Which one is worst and why?

[Avocado]

It depends on your ethical approach.

• Utilitarian/Consequentialist? Then we're gonna try to max the positive outcome for the most people.
  
• Deontological? Then typically neither answer is ethical. They're both crimes and should not be indulged in.
  
• Virtue ethics? Then we focus on how the act of killing more people versus eradicating an entire culture properly reflects who we are or might change us to become less than who we are.

Personally, I'm more postmodern ethically in that I need to know context. On the surface, it looks better to eradicate a particular culture and save 30 million random lives; on the other hand, depending on what benefits from that culture could be accrued by a BILLION people, maybe it would be better in the long run to sacrifice 30 million in order to benefit a billion. Depending on the specifics, consequential ethics would try to maximize [something] resulting in the greatest good.

Ironically, these kinds of decisions are made all the time. Examine transportation, for example. It is projected that, in the United States, 3.5 million people have died from 1899 - 2012 in traffic accidents. Yet we would say it was worth it for those 3.5 million people to die, considering the benefits that all of us survivors have accrued.

Also look at the interesting dilemma we've discussed on this forum before -- a train is out of control, and you are stuck with it either hitting five people in its way or you can divert it and kill one (usually cast as a relative or child). Many people will try to maximize the saving of human life by diverting the train to kill one person and save the five. YET.... let's say we have one healthy human being and five people who need organ transplants to avoid death; almost no one will suggest we should kill the healthy human being to harvest his organs to save the other five. It's interesting to see how situation and context can change our response.

Pattern Spotted:

Action carries more weight than inaction.

 

[garbage]

Pattern Spotted:

Action carries more weight than inaction.

Yeah, that's a huge part of how people tend to make ethical decisions, in general. At least deep down, it feels like one is less responsible overall for the outcome if he doesn't intervene.

 

[Hive]

It's about their contribution, really. I can't pinpoint any particular culture that exists today that I'd outright eradicate. Some hypothetical (and maybe some historical) cultures, sure.

The decision for me would be less about whether it's unique, valuable, and treasurable; but about whether or not it's detrimental. Seems like two sides of the same coin, but how it's couched matters. A culture would have to be.. well.. uniquely detrimental. "Depends on the culture" leaves room for an approach that's not just about an action's immediate consequences.

If the culture was detrimental, the question would have been a no brainer. Which is why the reasons for saving that culture are way more interesting to speculate about.

That's essentially what I'm wondering. What could they possible have that's worth 30 million lives and no other culture could offer?

 

[Tellenbach]

Ummm, it'd depend on which population I'd be in.

 

[kyuuei]

If the culture is that awesome Amazonian tribe that never saw modern stuff. 100blahblah.

If that culture is extremist cult of some sort. 70blahblah.

 

[Alea_iacta_est]

So ethnic cleansing or purge?

This seems reminiscent of who was worse, Hitler or Stalin.

 

[Such Irony]

is it worse to kill 100,000,000 people out of a population of 10 billion or kill 70,000,000 but also by doing so killing off a whole culture

What do you think? And why

70,000,000. It's less people. A life is a life regardless of culture. Everyone's life has inherently equal intrinsic value.

 

[xisnotx]

This wouldn't have anything to do with me, now would it?

Killing people is wrong, period.

But, to answer your question..
Culture is less important than people.

 

[EcK]

70,000,000. It's less people. A life is a life regardless of culture. Everyone's life has inherently equal intrinsic value.

Then why do we prioritize people for organ donation, or still execute criminals in some countries?
What about the life of someone who invents a cure for X or Z and the life of a serial child molestor?

It's easy to say 'they are all intrinsincly bla bla.." however truth is noone actually applies this rule to themselves. Would you give your life to save two murderers?

 

[EcK]

This wouldn't have anything to do with me, now would it?

Killing people is wrong, period.

But, to answer your question..
Culture is less important than people.

Nah, I could care less about you. I don't know you.

 

[Rasofy]

depends on how ethically shitty the culture is [touchy subject;won't elaborate]

 

[OWK]

70,000,000. It's less people. A life is a life regardless of culture. Everyone's life has inherently equal intrinsic value.

Really?

A murdering child rapist has an equal intrinsic value to a person who devotes their life to helping other people?

Do you really believe this?

 

[Haven]

What if it was a really shitty culture, like the Huns (no offence to any Huns).

 

[garbage]

If the culture was detrimental, the question would have been a no brainer. Which is why the reasons for saving that culture are way more interesting to speculate about.

That's essentially what I'm wondering. What could they possible have that's worth 30 million lives and no other culture could offer?

I'll have to give this question the thought that it's worthy of.

But for now, I'll say that I'm a huge fan of those that have made significant strides in opening us up on the scientific front. The stuff that helps us make sense of and understand the universe is key to improving it for all involved. If a culture creates an environment that facilitates that sort of thinking, questioning, wonderment, curiosity, experimentation, and discovery, then it ought to be allowed to stick around.

Not to use a tally of lives as a measure of worth--but those cultures would easily pave the way for methods that, over time, would prevent 30 million deaths.

But many different cultures can and have facilitated that sort of discovery. So if we're asking what would uniquely qualify a culture to stick around, I don't have a ready answer.

 

[prplchknz]

forget choices, let's kill them both. problem solved

 

[Avocado]

Then why do we prioritize people for organ donation, or still execute criminals in some countries?
What about the life of someone who invents a cure for X or Z and the life of a serial child molestor?

It's easy to say 'they are all intrinsincly bla bla.." however truth is noone actually applies this rule to themselves. Would you give your life to save two murderers?

We are clearly not equal, though civility is neccessary for civilization.

 

[Mole]

Genocide is the worst crime against humanity.

Naturally narcissists think the murder of individuals ranks with genocide.

 

[grey_beard]

Conflicted.

Ok I'm not into killing people, but I'm suspending that for the sake of pondering this.

I'm gonna say 70,000,000 (shit that's so many people!) is preferred. As much as I believe in the preservation and protection of cultures, 30,000 human lives trumps it.

I have faith in the people who remain to keep humanity and all the life that breeds a living, growing culture to keep evolving into new cultures and languages, and valuing old cultures over new ones is more nostalgic than anything.

[MENTION=18819]five sounds[/MENTION] --

Math was not your strong suit in school, I take it? /INTJ math-Nazi>

100,000,000
- 70,000,000
___________
30,000

 

[grey_beard]

So ethnic cleansing or purge?

This seems reminiscent of who was worse, Hitler or Stalin.

[MENTION=20385]Alea_iacta_est[/MENTION] --

Answer: Mao, or on a per capita basis, Pol Pot.

 

[grey_beard]

Then why do we prioritize people for organ donation, or still execute criminals in some countries?
What about the life of someone who invents a cure for X or Z and the life of a serial child molestor?

It's easy to say 'they are all intrinsincly bla bla.." however truth is noone actually applies this rule to themselves. Would you give your life to save two murderers?

[MENTION=5643]EcK[/MENTION] -- funny question to have asked right before Good Friday.
'specially considering your various .sig lines.