many outweighs few?

[Eddo36]

Say the USA went to war with China over a survival matter. Only one can win.

 

China has a population of over 1.3 billion. USA has a population of 0.3 billion.

 

Shouldn't USA step aside and let China triumph since it has a greater population and thus the benefits of the many (China) outweighs the benefits of a few (USA)?

[Xard]

Eddo the nipples is on crackpipe again

 

Utilitarianism, rule of the many (not same as democracy exactly) etc. sucks

[Eddo36]

Wel that's the way everyone seems to view things these days. The lives of many outweighs the lives of a few. What if it's 100 terrorists and 10 innocent people?

[Sand]

I say whoever can kick the most ass should win. In the fight for survival no one in their right mind would just roll over and die. They would fight and kill, no matter the odds.

[Nick_i_am]

So if the many say they want to burn your avatar you'll do that?

 

Please?

[Kaftan Barlast]

Well, the US is infinitely more useful to me than China, so the choice is obvious. In many other circumstances however, like in war, you have to apply cold logic and chose few over many.

[theslug]

The whole China has way more population than us is complete bs. Who cares? That just means more people that have the possibility of dying. Do you know how much money it would cost to get all those people war ready? Yeah more money than China has. Not to mention we have a vast superiority in military technology. We drop a EMP in the atmosphere above them and they are completely useless and brought back into world war 1 inside their little trenches. And we just drop hell fire on them in the form of nuclear weapons. And then Russia attacks us and we attack them and then nuclear winter and everyone dies.

 

This thread is retarded.

Edited March 4, 2008 by theslug

[Musopticon?]

China doesn't need to arm anyone. They can just forcibly migrate....say....20 million people to America. Hello Geneva convention! What are you going to do with the odd 5 million new families in need of housing and food? How about taking a couple more million in? Don't worry, China won't run out of population anytime soon. On the contrary, they can just keep churning out the lowest of low in terms of social status and income and the rest will benefit from having less mouths to feed and vastly more space to live!

 

Imagine using this on Russia...they don't even have a separating ocean with China!

[Gorth]

As a rule of thumb, my concern priorities goes something like:

 

ME > Few > Many

 

However, there could be all kinds of imaginable exceptions, are there people you care about or feel able to associate yourself with in the other two groups?

 

Would we negotiate with a hostage taker to save the hostages?

 

It might save a few hostages, but it would make hostage taking a viable profession and endanger many more people. Just a hypothetical example. I wouldn't be able to make a blanket statement and stand by it, it would depend on the context.

[Azarkon]

Generally, under a utilitarian point of view, the happiness of the many indeed outweigh the happiness of the few. In practice, most people practice utilitarianism - but only when it benefits them, so the point becomes moot. In the end, it's just one more nail in the coffin of utilitarian objectivism. In this case, if you were Chinese, you'd certainly argue that the US should just roll over and die. Vice versa with Americans and China. For people not in either country, the choice comes down to which country they like more (on this board, I'd expect the US to be the popular answer). What's the point of debate? No one will accept a moral system that does not place their comfort zone at its center. In the case of something as vital as survival, that almost always means people will accept the moral system that will allow them to survive (those who did not, well, died - and were thus taken out of the evolutionary chain).

 

Personally, if I were to throw my lot with moral objectivism, I'd go with deontology. At least then you can argue that the situation presented by the OP is fundamentally immoral and would never happen if people were deontological (in this case, an argument could be made for whether to prefer the US or China, depending on who attacked who, whose actions are justified, etc.). Utilitarianism is far more practical, but it's fundamentally relative.

 

On a side-note, I hope everyone understands now why I made the argument in the other thread regarding why the world will continue to militarize. The US simply cannot expect that the rest of the world will submit to its military supremacy - because when push comes to shove, people will always choose themselves.

Edited March 5, 2008 by Azarkon

[thepixiesrock]

Say the USA went to war with China over a survival matter. Only one can win.

 

China has a population of over 1.3 billion. USA has a population of 0.3 billion.

 

Shouldn't USA step aside and let China triumph since it has a greater population and thus the benefits of the many (China) outweighs the benefits of a few (USA)?

 

Why would either side step aside? They are obviously going to be going to war over a distpute of some sort, there would be no reason to just give up if t comes to war. It wouldn't make any sense to declare war, and then immidiately surrender because you feel the other side really deserves it. It has nothing to do with the lives of many outweighing the lives of few. It is the veiwpoints of two parties colliding. They wouldn't give in because there were more lives to benefit, because the other side is wrong in their eyes.

[Humodour]

Good question.

 

Answer is no.

 

When it comes down to a choice between America and China, America is fundamentally better.

 

Yes, you have to make that judgement call. I believe democracy, freedom, diversity, multiculturalism are better than China's totalitarian approach to things.

 

Not to mention that while America doesn't have a good track record of the Environment, it is now working to curb that. China is only just getting started.

 

Further, America is smaller and has a stable and fairly sustainable infrastructure (especially compared to China); they are fundamentally better suited to regrouping and rebuilding for the future. Can the same be said of China? China would add on the population of America in a couple of years. It would keep doing so. There would be no relief; and the problem would arise all over again, if now in the form of civil war.

