[ SECRET POST #6168 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #6168 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.




























Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 36 secrets from Secret Submission Post #882.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

Re: Who is Your Least Favorite Character?

[(Anonymous)]

Of course it's a controversial statement. It's a perennial discussion.

What is the actual value of an individual human life? If we decide that it's acceptable to kill one person in order to the save the many, then is a life's value merely a matter of utility? If it is, then on what other grounds might we say it's acceptable to kill someone? And, moreover, what is the actual value of the many? What is the purpose of saving all of those lives, if they don't have value in and of themselves; and if we can decide, based on our math, that it makes sense for some of them to die? How do we decide which of them dies?

How many people is it acceptable to kill in order to save the many? Is there an upper limit? How do we decide what that limit is? Do we just need to stop before the amount reaches half the population? What if the quality of life of the remaining population turns out not to be what we anticipated? What if our killing doesn't resolve the issue we set out to tackle? In order to prevent that possibility, should we make sure there will be a beneficial outcome before killing the few, or do the good intentions of our attempt ameliorate our culpability?

Re: Who is Your Least Favorite Character?

[(Anonymous)]

All of this is circumvented by looking at the utility of the death. It doesn't matter how much worth an individual human has vs all the humans. Because that answer is obvious. If one person is worth something, all the people are worth more. Like, obviously?

The value of a human life is not the utility in life. People are worthy of life regardless of their utility for anything or anyone. But when you have a situation, such as this one, where only one known person out of everyone has the possibility of saving every other human life on the planet, her death in a specific circumstance has a value and a utility.

To make it a real life issue - Robespierre basically started/perpetuated The Terror during the French Revolution leading to thousands of deaths. Robespierre is worth the same as any other human by virtue of being alive, but his death stopped all the killing. Literally, the next day the whole thing stopped. His life was the same worth as everyone, but his DEATH was of untold value that saved countless lives.