It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The ethics of survival

page: 2
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 10 2014 @ 07:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Nechash

When you get down to it, there can be no ethics of survival. Rather than having 200 people and needing to reduce the number to 199, let's it simplify your argument. Let's have only two people and what ever the situation, one must die fairly quickly. How do you think that will play out ethically? I would wager that the survivor would not have been very ethical.

Sorry for what he/she did, but the goal was surviving, right? Survival one, ethics zero.




posted on Oct, 10 2014 @ 07:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Aliensun

I think your answer is psychologically useful to a species which got here by surviving. I'm not here to judge right or wrong as I don't know the answer myself, but I can see the merits of your argument.



posted on Oct, 10 2014 @ 07:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Nechash

Is the option of a crash course in yogic breathing techniques that slows the consumption rate of oxygen available?

A small sacrifice on the part of each crew member could eliminate the need for an ultimate sacrifice.



I'd offer to do the math, but numbers and I have a longstanding agreement not to meddle in each others affairs.



posted on Oct, 10 2014 @ 11:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nechash
a reply to: smithjustinb

If everyone refused, most likely everyone would die, or very few would survive in the end.


Based on your scenario, everyone would die.

The solution is simple, draw straws.

This is a simple 'moral dilemma'.



posted on Oct, 11 2014 @ 01:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Nechash

Kill all 200 and come back alone.
Just kidding, I would pick the oldest and hope they didn't have a needed skill.



posted on Oct, 11 2014 @ 07:12 AM
link   
When it comes to surviving in a situation like that, ethics be damned. Because honestly the first person I can push into the airlock is the one not coming back.



posted on Oct, 11 2014 @ 07:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aliensun
a reply to: Nechash

When you get down to it, there can be no ethics of survival. Rather than having 200 people and needing to reduce the number to 199, let's it simplify your argument. Let's have only two people and what ever the situation, one must die fairly quickly. How do you think that will play out ethically? I would wager that the survivor would not have been very ethical.

Sorry for what he/she did, but the goal was surviving, right? Survival one, ethics zero.




If I had to choose between two people I would use the judgement of solomon.

I'm not religious buts its a good way to value the ethics of those in question.

Also game theory could be used to some degree.



posted on Oct, 11 2014 @ 12:06 PM
link   
I vote for the First person to Blow a Colon Bubble...
Out the hatch ye go, ole stinky one......



new topics




 
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join