 

So I choose to save the few in the hopes that they have a bright and prosperous future without the plagues of the past. For if I were to choose the many, how would I be alleviating the problems of the many? Nothing about their situation would change.

Edited March 5, 2008 by Krezack

[Azarkon]

Why would either side step aside? They are obviously going to be going to war over a distpute of some sort, there would be no reason to just give up if t comes to war. It wouldn't make any sense to declare war, and then immidiately surrender because you feel the other side really deserves it. It has nothing to do with the lives of many outweighing the lives of few. It is the veiwpoints of two parties colliding. They wouldn't give in because there were more lives to benefit, because the other side is wrong in their eyes.

 

If it helps you, you might want to think of this dilemma a little differently than how the OP presented it. Imagine, instead, that there was an asteroid headed for the earth. There is no way to deflect the asteroid, and no time to evacuate. The only thing the world can do to choose where it hits: China, or the US. If it hits China, all ~1.3 billion people there are doomed. If it hits the US, all ~0.3 billion people here are dead. What do you choose?

 

It comes down to the same moral argument, which is fundamentally a value judgment, and therefore inherently relative.

 

Btw, I disagree with every single opinion that's been expressed here so far. Take from that what you will.

Edited March 5, 2008 by Azarkon

[Tigranes]

I think this one just popped into your head Eddo, but it's a complete logical fallacy unfortunately:

 

What if it's 100 terrorists and 10 innocent people?

 

Even one 'proven' or 'professed' terrorist is more likely to in the future cause harm to people, infrastructure and society than a thousand 'innocents', and therefore the question is invalid. And yes, this is how society works. Our legal system will put ten men in jail before they are allowed to murder one person.

 

Shouldn't USA step aside and let China triumph since it has a greater population and thus the benefits of the many (China) outweighs the benefits of a few (USA)?

 

China's survival or prosperity doesn't depend on the defeat or submission of the US as a nation, and therefore this is a completely irrelevant question.

 

I don't mean to be confrontational Eddo, by the use of terms such as irrelevance and logical fallacies - feel free to point out any such errors in my arguments as well. I am using them in the context of logic rather than in context of you as a person or your intelligence.

[Dark_Raven]

Eddo thread

[Humodour]

No one will accept a moral system that does not place their comfort zone at its center.

 

Funny; I doubt the people of China are especially comfortable, on average.

[Guest The Architect]

Indeed.

 

I mean what you're saying is this:

 

USA dudes: "China's gay. Lets kill them in a war, with our guns and stuff."

 

*USA attacks China*

 

USA dudes: "Uh, guys... China have like, way more people than us. We're doomed. What should we do?"

USA dudes: "Well, we're screwed. What can we do? We may as well just roll over and die. Why fight a battle we can't win?"

USA dudes: "True. Well, say bye bye to our country. It's been a pleasure working with you guys. I'll miss you all... except for that Asian guy over there. What a- COME ON GUYS, LETS GET HIM!"

 

*China attacks an America that doesn't fight back*

 

China: "Hahaha. Stupid Americans - they don't even know how to defend themselves!"

 

This thread is ridiculous.

 

And get. Rid. Of. That. Damn. Avatar!

[Tigranes]

No one will accept a moral system that does not place their comfort zone at its center.

 

Our social norms as a system produce our comfort zones. We don't have a set number of 'natural' things we feel comfortable or uncomfortable about in a 'natural' way. The way we live, where we ilve, how we live all determine what our comfort zone is.

 

And guys, you can adblock the avatar.

[Humodour]

And guys, you can adblock the avatar.

 

How? I seem to only have the option to block all Obsidian images (Firefox).

[Tale]

Eddo is a postmodernist.

 

The needs of the many do not outweigh the few. The needs of the many you care about or identify with outweigh the needs of whoever. It may not be logistically or rationally sound, but it need not be. Human beings are not so rational.

[Azarkon]

Funny; I doubt the people of China are especially comfortable, on average.

 

Alot more comfortable than if they were dead, don't you think? The fundamental reason you don't want to submit to a foreign system is that said system will always be twisted to favor its original masters. As terrible as the Chinese leadership may be (and personally, I don't think they're doing that badly, given the circumstances), they're still better than an America that would, when push comes to shove, throw China to the wolves to save itself.

Edited March 5, 2008 by Azarkon

[Walsingham]

Not if the many are very small and thin, and the few are very large and fat.

[Tigranes]

Krezack: Google for a Firefox plug-in that allows you to adblock things.

 

I think Eddo is less of a postmodernist than that Eddo is postmodern.

[Krookie]

More like he has postpartum depression

[Azarkon]

Our social norms as a system produce our comfort zones. We don't have a set number of 'natural' things we feel comfortable or uncomfortable about in a 'natural' way. The way we live, where we ilve, how we live all determine what our comfort zone is.

 

And guys, you can adblock the avatar.

 

I'm not sure about that. It seems to me that there are fundamental comforts and discomforts produced by evolution, and which require substantial conditioning and desensitization to the contrary in order to even begin to overcome. The stigma against murder, for example - even though it's possible to condition a soldier to shoot to kill, there are hosts of psychological problems associated with soldiers who are trained to practice such actions against unarmed civilians (against enemy soldiers, "murder" can be justified as "self-defense"). I see morality as a consequence of these intrinsic factors as much as I see it as the outgrowth of society and culture.