The children ... oh the children ...

[Sip]

Will someone please think of the children?

 

Why are casualty and suffering numbers often reported in terms of the children?

 

What is so special about the children that makes them so damn important next to their adult counterparts?

 

Oh the children this and the children that ... the protesters scream it, CNN can't stop talking about it, and even politicians use it in their speeches to somehow communicate the urgency of a situation (Iraq).

 

Well, I'm sick of it. Why the children? They are nothing but blobs of air sucking, water drinking, food consuming "human tissue" that mostly have the POTENTIAL of being useful someday. What about the adults? What about the teens? What about those that really matter right now and are being lost in a war? Why is their lives so much less important than the life of a child?

 

If you have a position that human life is valuable, then I don't see why a child or an adult makes a difference. If you think the value of human life is proportional to the ability of that human to actively contribute to the world, then clearly children are not anywhere near the top of the list. All I can say is that this whole thing is an attempt at playing into some deep psychological thing in the human brain and by mentioning the children over and over and over and over, they are trying to confuse while at the same time conveying some sort of message.

 

Well, I don't like it ONE bit.

 

[ March 26, 2003, 05:04 PM: Message edited by: Sip ]

[Guest Fadi]

You are asking a philosophical question seaphan. I remember during one of my philosophy courses, when my professor asked a question to his students, the "boat analogy"

 

The dilema is as follow.

 

There is a boat, there is 5 person and one dog in this boat. One is a child suffering from mongolism, and there is her dog, there is this the mother of this child, a doctor that has taken the boat for a mission in a poor country, a great scientist a humanist and an artist. Now there is food only 4 for of them and you should get rid of 2 of them in order that the rest survive. This philosophy professor asked us to chose the two that should just trow themselves out of the boat in order that the rest survive.

 

Averyone in the class(if I remember right) have chosen to trow the child and the dog beside me(surprised ?) the professor asked everyone to justify their decision, when it came to me I answered something like this:

 

" First, you trow the dog based on the fact that human are a superior species(I devlopped the Kantian and the rational philosophers thinking to support that humans are a superior species), now, after that we get rid of the dog, we take a bottle, we turn it and we trow the one that this bottle has "decided." To support my view, I said that every human are equal, and that there is no hierarchy, and that we should never place a human above another based on utility and that the principle of equality come before the principle of utility, the rest is not in our hand, lets probability and nature decide(the bottle has no preferance, it dosen't chose based on utility, so it is more independent then those in the boat, or more indepdent then me.)"

 

This is one of the paradox raised by Socrates and many other rational philosophers. When two children are drowning in the sea, one is your child and another is a stranger, and that you can save only one of those two. Whom do you save ? You will save your child, because like utility, love and emotions are relative, but not "Reason" if you save your child, you give more importance to yours and you decide your child is more of an "utility" for the society based on your own emotions. But you act by doing such against Socratian "Reason."

 

So in short, every human should be equal, but we are not living in a world where rationality "prime" then we put a hierarchy on everyone, and children here are put on top, because they are more easy to sell as product. This is anglo-saxon philosophy, not based on the Descartian rationality principles, but on the utilitarism principle.

 

Just my dumb 2 cent worth answer.

 

[ March 26, 2003, 06:00 PM: Message edited by: Domino ]

[Guest Fadi]

Oh, BTW, the rest of the class thought that I was on something.

[Sip]

Let me get this straight:

 

1) Child

2) Dog

3) Mother of the child

4) Doc

5) Scientist

6) Humanist

7) Artist

 

Right? Do you need to get rid of 3 out of 7 or 2 out of 6? I didn't understand that part.

 

Edit: Or did you mean the mother of the kid is the doctor?

 

[ March 26, 2003, 06:25 PM: Message edited by: Sip ]

[Guest Fadi]

Thats why after 5 PM, I should never write anything or I will make a fool of myself. Take off the humanist, the doctor is the humanist on a mission in a poor country, before saying nonesense I will just log off and go to sleep. So good night.

