A Question
#1
I couldn't fall asleep last night and got thinking about a question I was asked a few months ago. So I decided to see what you all thought about it. So here it is.


A man is carrying a torch. He doesn't know anything about the torch, except that he needs to get it to its destination. But you know that the torch represents the suffering, pain, violence, disease--all the bad things in the world. You know that if the torch gets to its destination, the world will continue how it is now. However, if you put out the flame of the torch, all the bad things in the world will end for 200 years. But if you put out the flame of the torch, the carrier of the torch will die. You have a choice--keep the flame and let the world continue how it is, or put out the flame, which would kill the carrier, and have 200 years of 'paradise'.


I'm gonna go get some water, but what would you do? :drink:
Don't do nothing.
Reply
#2
The whole philosophy behind warfare is that some people have to die to buy some peace for a while for the rest of us. Not eternal peace and not the solution to all problems but just an improvement for a limited period of time.

The majority consensus would be, that war is justified. Maybe not every war in every situation, but there do exist situations where it is justified.

So from this consuensus I would assume that it is acceptable to let the man die to save the rest of us from a lot of problems, even if it is only for a limited period of time.

People die in other situations as well. For example there are accidents leading to death on construction sites, in mining, in industry, on the road etc. Do we ban these activities because of that? No, the price of a couple of deaths is considered worthwhile for the advanatges we gain from these activities.
Reply
#3
I believe that the torch bearer should be aloud to reach his destination, for conflict is what speeds the evolution of the human race.
Reply
#4
Putting the torch out would be for the greater good. The death of one is well out weighed by the welfare of the entire human race.
Reply
#5
Well I have a resolution. Make the torch carrier put it down and run away. Therefore he is no-longer the torch carrier, then put out the flame.
Shorey for England!
Reading fans


RoCk On SnOw PaTrOl

- Kwik Silva 44
Reply
#6
Won't work, s/he is prob cursed, s/he can Give the torch to someone else, or put it out, but can not 'abandon' the responsbility.

Put out the torch- (and it has nothing to do with 'the life of the one vs the life of the many!! That's been used to justify too much violence, oh, 150 people can die, so this village of 2000 can go on. ) YOU are responsible for bringing good to the world, even if it cost you, otherwise what's the point.
Reply
#7
Fazza Wrote:Putting the torch out would be for the greater good. The death of one is well out weighed by the welfare of the entire human race.

Question: What if you are the torch-bearer?

Would you willingly sacrifice yourself for the greater good?
All your base are belong to us.

It could be that the purpose of my life is only to serve as a warning to others.
Reply
#8
Well, the good of the many outweigh the good of the few, or one. (Thank you, Spock)

So I think it is acceptable for one person to die if it meant the scores of people who die because of war and conflict every day would be saved.

As to RR's question, if I knew that the arrangement was iron-clad, and that the world would be rid of pain and suffering for 200 years, yeah, I'd like to think I'd have it in me to die willingly.
Reply
#9
Boomstick Wrote:As to RR's question, if I knew that the arrangement was iron-clad, and that the world would be rid of pain and suffering for 200 years, yeah, I'd like to think I'd have it in me to die willingly.

Even if i knew it was an iron-clad deal, I'm not certain I would seal it, with a kiss, handshake or other. It's not that I'm opposed to doing something worthwhile with my life that might have an impact on others. Rather, I'm not so keen to trade my life for that of the general populace of the planet.

Certain individuals, perhaps.

The whole crying, mewling mass of humanity, not so much.

Add to that the fact that removing pain and suffering, to some extent, would require the removal of individual freedom and choice, and I'm less inclined to throw myself off the cliff with the other lemmings, no matter how utopic the next two centuries will be. And before someone chimes in and claims I'm dooming everyone, recall that the question at hand only has people continuing as they are now. They are no more doomed before my decision than they are after it.

Life without choice does not seem worth the living.
All your base are belong to us.

It could be that the purpose of my life is only to serve as a warning to others.
Reply
#10
As much as I would like to say the good of the many, etc, there still remains personal freedom. If we kill the one person, the effect of our putting out the torch, then we lose some of our humanity. He has as much right to life as the masses. We have no right to kill him, even if it saves many. Otherwise, what happens when somebody decides that we need to be killed- say our liver is needed to save a town. Where is the line drawn. Maybe we need to kill Uncle Joe because he is living in an apartment that could house a dozen people instead. Maybe we need to kill Harold because he is overweight and eats more that most people and his share would feed a number of other people. The torch carrier is a person and is precious.
Reply
#11
Arcadia Wrote:As much as I would like to say the good of the many, etc, there still remains personal freedom. If we kill the one person, the effect of our putting out the torch, then we lose some of our humanity. He has as much right to life as the masses. We have no right to kill him, even if it saves many. Otherwise, what happens when somebody decides that we need to be killed- say our liver is needed to save a town. Where is the line drawn. Maybe we need to kill Uncle Joe because he is living in an apartment that could house a dozen people instead. Maybe we need to kill Harold because he is overweight and eats more that most people and his share would feed a number of other people. The torch carrier is a person and is precious.

Good Point. Here's what I think.

I believe the saving of however many lives doesn't justify the taking of the torch carrier's life. Killing someone is not the way to base 200 years of no violence and suffering on.

Here are some other points I came up with:

There are better ways to create world peace/take away the suffering of the world, than putting out the torch. Putting out the torch is the easy way out, and that never seems to be a long-term solution.

What of the torch-carrier's individual life? The torch-carrier isn't a number, it's a real person. What if this person was the inventor of something that would help reduce poverty, or perhaps the politician that would steer the world to world peace?

What happens after the 200 years? We put ourselves in that cage of paradise, and 200 years later, we'd be released back into the wild. Would we remember how to survive?


Thanks for all your responses this has been interesting

:blow: <---(a guy blowing out the torch oh no!)
Don't do nothing.
Reply
#12
Well, since I've thought about it now I agree with keeping the torch bearer alive.
Reply

MYCode Guide

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  question about PDF Coconut Ent 5 571 February 3rd, 2010, 10:57 AM
Last Post: RobRoy
  Hypothetical Question... suncrafter 4 481 September 18th, 2007, 10:48 PM
Last Post: Captiang
  mp3 player / fm transmitter question anon123 16 728 September 19th, 2005, 09:02 PM
Last Post: Coconut Ent
  A physics question Nimruzir 7 599 August 24th, 2005, 04:01 AM
Last Post: shadowfax
  post a question and answer... whizz 1 408 August 1st, 2005, 12:33 PM
Last Post: RobRoy
  Just a question Helena_88 4 526 March 19th, 2005, 09:17 PM
Last Post: Steve Faust
  senseless rant (or rather, question) Ahaiel 92 3,593 February 7th, 2005, 03:12 PM
Last Post: RobRoy
  Please help with Scots Gaelic question if you can MacPhee 4 535 January 4th, 2005, 05:28 PM
Last Post: MacPhee
  Language question moif 32 1,273 July 30th, 2004, 05:05 PM
Last Post: Kwik silver 44
  Website question RobRoy 6 429 July 15th, 2004, 04:20 PM
Last Post: Marie

Forum Jump: