either you never justify murder, or sooner or later we're right back to "purging" populations of people that we don't want.
-
please Sarras, don't troll poor Toltha :( !
You should Sig this Sarras. :D
-
verden, people don't get kuru from eating other people. they only get it from eating people infected with that disease. just like mad cow. and it's not very common, either. it's rather safe to consume the flesh of most people you see walking the streets of your own city.
gilrond, wait until geceni has a say.
Actually, mad cow disease also comes from cows who eat sheep brains.