 

[ March 26, 2003, 07:15 PM: Message edited by: Domino ]

[Guest Fadi]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Domino:

Thats why after 5 PM, I should never write anything or I will make a fool of myself. Take off the humanist, the doctor is the humanist on a mission in a poor country, before saying nonesense I will just log off and go to sleep. So good night.

---

Perhaps, I am making a fool of myself 24/24 7/7 365/365... so that would not make any difference.

 

[ March 26, 2003, 07:20 PM: Message edited by: Domino ]

[Sasun]

This is a quite interesting topic.

Sip, I think children are given preference because they are weak, innocent and harmless, also because they have had very little of life and fair thinking would give them preference to live a little more. But I agree that if we look objectively children are basically 'stupid' and useless individuals And they certainly are not different than adults. I think the the reason is that most people love children therefore they are remembered first, kind of irrational attitude.

But in a lot of cases, on the top after children are women and old people. Ok, from the utilitarian point of view lets say women are needed for men, what about old people?

Then there is the category of civilians vs non-civilians. Fresh example, the US allegedly cares about Iraqi civilians, but Iraqi soldiers can be kllled without mercy. Are non-civilians less human than civilians?

 

Domino, the boat example is a tough call and a challenging exercise. If I were to choose (assuming there are 6 in the boat), I would drop the dog first. Then whoever suggests to drop the child goes next (I do love children ). Or, drop the dog and the oldest guy, that would be fair.

But most realistically, I think the dog would go first, then the majority would tilt on dropping the child, the child's illness is a good excuse to save their ass. Then it is up to the mother, she can either agree or volunteer to drop herself in order to save the child. I am almost sure the mother would save her child and prefer to die ... unless the humanist was a real humanist and volunteers to die with the dog for the sake of other humans.

One thing is clear, no matter what happens, the poor dog dies

[Guest Fadi]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sasun:

 

Domino, the boat example is a tough call and a challenging exercise. If I were to choose (assuming there are 6 in the boat), I would drop the dog first. Then whoever suggests to drop the child goes next (I do love children ). Or, drop the dog and the oldest guy, that would be fair.

But most realistically, I think the dog would go first, then the majority would tilt on dropping the child, the child's illness is a good excuse to save their ass. Then it is up to the mother, she can either agree or volunteer to drop herself in order to save the child. I am almost sure the mother would save her child and prefer to die ... unless the humanist was a real humanist and volunteers to die with the dog for the sake of other humans.

One thing is clear, no matter what happens, the poor dog dies

---

There was a reason why my professor has included the mother, because he was expecting people says that the mother will volonteer, so they chose the mother, but they did not. I remember there was an old individual(I think the artist or the humanist), the humanist was as well there, in order that students choose him because he would volonteer, or chose to let him live because he would save lives once in the poor country. All that was based on utilities and what those people will bring to society, and whom may decide to give his/her life.

 

What make me laught is that everyon if my memory is right, said that whatever happens the poor dog should go. (poor dog)

 

People don't like to see children suffer, and there is other reasons, one of them, them being the future, but that is based as well on utility, because an elderly dying individual is not less human then the new born. Well, as well it is always easy to put children here and there, because they are easy to sell.

 

Did I say, I should go to sleep. This time its true.

[Sip]

I am VERY disappointed in you philosophers ... obviously you eat the dog first and then if needed the kid. The scientist and the mother can easily get it on and make more kids. Everyone else lives ... even though I think the humanist is probably the most useless among all of the adults ... the rest have some sort of talent or skill which may be needed and is hard to replace.

 

Only a freaking philosopher would take a perfectly good, tasty dog and throw it out of the boat

 

[ March 26, 2003, 07:54 PM: Message edited by: Sip ]

[Sasun]

Don't be so sure, the scientist maybe inpotent

 

P.S. Not many women like scientists anyway

 

[ March 26, 2003, 08:15 PM: Message edited by: Sasun ]

[Stormig]

Certainly because some people are suckers over chidren. However, you also have to bear in mind that children (minors) have special status in every society and are always protected, put out of danger's way, etc. If whether one person is more "useful" than another can be disputed, why not whether children should not deserve this status or not. That's why you have UNICEF and stuff. That's your first clue.

