"How should society decide (an) individuals value?" Well society is a collective of individuals, so technically you're asking How should a group of individuals decide another individuals value Now value to what extent? I assume you mean value to society so that becomes How should a group of individuals decide another individuals value to themselves And it becomes obvious from there. It's subjective. It depends on the people that are doing the judging while simultaneously being judged. If suddenly the entire world's population of children had some freak experience that made every one of them think that murder is okay and they hold onto that into adulthood, then in society later on you can bet that murder will be more highly tolerated at the minimum. It just becomes a game of majorities. People's behaviors and beliefs are largely just a result of their experiences this far in life though, and since none of choose when to be born, or where, or to what parents, or into what religion, we can't exactly "blame" anyone for a belief they hold that is negative. Similarly one cannot really take "credit" for most if not all of the things they have since they were born into the right time and place to be able to do so. So while society certainly does determine other's value, it's really impossible to do so in a way that involves reason without everyone on the planet living the exact same life with the same parents and moral upbringing and childhood...etc
Wouldn't call it a revision.. lol, think of it as a mini life lesson when talking with people who will more than likely take your words literally. The answer you gave, if taken literally, would of probably gotten them both killed..
Society should determine an individual's value by the amount of weed that person gives to his friends.
Well taken literally, he never mentioned a contraption to execute them. Also, who is to trust such a person to keep their word and actually free one of them? Maybe he would kill both anyway or kill the opposite of my choice. Its like dealing with the Joker in The Dark Knight.
He didn't have to cause you were the one to redefine the scenario first by not picking one of the two.. any redefinition after that, especially to a sadistic sociopath, is fair game.
That does not necessarily mean I redefined the scenario, merely that I challenged his assumption that I should have a preference. A sadistic sociopath would enjoy the difficulty a moral person would have in solving this dilemma. Since I gave him no such satisfaction, and realizing I cannot trust him to keep his word, he gains nothing. He would hope my dilemma would make me feel responsible for his actions, by not choosing preferentially, I don't indulge his sociopathy. His sadism will be indulged regardless of my choice. Unfortunetly he is no longer interested in discussing it the moment he is asked to answer a question instead of asking one.
If you didn't redefine it from the beginning, then there was no redefinition when both of them get killed based on your original answer.. but if you really want to believe that the sociopath redefined the scenario based on your answer, then you have to accept that your answer was the original redefinition.
No one redefined it. Im saying his assumption that I value one persons freedom over anothers is false, therefore his scenario fails to demonstrate his point.
No.. you did. Not sure why this is so confusing.. he stated to pick one, you did not.. that is the redefinition. You could of simply not answered it seeing as you weren't going to actually answer, but you did and your answer would of gotten them both killed.
A lot of people said great stuff here... Society shouldnt decide anyone's value, as who you value, may be not worth shit to something else. In the grand scheme theres no reason to place others on top of each other, that's for silly people, or for those who get too involved in silly matters. Also it's a waste of thinking power, as I am rather lazy. There are leaders, and there are peasants, a peasant is just a peasant until he decides to make a name for himself, and become a leader. Just like a leader can throw his life away to the system and betray his comrades. A lone man gives all his money to charity, is he now worth more than those he decided to help because of his wonderful heart? No, he will be another man in the soup kitchen, or in the middle of a street light pleading for a few dollars. Most drivers will asure said man with a nonchalant raise of the window, another will lower theirs and share some fast food they just happened to buy, along with their change, + a light smile. I understand to answer this question depends of your definition of value, but I'm gettin there. Lastly, a man/woman who has started their own family, has children, and depends on that person to put food on the table, you most likely place value upon that person, and that person places value upon their family. The man/woman would most likely place those values over any people if it came to such a situation, that will always be the loop hole, it is our humanity and our nature to sort to whatever gave us our feeling of family, freedom, values, whatever makes you feel right. I think your individual heart determines value, be your heart resting in the prosperity of society, or the love of your family, or whatever the hell you choose to love. Edit: or whatever the hell keeps you livin
He asked the question trying to demonstrate that, when in X position, i would admit. I value one persons freedom over anothers. So this 'redefining' you are speaking of is me rejecting his presupposition. If I answered the either/or dilemma, he would proclaim I valued one over the other which is not true. So if by sticking to my position you are saying I am 'redefining' then so be it, but it is a meaningless distinction on your part.
Imagine if everyone valued everyone else as much as they value their family. This is the localized values most people have. Family, extended family, friends, town, state, nation, race. The further out you go the less value you place on them, which makes it easier for people to go to war against other distant humans, they have less personal value placed upon them. If we valued Iraqis as much as we do our family, there may be a million less dead Iraqis as a result of our war.
You just said you weren't going to give him the satisfaction of an answer.. so therefore you didn't even need to answer to begin with. Instead, you attempted to answer while skirting around answering.. and that's where you fucked up cause your answer would of gotten them both killed. You literally said "kill yourself and then the other two".. meaning kill yourself and then kill them. All this could of been avoided if you weren't stubborn enough to acknowledge that you made a simple mistake when talking to a (hypothetical) sociopath. If you were man enough to acknowledge when you've made an error, then you'll have learned something.. and in this case, you'll have learned to be careful with your wording.. especially when dealing with a sociopath. You'll never progress when you ignore your own errors.
How should we decide how to judge people. Stop judging people? I personally don't see how a billionaire is any more valuable than a homeless drug addict, so I won't be any help here.
Again you are missing his point in the question. The point wasnt 'who should die' the point was 'whose freedom has more value' the answer to both is neither. My answer was an attempt at humor in that if he killed himself he couldnt kill either, thus fulfill my point. Until you redefined the scenario to add a contraption to execute them after he took his life. You missed and are still missing the point.
There were no rules on how anyone would be killed, so it's fair game to have them hooked up to some sort of contraption that'll kill them.. you fucked up.
However a bunch of other individuals decide to individually judge that individual. Society is just individuals there is no council of society that decides these things.
If there are no rules to the scenario, its fair game to flash bang them and rescue the 3 of them you fucked up. Next are you going to claim only the method of killing is open to redefinition but not the entire scenario?
Now you're thinking outside the box.. but still falls short cause the only "rule" to the scenario was pick one to be saved. How can I redefine something (method of killing) when it was never defined to begin with? Makes very little sense.. you can't 're' anything without first doing it as 're' means again. It's literally impossible to define again what wasn't defined to begin with.