A moral question

/MSG/

/MSG/

Uwaa OmO
I'm bored (of course) and while I writing an article for GBF, a random thought popped into my head. Is it wrong to steal bread from someone if you or your family is starving?

Now most of you (myself included) would say that yes, it's moral to do so. But let's change the scenario a bit. Suppose, oh I don't know, a comet hits Earth. It's a large one, about the size of an Apollo asteroid. And like the last one that hit Earth it's an extinction level event. Over 5,500,000,000 people killed, agriculture destroyed, almost all known nations and governments collapse, the whole End of the world as we know prepper fantasy. You can replace this with a viral outbreak or nuclear war or whatever, these particulars aren't important.

Now to add to this level of fantasy, you manage to survive. It's been about a decade since said apocalypse, long enough that you and other survivors know how to survive, but not so long that you've forgotten what the world used to be like.

In this time you've joined up with a moderately sized group of other survivors, and you have a little civilization again. And part of your duty is to go out with a search party and look for things to scavange. While you and your party are out you happen upon another group, from a different little civilization. And they have something your group REALLY needs. Medicine, or fuel, or a generator. And you offer to trade with this group, but all your offers are rebuffed.

Now you and your civilzation aren't in IMMEDIATE danger of dying of from plague or sickness or whatever. But you do have a very real NEED for these items, and it's not something you can make or are likely to stumble upon any time soon, so if you don't get these thing people you know will die. Also, as the final twist, your scavanger group outnumbers these guys 2-1, and you are armed and they are not.

What do you do?
 
I would slaughter those motherfuckers.

There is no universal morality. Who are we trying to impress?

If one person or group is to suffer no matter what, then we aren't imposing suffering as much as we are transferring it from ourselves to another. There is no net gain of suffering in the world. We didn't create the suffering, it always existed, and it's transferable.

How is it any less immoral to let yourself wallow in agony? You are a person too! Are you less important than any other? No. So indulge the sentience and ego you are most intimately connected with.
 
My mother always said, "I never answer what-ifs"... too bad I don't follow her philosophy.

It depends. It's post-apocalypse; there aren't that many people around. If you attack the other band - and kill several or all of them - along with having those murders on your head you could be affecting the future of the human race. Is your group large enough to keep the human race going? Do you need "outside" genes? Are you going for a short-term goal and missing the long-term?

How necessary is the item? Medicine? Maybe - is there a deadly disease running through your band but slowly enough that fighting for medicine will help in time? Generator or fuel? You're going to run out of fuel sooner or later, the generator will break sooner or later, so you better start adapting without it. Is it worth killing people for something that is, again, a short-term solution?

Now let's say they have access to the only water for hundreds of miles - an oasis in the Sahara. That might be worth fighting over. But it would be stupid of them not to negotiate with your band if you are twice their size. For both protection reasons and genetic mingling reasons, assuming you weren't overly hostile when you first approached, it would make sense for them to join with you. Well, unless there just isn't enough water for both groups.

And you may not have to wait till the apocalypse to start fighting for water....

Of course, how you crossed hundreds of miles without water to get to this oasis is another question....but that's about the only thing I see worth fighting over at least as the scenario is currently pitched.
 
oh - one other thought - knowledge. Someone in that other group may have knowledge that's very valuable, and if you kill them, it's gone.
 
You guys have watched too many fricking movies.


if the world indeed did "crumble" Humans don't have to be evil.


Its a sign you think people are evil if you really think people will be so unwilling to help each other.



when will you learn that humans are better than all these stupid fantasys this counry is NOW constantly doing about "the entire world falls appart" crap the media keeps pretending is right around the corner.



Humans are better than this crazy current social phenom of pretending the worlds societies were destroyed.


I have been thinking about this one lately some.


Our current culture seems fascinated by the idea that EVERYTHING goes to HELL.


Its dumb as fucking hell and Im tired of this stupid fantasy being so widely Pumped.


Here is a clue.

You want to know mans inner soul.


Look around at your current society.


Those people are real people.


the reality is when you challenge people most get MORE moral no less.


They think past the passiveness that an ordered society reguires and MOST react in Humain ways.


Most people are mostly good


some people are saints


and a few are complete rat bastards.


Not most people are rat bastards.


Man got to where he is by being compassionate not by being complete rat bastards.

Think about that for a minute
 
Might try reading "The Earth Abides" - also a post-apocalyptic book, but in this case a disease wipes out 99.9% of people (or something like that). Many pull together in strong communities, per evince's post; however there are some nutters, some people who can't cope, and some evil people. But the book shows the strong need people have to be in a community- at least most of us.