 

I couldn't have come up with an answer, but Domino's was good. However, inside me I still can't put the Down child and any of the others as one.

[nairi]

For propaganda.

[Guest Fadi]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sip:

I am VERY disappointed in you philosophers ... obviously you eat the dog first and then if needed the kid. The scientist and the mother can easily get it on and make more kids. Everyone else lives ... even though I think the humanist is probably the most useless among all of the adults ... the rest have some sort of talent or skill which may be needed and is hard to replace.

 

Only a freaking philosopher would take a perfectly good, tasty dog and throw it out of the boat <img border="0" alt="[tearhair1]" title="" src="smilies/tearhair1.gif" />

---

LOL ! Seaphan, with your answer you just proved to not be different then those that consider children more important then the rest. First of all the humanist is a doctor in a mission in a poor country. Second, there is no fire to put the dog on. You have chosen who worth to live based on the utility of each one, thats anglo-saxon philosophy.

 

Well, the first reason why they consider children more important(I forget to tell it yesterdy) is that everyone has the right to protect himself or herself, and children need others, they are dependent, but the same argument could be used for erderlies and people that are ill and dependent.

 

So, to finish Seaphan, you just justified that some may be more important then others, based on the contribution they may give to the society, thats a direct contradiction of Kantian philosophy and does not work. "If everyone was to do that, what would happen? " The world as we know know will just cramble, we are like we are because of nature, and everything has its place, and that is maintaining the equilibrum, if you start putting a hearchy and telling why some should live and other should die, then you suppose that some are just more equal then others. That makes you exactlly(like I said above) like those that consider children more important.

[Sip]

So, Fadio, next thing you are going to tell me is you are against capital punishment and euthanasia?

 

And I guess it's also wrong of me to be a computer scientist since what if everyone did what I am doing? The world would crumble as you say and obviously Kant would turn over in his grave

[Guest Fadi]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sip:

So, Fadio, next thing you are going to tell me is you are against capital punishment and euthanasia?

 

And I guess it's also wrong of me to be a computer scientist since what if everyone did what I am doing? The world would crumble as you say and obviously Kant would turn over in his grave

---

I am against capital punishment, any civilised society, if really cilivised would be against it. And that reason is simple, because when someone do something wrong, like killing, you should punish this individual. Punishment in a civilised society, means, among other things, doing an action that would restrict an individual a part of his personal liberty in order that this person realise his action is wrong and that there is conscequences to it. When someone kill, you do not punish this individual by killing him, because like I said, one of the goal of a punishment is to restrict an individual from a part of his liberty and help him realise what he has done is wrong. When you kill him, that does not become a punishment, but a vengence for what he did, because this killing did not made realise this individual, neither has left him the chance to realise that his action is wrong, and has not given the chance to this individual to contribute in a world where he realised what he did was wrong.

 

Punishment is as well for the good of the individual, when your child is playing with matches, you pubish him, in order to make him realise that matches are dangerious, you do this for his own good, in order that this person become a better person.

 

Capital punishment is worst then the action that an individual posed that allegedly worthed this punishment. Simply because capital punishment, IS NOT, punishment, second, you can not "punish" an individual and do the same action for which he should be "punished" for, its illogical and a main contradiction. Not only this, every individual crimes, we can try to understand, every individual crime exist, because the individual has a reason behind his action, when a sick kill a children after having raped him, this sick has done it because of reasons, even if not rational, at least this action was done for a reason. But not capital punishment, Capital punishment can not be understood, contrary to any individual crimes or crimes perpetrated by people. Because Capital punishment is supposedly a justice, that it is not. The reason why someone has capital punishment, is that it is justice, but the ideal of justice is based on the fact that there should not be a contradiction, the ideal of justice is based on rationality, while capital punishment is, commiting an action to "punish"an individual for having commited the same action. So it can not be justice. This is why, the worst existing crime, is the murder or the killing decided by a state, or a government, because not only it serves a justice that does not exist, but as well, it is the most cold blooded, and premedited murder that could exist.

