Right to life
 

For those who haven't read the thread that started it, there has been a debate on the absoluteness of rights so I will give an ethical delimma to hopefully further my point.


You are the leader on an isolated island (that means NO outside contact) that can only support 1,000 people. For the past few hundred years your population has expanded from its initial 100 people (we are ignoring incest) and we are nearing the 1,000 people limit. Do to the poor leadership of the following leader, there was no movement to limit population expansion and you are going to be facing the major problem of overpopulation.

During last year's census, there was a recorded population of 990 people but due to boom in the natural ocesslation of childbirths, it is predicted that the population is currently at 1200 people. Since you are living in a small island with no outside resources, your island is facing economic collapse because it physically can not support the additional 200 people. If you do nothing, there it is more than likely you will overuse your resources, dropping the number of people the island can support even further and there will be war and an unrecoverable collapse of the economy in result that will certainly lead to the demise of everyone on the island.

Now you, being the responsible leader of the island, have the decision of either killing the excess 200 babies to keep the population in check or do nothing and hope, most likely in vain, that your whole island will not collapse.

So the decision is, in the eyes of greater society (the island), do those extra children have a right to life or not?

Third option: Expand island resources via outside help.

4th option ship all the bad ones to Ali's house. Whatever doesn't fit there can visit Ducksy.

Bad joke.

Uh isn't that how Australia started Drax?

pierce,
Perhaps, instead of killing the 200 babies, you should have a lottery to randomly select 200 people to kill; or you could institute a competitive event (such as dueling) which will serve to limit the population; or you could eliminate the least productive adults, or criminals, etc.

You also need to implement a policy to limit future population growth, such as allowing only as many births as deaths in future years. Anyone who has an illegal child gets put on a raft and floated out to sea.

Remind me never to get stuck on an unknown island somewhere with you, HLJ. Yikes! :eek:

I think the island in the OP represents Earth, and the problems encountered there will soon be encountered here, and you are stuck on the island with me.

Just kill everyone over 30 and make them into food (Logan's Run + Soylent Green).

I would agree with you if we were in Boulder.

If the island has resources that are depleteing rapidly why aren't you building boats to leave the damned thing before you have to resort to killing people and possibly eating them? (Easter Island scenario)Migration...Every animal does it to survive.....even in hypothetical terms such as that....

You have to leave the island Pierce..I'm sorry.
:)

Some migrate and some stay...The ones that stay can figure out a better way to self-sustain and drink parsley, sage, rosemary, and thyme...

Or kill them all, I don't care..I don't have it all worked out yet!
:)

How would I know that? Ask Ali.

I think Pierce is just tryin' to start some shit. 'Course, there's not much else to do around here.

the sad thing is that you do not understand what a right is.

of course the kids have the right to live. as do the 1000 that came before. if your society decides to infringe on their right to life in order to save the whole nation.....it does not change the fact that the babies had the right to life.

you're really frustratingly dense about this topic.

Left to their right to what? Isn't that a song? Oh and I am NOT dense - I'm thick.

duh

How wouldn't you know it? Especially with all that infomative TV you watch.

No, he's expanding his philosophical eduacation through discussion. I think you fell into the wrong forum.
Allow me to help you back to your comfort zone...

Duh nothing. His island policy might be no outside contact now. That doesn't mean he can't change his policy for the good of his people.

Maybe cuz I was never that interested. But now that you brought it up, maybe I'll do some research on Ol' Aussie.

Ass.

Ok Mr. monstrosity:

------------------- Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia

...and that is how it started. :p

geez...I'm away for 24 hours and I'm already the topic of conversation. I guess this place really can't survive without me. ;)

Pierce, I think your colony will need to impliment the 1 child policy for the next couple of generations and sweat it out till then.

Well we wuv you angel. :angel:

To Drax:
The isolation rule isn't a policy of the islanders. It is one of the rules that were stipulated when the thought experiment was set out. Tinkering with this defeats the point of thinking about it at all. While I like your lateral thinking, in this case, it doesn't fit the situation.


General comment:
This sort of scenario is often tossed around in undergraduate philosophy courses to get people thinking about these issues.

The most robust variation I have seen involves a damaged space ship. It is cruising back to earth with 10 people on board, when the oxygen system fails. It cannot be repaired. The reserve tanks only hold enough oxygen to keep five people alive until the ship reaches Earth (at maximum oxygen conservation). The ship cannot be accelerated. No help is available. The only options are:
1. choose five people and kill them, thus allowing the other five to survive. The choice can be random or considered.
2. all die together.
This scenario removes any doubt about getting help or some people struggling through.


Option 1 has the advantage that five more people survive than option 2, but at the price that we have to actively kill five people. I think that the active killing/passive killing distinction is morally insignificant - either way, we are making a decision that leads to their death.
Option 1 may be objected to on the grounds that it places an unfair burden for the survival of others onto a few individuals. This is generally considered bad. However, in this particular scenario, it might be replied that there is no real burden, since the unlucky individuals would die under option 2 anyway.

For these reasons I would choose option 1.

The next decision is whether to choose who to kill by considered decision or random means.

While randomness has a certain clean simple appeal, what if it results in killing the entire crew, leaving the passengers to die because they can't operate the ship?
What if the passenger list includes, for example, two indispensible crew members, Einstein, Ghandi, Mandela, Monet, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Amin? Random choosing from this lot would seem stupid.

