I would sacrifice myself for both, but if that wasn't an option it all depends. If the stranger was a kid, I'd sacrifice an older loved one and give the kid a chance at life.
Under what circumstances may arise, I'd say it's more than likely that I'd kill the random stranger. :twisted: It would be out of love for said loved one though. :oops: :)
So your asking us would we kill a random innocent person just to find a loved one? Uhm, no having the conscience of killing someone just wont be worth it for someone who would probably just leave you.
Honestly I would depend on the loved one and situation. Because If I kill a innocent just to save them then they might suffer extreme guilt and their sadness would affect me. If I killed the loved one then I would be sad and filled with guilt, the innocent one on the otherhand would've been grateful. It's a tough choice.
[QUOTE="gobo212"] Being an ethical egoist doesn't necessitate that answer. Sure it does. It would be in my own best interest to protect that which I gain more enjoyment from; the one I love.
[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="gobo212"] Being an ethical egoist doesn't necessitate that answer. Sure it does. It would be in my own best interest to protect that which I gain more enjoyment from; the one I love. I would feel guilty making a choice of who lives and dies and thus would it would not necessarily be in my best interest. I'm not saying you are wrong that it would be in your best interest, I am just saying that all ethical egoists might not answer this the same way.
No it's not a tough one. Let a loved one die or some random stranger? Should NEVER be a hard choice...super_mario_128
Thank you. Imagine the people who love that random individual, I know anyone whom I love would never forgive me for killing an innocent just to save them. I could never enjoy my life knowing someone else lost theirs for mine.
But as others have said if someone I loved was in imminent danger and I could save them by sacrificing my life, I gladly would.
[QUOTE="gobo212"] I would feel guilty making a choice of who lives and dies and thus would it would not necessarily be in my best interest. I'm not saying you are wrong that it would be in your best interest, I am just saying that all ethical egoists might not answer this the same way. Being an intuitionist is completely against the implications and guidelines of ethical egoism. You're supposed to remove these kinds of false intuitions and say "what do I get more for in the end". Thats the purpose of ethical egoism :|
[QUOTE="gobo212"] I would feel guilty making a choice of who lives and dies and thus would it would not necessarily be in my best interest. I'm not saying you are wrong that it would be in your best interest, I am just saying that all ethical egoists might not answer this the same way.Vandalvideo
Being an intuitionist is completely against the implications and guidelines of ethical egoism. You're supposed to remove these kinds of false intuitions and say "what do I get more for in the end". Thats the purpose of ethical egoism :| Ethical egoism says I ought to always do what is in my own self interest. If the unhappiness I get from feeling guilty about causing someones death out weighs the happiness I would get from my loved one still being alive how would it be in my self interest to answer yes to this question?
[QUOTE="gobo212"] Ethical egoism says I out to always do what is in my own self interest. If the unhappiness I get from feeling guilty about causing someones death out weighs the happiness I would get from my loved one still being alive how would it be in my self interest to answer yes to this question? Ethical egoism does say one ought to do what is in one's own best interest, but ethical egoism isn't supposed to take into account instrinsic virtues like happiness. What you're doing is frankensteining Utilitarianism with ethical egoism. Ethical egoism, in its purest form, shrugs off happiness and other virtues. It is COMPLETELY a cold hearted calculation of how I will benefit from an act regardless of emotions.
[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="gobo212"] Ethical egoism says I out to always do what is in my own self interest. If the unhappiness I get from feeling guilty about causing someones death out weighs the happiness I would get from my loved one still being alive how would it be in my self interest to answer yes to this question? Ethical egoism does say one ought to do what is in one's own best interest, but ethical egoism isn't supposed to take into account instrinsic virtues like happiness. What you're doing is frankensteining Utilitarianism with ethical egoism. Ethical egoism, in its purest form, shrugs off happiness and other virtues. It is COMPLETELY a cold hearted calculation of how I will benefit from an act regardless of emotions. So you are saying it only takes into account MATERIALISTIC benefits? What if I killed myself because I was so wracked with guilt? I don't think your definition of ethical egoism is the standard one.
[QUOTE="gobo212"] So you are saying it only takes into account MATERIALISTIC benefits? What if I killed myself because I was so wracked with guilt? I don't think your definition of ethical egoism is the standard one. Ethical egoism takes into account an accumulation of an increased state of well-being based on the objective well-being that the agent prefers. If the agent likes to create fires, then he should create fires, regardless of anyone who gets involved. If a person likes his wife and her body, he will save her over other people regardless of any feelings of remorse. If a person values emptyness and wants to die, then they die regardless of the pain and anguish of others.
[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="gobo212"] So you are saying it only takes into account MATERIALISTIC benefits? What if I killed myself because I was so wracked with guilt? I don't think your definition of ethical egoism is the standard one. Ethical egoism takes into account an accumulation of an increased state of well-being based on the objective well-being that the agent prefers. If the agent likes to create fires, then he should create fires, regardless of anyone who gets involved. If a person likes his wife and her body, he will save her over other people regardless of any feelings of remorse. If a person values emptyness and wants to die, then they die regardless of the pain and anguish of others. I like not feeling guilty so therefore I won't save my loved one. How are emotions not part of your well-being? Do you have a source for this because I am researching online and I see nothing in any explanation of ethical egoism that says emotions should play no role in an egoist's decision making.