 

Armenians in WWI, were condemned to death by the ministry of justice, during WWII, after the defeat in Soviet Front, Hitlerit government has condmned to death the Jews sent in the concentration camps, and for the same reason, Justice. For whatever so-called Justice, there is no worst crime the capital punishment, we can always try to understand other crimes, but never this one, because this one exist for a so-called justice that it is not.

 

As for euthanasia, I am mixed with that question.

 

Seaphan, you are not applying right Kantian philosophy, when you ask your question. Computer scientist, is a job, the question should be: "If everyone work, what would happen" Because computer scientist, is not the specific act in question, but the type of the act.

 

[ March 27, 2003, 10:12 AM: Message edited by: Domino ]

[Sip]

That's the problem with Kantian ethics ... you can only apply in when it works and you can't apply it when it doesn't work! That to me, says it not as useful as some claim it to be ... i.e. it's not a good justification for something just because that type of reasoning happens to work in that case! But anyway, I will not debate Kant with you since obviously I don't claim to be anywhere near the league that Kant was!!!!

 

BUT, if you want to throw the dog off the boat, go aheat. Be my guest. But if I were on the boat, I would kick your ass and eat the dog all by myself

 

Now about capital punishment: I agree that it is not "justice" by any meaning of the word. I also believe two wrongs don't make a right most of the time. I also agree it's not much of a "punishment" since it's too easy and there is no "consequence" for the dead guy ... he'll just be dead and nothing will matter anymore.

 

HOWEVER, I see great value in capital punishment: Why? Because I believe there do exist useless people. Actually, not just useless, but dangerous for the rest of society. I believe there are those that will NEVER realize or admit wrong doing and try to correct their wrongs, no matter how much punishment they go under. In this case, I see their "death" as completely justified since their continued existance is of no good anymore.

 

There are those, that if left free, will most likely do harm again. If put in prison, they will consume our limited resources, will "suffer", but will not admit wrong doing and will not change (with very high likelihood). In these cases, I say KILL'EM ALL. Not for justice, not for punishment, not for revenge, but for sheer logic because it makes sense and it's the best solution for EVERYONE.

[Guest Fadi]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sip:

That's the problem with Kantian ethics ... you can only apply in when it works and you can't apply it when it doesn't work! That to me, says it not as useful as some claim it to be ... i.e. it's not a good justification for something just because that type of reasoning happens to work in that case! But anyway, I will not debate Kant with you since obviously I don't claim to be anywhere near the league that Kant was!!!!

 

BUT, if you want to throw the dog off the boat, go aheat. Be my guest. But if I were on the boat, I would kick your ass and eat the dog all by myself

 

Now about capital punishment: I agree that it is not "justice" by any meaning of the word. I also believe two wrongs don't make a right most of the time. I also agree it's not much of a "punishment" since it's too easy and there is no "consequence" for the dead guy ... he'll just be dead and nothing will matter anymore.

 

HOWEVER, I see great value in capital punishment: Why? Because I believe there do exist useless people. Actually, not just useless, but dangerous for the rest of society. I believe there are those that will NEVER realize or admit wrong doing and try to correct their wrongs, no matter how much punishment they go under. In this case, I see their "death" as completely justified since their continued existance is of no good anymore.

 

There are those, that if left free, will most likely do harm again. If put in prison, they will consume our limited resources, will "suffer", but will not admit wrong doing and will not change (with very high likelihood). In these cases, I say KILL'EM ALL. Not for justice, not for punishment, not for revenge, but for sheer logic because it makes sense and it's the best solution for EVERYONE.

