|
Post by men an tol on Sept 7, 2012 16:45:59 GMT -5
Joseph, you seem to say that your definition of humanity is the only one. What if those people saved had no skills to survive on the Island? That would be a total loss of humanity, that is, going form some may have the ability to cooperate and survive to, no one surviving.
This is a reality that goes on everyday. Maybe not in the context of life or death but in the context of success or failure. What if you were hiring people for a new business. Some who applied had none of the skills you required but had extreme need (i.e., physical and mental handicaps), and others had the skills to make the business succeed. Who would select? Which selection has the most humanity?
|
|
|
Post by thunder on Sept 7, 2012 16:51:19 GMT -5
It's a scenario presented to a 3rd grade class. I'm surprised anyone here had a difficult time with it. Third graders don't know about the Milgram experiment, either. Their moral sense is not very well developed. Your scenario is similar to Milgram. The question is how long it takes to push someone to give up his humanity. It looks like people here jumped at the chance, as probably most would. You win. I'm familiar with the Milgram experiment, and this is nothing like it, although I'm sure you'd like to be. If you ask a curmudgeon what their favorite color is, they'd try turning it into a subversive psychological investigation of their subconscious mind. Anyone who truly disapproved of the excessive wouldn't have bothered to answer at all. A trouble-maker would try finding fault with it and attempt to turn it into an argument by feigning an intellectual discussion. Really... it was just a simple posting I'd hoped would involve some participation. It wasn't worth all this nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by beth on Sept 7, 2012 16:56:47 GMT -5
Third graders don't know about the Milgram experiment, either. Their moral sense is not very well developed. Your scenario is similar to Milgram. The question is how long it takes to push someone to give up his humanity. It looks like people here jumped at the chance, as probably most would. You win. I'm familiar with the Milgram experiment, and this is nothing like it, although I'm sure you'd like to be. If you ask a curmudgeon what their favorite color is, they'd try turning it into a subversive psychological investigation of their subconscious mind. Anyone who truly disapproved of the excessive wouldn't have bothered to answer at all. A trouble-maker would try finding fault with it and attempt to turn it into an argument by feigning an intellectual discussion. Really... it was just a simple posting I'd hoped would involve some participation. It wasn't worth all this nonsense. I think it HAS gotten good participation but it's too soon to end it. It's even more interesting to look at different aspects and let it expernd.
|
|
|
Post by beth on Sept 7, 2012 17:02:29 GMT -5
Joseph, you seem to say that your definition of humanity is the only one. What if those people saved had no skills to survive on the Island? That would be a total loss of humanity, that is, going form some may have the ability to cooperate and survive to, no one surviving. This is a reality that goes on everyday. Maybe not in the context of life or death but in the context of success or failure. What if you were hiring people for a new business. Some who applied had none of the skills you required but had extreme need (i.e., physical and mental handicaps), and others had the skills to make the business succeed. Who would select? Which selection has the most humanity? Seeing it that way is interesting. Possibly, the employer would have to choose between someone who is qualified and would be good for the business orrrrr another applicant who is less qualified but very poor with a family who will suffer if he doesn't find employment soon. All these things are known to the person doing the hiring. Would it be less moral of him to hire the better candidate and let the needy one go on his way? Why?
|
|
ladylinda
Moderatorz
Poetry Editor
July 2011 Member of the Month, May 2014 Member of the Month
Posts: 4,901
|
Post by ladylinda on Sept 7, 2012 17:55:07 GMT -5
I've deliberately ignored this one because (under a slightly different form - a post-nuclear war scenario) it's one I and Mike used when we taught English as a foreign language.
I'll go and give my own answers to the question in a minute.
|
|
ladylinda
Moderatorz
Poetry Editor
July 2011 Member of the Month, May 2014 Member of the Month
Posts: 4,901
|
Post by ladylinda on Sept 7, 2012 17:58:31 GMT -5
Here's my answer:
(I admit that as the mother of a handicapped boy my own experience maybe biases me)
Pregnant teenager Lawyer Professional wrestler Farmer Homemaker Handicapped boy
|
|
|
Post by thunder on Sept 7, 2012 18:02:20 GMT -5
Here's my answer: (I admit that as the mother of a handicapped boy my own experience maybe biases me) Pregnant teenager Lawyer Professional wrestler Farmer Homemaker Handicapped boy You forgot to say why.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Sept 8, 2012 3:18:59 GMT -5
i found the term handicapped boy far to wide...with no indication of the handicap it could be anything in this age of the term handicapped being thrown around.... any thing from an allergy to wheat or nuts to being born without limbs etc
|
|
|
Post by thunder on Sept 8, 2012 6:28:30 GMT -5
i found the term handicapped boy far to wide...with no indication of the handicap it could be anything in this age of the term handicapped being thrown around.... any thing from an allergy to wheat or nuts to being born without limbs etc I suppose he could have been radio active, or maybe he had a hangnail, or perhaps he had foot fungus. You people are insane. The term "handicapped" clearly indicates that one member was incapacitated and would need assistance. The objective in adding someone like that to the list is to present the person engaged in the exercise with a dilemma. Do you save the helpless, placing a bigger burden on the group, or do you cut out anyone who would add to your difficulty? Maybe from all of the political issues you're used to dealing with here, you're programmed to over-analyze everything. This was wasn't that complicated. Christ.