[QUOTE="gobo212"] I like not feeling guilty so therefore I won't save my loved one. How are emotions not part of your well-being? Do you have a source for this because I am researching online and I see nothing in any explanation of ethical egoism that says emotions should play no role in an egoist's decision making. Once again, ethical egoists don't take into account these types of arbitrary, momentary emotions. They are completely a cold, calculating person. The ONLY WAY an ethical egoist would chose to A) Help the strangers is because; They value money and this person is incredibly rich and has offered a reward. B) Do nothing is because; They don't have a vested interest in the person they love. Either way you slice it, in the ceteris paribus example given by the TC, the person is taking into consideration a TOTAL STRANGER and a PERSON THEY LOVE. They have a vested interest in protecting the person they love. Thus they will save the person they love. Thats how the ethical egoist does his decision making process. It rejects these kinds of momentary intuitionist tugs.
[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="gobo212"] I like not feeling guilty so therefore I won't save my loved one. How are emotions not part of your well-being? Do you have a source for this because I am researching online and I see nothing in any explanation of ethical egoism that says emotions should play no role in an egoist's decision making. Once again, ethical egoists don't take into account these types of arbitrary, momentary emotions. They are completely a cold, calculating person. The ONLY WAY an ethical egoist would chose to A) Help the strangers is because; They value money and this person is incredibly rich and has offered a reward. B) Do nothing is because; They don't have a vested interest in the person they love. Either way you slice it, in the ceteris paribus example given by the TC, the person is taking into consideration a TOTAL STRANGER and a PERSON THEY LOVE. They have a vested interest in protecting the person they love. Thus they will save the person they love. Thats how the ethical egoist does his decision making process. It rejects these kinds of momentary intuitionist tugs. Egoism indeed does look to the long term only but it does not disregard emotional well being because in fact those emotions may not simply be temporary or something I just "get over." To say that ethical egoists will always make the same decisions in any circumstance (assuming they are always adhering to egoism) is absurd because different people require different things to promote their well being.
[QUOTE="gobo212"] Egoism indeed does look to the long term only but it does not disregard emotional well being because in fact those emotions may not simply be temporary or something I just "get over." To say that ethical egoists will always make the same decisions in any circumstance (assuming they are always adhering to egoism) is absurd because different people require different things to promote their well being. It most certainly disregards these momentary emotional concerns. Especially in the specific example that the TC gave us. He gave us a number of criteria that are used in guiding the ethical egoists to the same conclusions. First, you place yourself in the role of the person. Here are the premises the TC gave us. Two people; one a complete stranger one a person you 'LOVE'. This premise establishes the main agent has a vested interest in the second character, and none in the first character. Using this framework, of a vested interest, the ethical egoist is compelled to say that one ought save the person they love, because it has been established that the agent has a vested interest in the scenario of saving the person. Ethical egoists are driven, by the premises of the analogy, to save the person, no matter how you slice it. The only way yo say an ethical egoist wouldn't save the person is to change the premises, in which case you're being disrespectful to the analogy in the first place.
No, I don't have the right to make that choice for them. The only one who can make the choice is the one making the sacrifice, otherwise it would be meaningless. And morally disgusting.
[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"] It most certainly disregards these momentary emotional concerns.. What makes you so sure that the emotional concerns would be so fleeting?
[QUOTE="gobo212"] What makes you so sure that the emotional concerns would be so fleeting? Not only are those types of emotions completely irrelevant to the premises that have been given by the TC, but the example itself establishes the agent loving one of the characters, having a vested interest as it was. If you want to go by the guidelines of ethical egoism in the example without frankensteining the example, ethical egoists would be compelled to save the person 'they love'.
[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"] Not only are those types of emotions completely irrelevant to the premises that have been given by the TC, but the example itself establishes the agent loving one of the characters, having a vested interest as it was. If you want to go by the guidelines of ethical egoism in the example without frankensteining the example, ethical egoists would be compelled to save the person 'they love'. But it's not simply choosing either my loved one to die or a stranger. The way the question is posed implies that the loved one is going to die due to factors out of my control. So I can either swap a random stranger in place of my loved one or let the loved one die. The swapping in of the "innocent's life" presents severe emotional repercussions which would affect my well being in the long run (which egoism is concerned with). I would not be causing the loved one to die which would leave me guilt free.
[QUOTE="gobo212"] But it's not simply choosing either my loved one to die or a stranger. The way the question is posed implies that the loved one is going to die due to factors out of my control. So I can either swap a random stranger in place of my loved one or let the loved one die. The swapping in of the "innocent's life" presents severe emotional repercussions which would affect my well being in the long run (which egoism is concerned with). I would not be causing the loved one to die which would leave me guilt free. That is most certainly what it is. You have to stay true to the example given here. These momentary emotions are not going to be taken into consideration for the ethical egoists when you have a clear, established, vested interest. If you are a proper ethical egoist you WILL choose the one you love in this example. There are no ifs, ands, ors or buts. You're frankensteining other virtue ethics like Utilitarianism in with ethical egoism. Any proper ethical egoist is compelled to say "the one they love" in the scenario given.
[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="gobo212"] But it's not simply choosing either my loved one to die or a stranger. The way the question is posed implies that the loved one is going to die due to factors out of my control. So I can either swap a random stranger in place of my loved one or let the loved one die. The swapping in of the "innocent's life" presents severe emotional repercussions which would affect my well being in the long run (which egoism is concerned with). I would not be causing the loved one to die which would leave me guilt free. That is most certainly what it is. You have to stay true to the example given here. These momentary emotions are not going to be taken into consideration for the ethical egoists when you have a clear, established, vested interest. If you are a proper ethical egoist you WILL choose the one you love in this example. There are no ifs, ands, ors or buts. You're frankensteining other virtue ethics like Utilitarianism in with ethical egoism. Any proper ethical egoist is compelled to say "the one they love" in the scenario given. Well then I guess I will never understand because I am not an ethical egoist (obviously).
Log in to comment