Yet, if we are to decide carefully .... how the hell are we to choose? Unlike the list above, most people are much nearer the middle of the moral spectrum, in the broad shades of almost indistinguishable gray.
And remember - if we spend more than one day arguing about it, we've used up extra oxygen and now have to kill six people...

I get as far as firmly choosing option 1 before getting bogged down.
So for PH's example, yes, I believe we have to reduce population by 200. I agree with HLJ that there is no immediate reason to target the infants, unless we are thinking of a "last on - first off" rule, which seems silly.
I'd be wary of a random selection. It might end up killing the people who most enrich the lives of everyone else. That only leaves the option of calling for volunteers (not likely to make up the numbers), or thinking long and hard about who to kill.

Incredibly hard as such a deliberation would be, to NOT face up to killing 200 now would lead to the certain deaths (from famine) of many more than 200 people in the foreseeable future. Bite the bullet, and save as many as you can.

The Cold Equations.

Eh, thinking about this again an LJ's response made me realize this has nothing to do with rights but ethics.

I agree with basically everything on ZenGum's response.. I made it an island because this scenario actually happened in real life (kind of, I changed two things) and also because by choosing to let everyone die you will destroy the future for a countless amount of generations.

wow...i thought everyone was ignoring me cuz i usually shy away from the serious stuff. sorry i barked at you.

Yep, nothing like dying to put a damper on the old future. ;)

If all the humans disappeared from the Earth, would the rest of the animals get together and celebrate?

I think they would.

Exactly. It's the leader's, and any truly benevolent leader would change his policies to benefit his people.

[kissass] our Undertoad is an excellent example of a benevolent dictator[/kissass]

and i, for one, welcome...

I still like my answer the best...I'm having a moment. (Alone with myself)
:)

Survival of the fittest in the short term, contraception and an understanding of the island's capacity by all inhabitants in the long term.

Either the totalitarian method:
Each current family is allocated a finite amount of food via rationing and they decide whether 74 year old Great Grandma Gemma or 2 year old baby Gerry get the non-productive rations. Or they all get lower rations and their productivity declines until the weakest dies. Either way reproduction is severely restricted by order of the authority and unauthorised babies are either given to childless couples who want them or not included in any future rations.

Or the capitalist method:
Those who can barter, bribe, sell excess produce or steal it get the upper hand and can both reproduce and look after their old (although subsequent generations may choose not to, to consolidate their power). And those who can't, get poorer, weaker, more susceptible to illness and die off. Families can have as many children as they like, but the will starve to death unless the families become more ruthless than those currently in power.

I don't believe in a right to life. I do believe that people should be responsible for the children that they produce.

Build Boats....... Get on them....Move on.....

There is no wood. All the trees were cut down, first for housing, next for agriculture, then the rest to clear space for Walmart.

Even better. :thumb:

Renewable resource.

They won't know that there is land somewhere else. On this island, they they can't imagine not hearing the ocean. When I mean isolated, I mean no other island within hundreds of miles.

I find it interesting that you chose to set up the question to be whether 200 babies must die, rather than 200 people. Do you think there's a reason you made that distinction?

yeah.....kill the oldest 200.....

Do you feel nothing?

"I am Jim of Borg."

But the oldest have all the knowledge and experience. Without them the tribe won't survive.

the old ones are just oxygen suckers. Put the world out of its misery. Top them all off...and do a couple of extra just in case there are any unexpected deliveries.

That's why it needs to be up to the people to choose. If the need to reproduce is more important to them than the wisdom of the old then they reap what they sow. Then again, if dead wood is more important than future growth then they also reap what they sow.

Put in two different ways to show each is cruel but each has benefits.

I, err, actually didn't think about that when I made this. Point taken though.

Well, IMO, no living being is more important than any other living being, regardless of assimilated knowledge.

Hey, I'm more important than anyone. Just ask me!

I think it comes down to this: Is the islander's willingness to live within the limits set by the leader stronger than the drive to reproduce?

Well now I don't luv you no mo. ;)

Wait, yes I do. ;)


Oh, I'm all confuzzed up! SHARRON! :nuts:

Everyone migrated the hard way...Why is your scenario different? Times get tough and everyone migrates. Unless it is Easter Island where the very same thing happened and the great "wonder of the world" is why they were such idiots.
:D

Or just build some boats and try and visit something you can see for help...a distant star. People with no imagination can even leave for that destination....
I would be the first idiot on the boat trying to go to a star and find Africa instead. I would start calling them star people, thinking I had made it.
:)

They should just do more fishing.

I cannot believe that I have to be the one to say this. I am very disappointed in you "deep-thinker" Cellarites.

Just kill 100 of the pregnant women.

Oh, so now you're trying to damage the delicate ecosystem offshore as well ali?? Pfft...


fish-hater.

yes...terrible nasty me. I don't know anything. I'm the dumbest cellarite of them all.

It's the fact that you are married to a fisheries management scientist that really makes my jaw drop!

Seriously, I thought the point of HP's scenario is that the 1,000 person population limit is when they are using resources to their maximum anyway.
Any population over this will lead to resource depletion and an Easter Island style disaster.

As for sailing of into the blue in the hope of reaching somewhere else ... that would (a) require an enormous amount of resources (wood, provisions) and thus deplete the island even further, and (b) lead to the colonists having a slow painful death by thirst and starvation rather than a (presumably) quick and humane one.

Why does it make your jaw drop? Do I seem that stupid?

Just kill all the people who think you should kill 100 of the pregnant women!

I'm really sorry, but I'm not taking this discussion seriously.

Actually, I'm not that sorry, but I am a little bit.