---

Seaphan, Kant philosophy do have its limit, and he did not included in it, the principle of values, and which harm is worst. I do not want to bring that, unless you want it. But in order to have an answer, you should ask the good question, this is why you should class things in cathegories, your question about computer science, was more like a type of job, it is like asking: "If everyone would kill another by cutting the head of another, what would happen." Rather then just asking: "If everyone was to kill another, what would happen." You see what I mean, the type of something is not the one that should be applied in the question, but rather the thing, computer science is a discipline, and it will be your job, the question is about job.

 

Now about capital punishment, I am happy you agree with me about Justice, but now, the reason you ask to kill them, is not a valide reason. Because, you against chose to kill them because of what they will bring to society, based on utility. It is not because the present system is not a good one, that it justify capital punishment. I love making the lion analogy. Lions are dangerious to humans, is that gives you the justification to kill every lion ? Nope, its just that humans should live in their own society, and the lions in their jungle. A serial killer, those that really are pathological killers that won't change, should live in their own society, a place where only their kind live, leting them live with humans would be like letting lions live with humans. Those psychopaths should live in their "world"" where they will establish their own lows and not be permited to mix with the human collectivity. Thats how I see it, it is our system that is wrong.

 

Yes, those murderers will cost many resources to our societies, and it will be easier to just kill them. But, what about building a state compagny, where the prisoners have to work, and that the money made by this state compagny return to the society. You see, your concern just does not justify killing, because we have to gain by making them work, to pay in part what they done to the society, of course that will not bring back the deaths, but neither killing him will bring any deaths back.

[Sasun]

I agree with Domino.

The bottomline is "can one human kill another human?", the answer is no and there are no exceptions. It is a good idea to make the criminals work for the society and this way kind of undo their criminal activities. On the other hand, one could as well argue "can one human force another human to work?" we could say no that would mean slavery, but then we can't make the criminals work.

I think the best way to do is everyone signs a contract as soon as they become conscious,kind of if-then contract (if you kill, you agree to die, if you steal, then you have to work for free, etc.). For jungle type people there will be a different contract. So if someone should be judged then it won't be an abstract idea of justice but a specific agreement that the person has signed.

[Sip]

I don't know guys ... call me unethical but if I am in a situation where some guy has pulled a gun and is going to rob me, then kill me, then rape my wife and then kill her too, I think I wouldn't hesitate to kill that guy myself.

 

And you know what, I think in that case I am justified in doing so. Why?

 

1) There will only be one death instead of two.

2) This guy will most likely not rob, rape, or kill anyone else after he's dead.

3) My wife won't get raped and I'm sure she'll be happy about that.

4) you really need more reasons?

 

So now, assuming you're not going to argue with me philosophically on this obvious case, I don't think it's hard to extrapolate from this and make a case for the validity of capital punishment in certain situations.

 

[ March 27, 2003, 02:42 PM: Message edited by: Sip ]

[564312]

Sip it’s a CHILDREN’S CONSPIRACY

 

We can’t ration the human system as to which category is more contributive to the society because just as many of us think a grown human is more imperative others disagree.

 

Ideally speaking children represent the symbol of something pure and innocent their eyes hungry to the newness of the world, their little brains inquisitively unquenching. If nourished they offer more potential.

 

I want to quote you Dostoyevsky, “You are told a lot about your education, but some beautiful, sacred memory, preserved since childhood, is perhaps the best education of all. If a man carries many such memories into life with him, he is saved for the rest of his days. And even if only one good memory is left in our hearts, it may also be the instrument of our salvation one day."

 

I agree with Domino that equality can never be achieved completely as long as there are humans on earth I think Camus said that more and more, when faced with the world of men, the only reaction is one of individualism. Man alone is an end unto himself. Everything one tries to do for the common good ends in failure.

[Sasun]

Sip, you would be perfectly right to do so in such a situation, and I don't think it would be anethical. But that's self defence. The above said applies when the police catches someone after committing the crime. (We assume that we couldn't prevent it.)