Having said that, "The Road" was a very good book....
 
simple solution. the smaller group simply becomes part of our group. nobody has to die. everyone gets what they need to survive. the group becomes larger, more resources, more manpower, better survival. the only thing necessary is convincing the smaller group that joining is in their own best interests.
 
man bans together.

That is what all of mans history shows you.


I am really sick of this post destruction of all society fantasies that are non stop everywhere in the media.

someone thinks we should all be defeatists.

WHY??????
 
Clovis said:
I'm bored (of course) and while I writing an article for GBF, a random thought popped into my head. Is it wrong to steal bread from someone if you or your family is starving?

Now most of you (myself included) would say that yes, it's moral to do so. But let's change the scenario a bit. Suppose, oh I don't know, a comet hits Earth. It's a large one, about the size of an Apollo asteroid. And like the last one that hit Earth it's an extinction level event. Over 5,500,000,000 people killed, agriculture destroyed, almost all known nations and governments collapse, the whole End of the world as we know prepper fantasy. You can replace this with a viral outbreak or nuclear war or whatever, these particulars aren't important.

Now to add to this level of fantasy, you manage to survive. It's been about a decade since said apocalypse, long enough that you and other survivors know how to survive, but not so long that you've forgotten what the world used to be like.

In this time you've joined up with a moderately sized group of other survivors, and you have a little civilization again. And part of your duty is to go out with a search party and look for things to scavange. While you and your party are out you happen upon another group, from a different little civilization. And they have something your group REALLY needs. Medicine, or fuel, or a generator. And you offer to trade with this group, but all your offers are rebuffed.

Now you and your civilzation aren't in IMMEDIATE danger of dying of from plague or sickness or whatever. But you do have a very real NEED for these items, and it's not something you can make or are likely to stumble upon any time soon, so if you don't get these thing people you know will die. Also, as the final twist, your scavanger group outnumbers these guys 2-1, and you are armed and they are not.

What do you do?
Click to expand...

It clearly wouldn't be moral.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
simple solution. the smaller group simply becomes part of our group. nobody has to die. everyone gets what they need to survive. the group becomes larger, more resources, more manpower, better survival. the only thing necessary is convincing the smaller group that joining is in their own best interests.
Click to expand...

Yes. Immediately responding with force after your first offer is refused would clearly be short sighted. The fact that they aren't well armed is not necessarily a sign that they are easy targets either, they might be under the protection out domination if some larger group, and when the survivors of your raid run off and tell their take, you're going to be in a world of hurt.
 
tekkychick said:
Might try reading "The Earth Abides" - also a post-apocalyptic book, but in this case a disease wipes out 99.9% of people (or something like that). Many pull together in strong communities, per evince's post; however there are some nutters, some people who can't cope, and some evil people. But the book shows the strong need people have to be in a community- at least most of us.

Having said that, "The Road" was a very good book....
Click to expand...

Yes, but sometimes that community is the Mongols. Read enough history and you will become very cynical, the powerful always abuse their power and abuse the weaker when given a chance, the exceptions are extraordinarily rare.
 
evince said:
man bans together.

That is what all of mans history shows you.

I am really sick of this post destruction of all society fantasies that are non stop everywhere in the media.

someone thinks we should all be defeatists.

WHY??????
Click to expand...

I don't get it, either.
 
If you were going to abandon morality, the smarter thing would be to enslave them rather than to kill them. That is, unless you are trying to send a message.
 
FEAR


fear of everything falling apart.


Look at what the republican party is doing to the government.

The tea party tards WANT this to happen.

they are trying their hsardest to destroy this country from the inside by not allowing it to function as the founders designed it.


They are secretly trying to bring on Armegedon like their religion says is coming.
 
evince said:
man bans together.

That is what all of mans history shows you.


I am really sick of this post destruction of all society fantasies that are non stop everywhere in the media.

someone thinks we should all be defeatists.

WHY??????
Click to expand...

I enjoy post-apocalyptic fiction, much like I like sci fi/fantasy that depicts a different world. It's the exploration of the possibilities that interests me. "Alas Babylon" - total classic of a community in Florida managing after a nuclear war; and the classic part is at the end - they are found by what remains of the US govt; they ask "who won" and the guy says "does it matter?" Beautiful statement of just how destructive war is...
 
I get you tecky and it can be a great vehicle to examine the true value of things.


There is just this unporoductive level of it now.

When the media pictures the future anymore they picture massive destruction.


In all of these things so many people are being complete black hearted assholes.


It makes for great dramatic scenes but it misconstrues the heart of man.


Why is it being made popular to back stab and pretending that that is what mans souls contains.



Most people are mostly good.


I have lived long enough to know this is true without fail.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top