|
|
|
Post by markindurham on Sept 8, 2012 7:42:51 GMT -5
i found the term handicapped boy far to wide...with no indication of the handicap it could be anything in this age of the term handicapped being thrown around.... any thing from an allergy to wheat or nuts to being born without limbs etc I suppose he could have been radio active, or maybe he had a hangnail, or perhaps he had foot fungus. You people are insane. The term "handicapped" clearly indicates that one member was incapacitated and would need assistance. The objective in adding someone like that to the list is to present the person engaged in the exercise with a dilemma. Do you save the helpless, placing a bigger burden on the group, or do you cut out anyone who would add to your difficulty? Maybe from all of the political issues you're used to dealing with here, you're programmed to over-analyze everything. This was wasn't that complicated. Christ. No, we're not 'insane' - and no doubt some of us have certificates to prove it ... but I digress "Disabled" is such a catch-all, that's the problem. My daughter is classed as 'disabled', but you wouldn't think so to look at her, nor to see how she handles most situations. Nevertheless, she's on the autistic spectrum, & so is 'lumped in' with all the other 'disabling' conditions that folk have...
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Sept 8, 2012 7:46:29 GMT -5
i found the term handicapped boy far to wide...with no indication of the handicap it could be anything in this age of the term handicapped being thrown around.... any thing from an allergy to wheat or nuts to being born without limbs etc I suppose he could have been radio active, or maybe he had a hangnail, or perhaps he had foot fungus. You people are insane. The term "handicapped" clearly indicates that one member was incapacitated and would need assistance. The objective in adding someone like that to the list is to present the person engaged in the exercise with a dilemma. Do you save the helpless, placing a bigger burden on the group, or do you cut out anyone who would add to your difficulty? Maybe from all of the political issues you're used to dealing with here, you're programmed to over-analyze everything. This was wasn't that complicated. Christ. hey we have disabilitys running from our ears...from badly behaved kids to alapicia it all comes under disability these days... the degrees of handicap are not mentionedbut presumably having been on the same ship the level of handicap would be known my thinking would be to ditch the handicapped and save the pregnant 17yr old...she has proved she can breed and actually christ wasnt mentioned...just sayin
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Sept 8, 2012 7:49:03 GMT -5
I suppose he could have been radio active, or maybe he had a hangnail, or perhaps he had foot fungus. You people are insane. The term "handicapped" clearly indicates that one member was incapacitated and would need assistance. The objective in adding someone like that to the list is to present the person engaged in the exercise with a dilemma. Do you save the helpless, placing a bigger burden on the group, or do you cut out anyone who would add to your difficulty? Maybe from all of the political issues you're used to dealing with here, you're programmed to over-analyze everything. This was wasn't that complicated. Christ. No, we're not 'insane' - and no doubt some of us have certificates to prove it ... but I digress "Disabled" is such a catch-all, that's the problem. My daughter is classed as 'disabled', but you wouldn't think so to look at her, nor to see how she handles most situations. Nevertheless, she's on the autistic spectrum, & so is 'lumped in' with all the other 'disabling' conditions that folk have... thankyou Mark...the deffinition of type and extent is every thing
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2012 9:08:41 GMT -5
Joseph, you seem to say that your definition of humanity is the only one. What if those people saved had no skills to survive on the Island? That would be a total loss of humanity, that is, going form some may have the ability to cooperate and survive to, no one surviving. I concede the definition of humanity is relative. To me if the people I'm with choose murder over social cohesion, the entire group doesn't merit survival. This is a reality that goes on everyday. Maybe not in the context of life or death but in the context of success or failure. I know it does. I'm not arguing a mindless egalitarianism. I am simply saying the point of the exericse is to rationalize murder.
|
|
|
Post by thunder on Sept 8, 2012 9:33:36 GMT -5
I suppose he could have been radio active, or maybe he had a hangnail, or perhaps he had foot fungus. You people are insane. The term "handicapped" clearly indicates that one member was incapacitated and would need assistance. The objective in adding someone like that to the list is to present the person engaged in the exercise with a dilemma. Do you save the helpless, placing a bigger burden on the group, or do you cut out anyone who would add to your difficulty? Maybe from all of the political issues you're used to dealing with here, you're programmed to over-analyze everything. This was wasn't that complicated. Christ. No, we're not 'insane' - and no doubt some of us have certificates to prove it ... but I digress "Disabled" is such a catch-all, that's the problem. My daughter is classed as 'disabled', but you wouldn't think so to look at her, nor to see how she handles most situations. Nevertheless, she's on the autistic spectrum, & so is 'lumped in' with all the other 'disabling' conditions that folk have... I think you know what I mean. It was a simple exercise some wanted to criticize by over-complicating it, or by changing the parameters, or by refusing to cooperate in some way. Anyone who didn't like it didn't need to respond at all... to refute some portion is to go out of your way to speculate on some minute portion such as how high the waves were, or which college the lawyer attended. Nuts. Anyway, the word used to describe the 8-year-old was "handicapped" not "disabled," and everyone knows what handicapped means. In any event, anyone who couldn't accept the scenario as stated was just going out of their way to cause trouble. You don't try that on a job application, or a school history test, or on an insurance health form. If you tried qualifying every answer, every question, every statement, you'd be disqualified, and everyone knows that, too.
|
|
|
Post by men an tol on Sept 8, 2012 9:34:23 GMT -5
Joseph I understand that you are not arguing egalitarianism, neither am I. Certainly the exercise can be a process to rationalize murder, but, every argument is a coin with two sides and the other side of this coin could just as well be an exercise to rationalize survivability.
What is interesting is that this little exercise has brought out such a variety of positions.
Maybe we should just support a leaky boat and go for the side of well fed sharks.
|
|