[Guest Fadi]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sasun:

I agree with Domino.

The bottomline is "can one human kill another human?", the answer is no and there are no exceptions. It is a good idea to make the criminals work for the society and this way kind of undo their criminal activities. On the other hand, one could as well argue "can one human force another human to work?" we could say no that would mean slavery, but then we can't make the criminals work.

I think the best way to do is everyone signs a contract as soon as they become conscious,kind of if-then contract (if you kill, you agree to die, if you steal, then you have to work for free, etc.). For jungle type people there will be a different contract. So if someone should be judged then it won't be an abstract idea of justice but a specific agreement that the person has signed.

---

Sasun, there is one exeption about whatever or not one could kill another human. The case is self defense, or for the defense of another, but only when the act is happening, and not after.

 

For example, you are seeing someone taking a gun and will shoot on another individual, you have a gun with you. If you let this individual kill another, when you had the occasion to save this person, it makes you accomplice of the murder by innaction. If, on the other hand, you take the gun and kill the person that is to shout on the other individual, you just killed to save the other. In both cases, there is the killing of a human being. So you are in a dilema, letting one live or the other, if on the other hand, this individual that is about to kill the other is a criminal and you know it, now the choice is easier to make, because since both as human are equal, chosing to let the criminal live and escape will make you accomplice of the future murders, when you knew that the possibility that this individual may kill another is high. This is how it works, if one uses the principles of rational philosophers. Each human lives are equal, when you have the choice about whom should live and that you know that one is a criminal and that your innaction will bring him to kill another, you made a wrong choice, because you permited one to live, but on the other side many would die by your innaction.

 

Now, suppose that you are fighting against another person, and that or you die, or he die, if you let yourself die, your action costed the death of an individual(yourself), on the other way, if the other individual is killed by you, then against you are responsable of the death of another, if this individual is not a murderer, and that he wanted to kill you because of a conflict between you too, by killing him, neither you have done the right or wrong choice, because taking one choice or another one would die.

 

Now, suppose that you see one person that is about to kill another, and you are forced to kill the one that is about to kill the other, and that you ignore the individual that you saved, this individual later go and kill hundreds of individual. Have you made the wrong choice ? Its a hard question, because rationality is only about what can be predicted, you don't have the control over every parametres, so what is right and wrong here, is not whatever or not that invididual that you save killed hundreds, but rather, the decision you took during the event, the parametres that you could control(letting him live or die), unless you know he is a criminal and will kill after, you have no idea of the intention of those.

 

The other interesting question you raised, is about if we have the right to force someone to work, when in prison. It is law, and justice to let him work, when you steal money, and then a court force you to restitute to the one you have stolen that amount, his amount, then you are forced to pay him, that is juste, because you took from someone something that was not yours. The same goes for those criminals, a crime in our society, is an action against the rules, rules that are there in order to serve the collectivity, if you do not respect those rules, then you harm this collectivity, you have to repair this harm. So yes, those criminals should work, and not forcing them to repair what they have taken from the society would be unjust for this collectivity.

 

I know what is comming up now, Sasun, you will probably tell me, what if someone does not respect the rules for justice. And I will answer probably that it is 18:00 now here, and my brain is to slow to start that up.

 

[ March 27, 2003, 03:08 PM: Message edited by: Domino ]

[Guest Fadi]

Well, I just have read your post Seaphan now, and wrote my answer above when I have still not read it, funny because that answers concern specifically such cases you gave.

[Guest Fadi]

Ah and again, that cases could not permit that one extrapolate and give validity to capital punishment, because it can't be called self defense anymore, once the criminal is catched. Nice try, better chance next time. BTW, even Turkey has abolished capital punishment Seaphan, what your country is waiting for ?

[Azat]

Fadio, I have to say that I agree with you about capital punishment. Happy?

 

Self defense is much different from capital punishment. And I can see MANY reasons to kill people in self defense cases, but none for capital punishment.