Does the end justify the means? v.2

[Ad Victoriam]

The last conversation I was trying to start included too many complicated themes, so I decided to simplify it in a way that hopefully gets to the root of the situation.

I'm going to use that cliché "Trolley Problem", if you aren't aware of what I mean then check this link for more information:

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2016/08/trolley-problem-meme-tumblr-philosophy.html
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Let's say there's 1 Satanist on one side and 5 random non-Satanists on the other.

As far as I'm concerned 1 Satanist is worth more than 5 random people. Out of 8 billion people 95% of them are "religious", most being xian or muslim. Out of scarcity alone a Satanist is more valuable, even if we didn't define being a Satanist further and included every delusional variation of it. I don't know the percentage of people who are Satanists, but for sake of argument I'll say 1 million people.

8 billion (~ total population) divided by 1 million = 8000, meaning through this we can determine that only after 8000 non-Satanists would we even consider not favoring the Satanist. This equation is simplified extremely but I'm fine with this being a very rough default. Basically, I'm willing to prioritize a Satanist higher than a normie on the basis of their potential of achieving higher sentience, even if most actually won't. This is the same argument that values human life above other animals, and justifies killing billions of them so we can eat meat (which I also approve of). The default valuation is definitely wrong in some cases but I'm willing to stand by it. Rationally, there's other factors at play like a high functioning normie doctor vs a lazy satanist that doesn't meditate at all or contribute to anything. In this case there would need to be a more in-depth valuation.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Some people might argue that the trolley problem isn't realistic, but the general theme definitely is. The point of the trolley problem is to ask ourselves what the value of a life is if death is guaranteed. The same theme could be applied to war, famine, disease and just about any other disaster and crisis.

Yes this value is based in money as well, for example you wouldn't crash the global economy to save the life of one person, right? The global economy crashing would result in the death of thousands at least, so a human life must have a currency value. One way to calculate this would be to determine how objectively expendable they are--- an unemployed welfare recipient wouldn't be as valuable as a nation's leader for example. Another way would be to calculate the value of their organs and whether someone is willing to buy them or if they can be used to save other people's lives--- if the body isn't completely destroyed they could save multiple lives through organ transplants.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Additional Notes: Keep in mind that given the same question, most people would likely place "Satanic Neo Nazi" at the very bottom of their "priority to save" list, definitely far below things like beloved pet and terminally ill cancer patient.

HS

 

[Hp. Hoodedcobra666]

All of this makes little sense considering you aren't holding the lever of the trolley in that problem, but life does.

By all means, Spiritual Satanists are also divided in their categories, but the primary interest of growth sets a person certainly apart than many people who never even cared of this.

 

[Ad Victoriam]

All of this makes little sense considering you aren't holding the lever of the trolley in that problem, but life does.

By all means, Spiritual Satanists are also divided in their categories, but the primary interest of growth sets a person certainly apart than many people who never even cared of this.

I'm fabricating a situation where the choice can be made. The same concept can be applied to other things, for example prioritization of rescuing someone and giving them medical treatment, or who should receive organs and who shouldn't. In war a soldier might have to make a decision to shoot a kid with a grenade or allow his squad to be slaughtered. Inevitably, there are many cases where someone has to make a choice. One that might be more relatable is whether your time spent here is actually contributing in a meaningful way, compared to whatever an alternative might be. We make critical choices everyday, and not making a choice is still a choice. Life in this sense sets the stage and limitations, not necessarily deciding between A or B. Even if a person made a choice that wasn't possible to do, they'd still fail to do it and assert some level of liberty in their life.

 

[Blitzkreig [JG]]

I'm fabricating a situation where the choice can be made. The same concept can be applied to other things, for example prioritization of rescuing someone and giving them medical treatment, or who should receive organs and who shouldn't. In war a soldier might have to make a decision to shoot a kid with a grenade or allow his squad to be slaughtered. Inevitably, there are many cases where someone has to make a choice. One that might be more relatable is whether your time spent here is actually contributing in a meaningful way, compared to whatever an alternative might be. We make critical choices everyday, and not making a choice is still a choice. Life in this sense sets the stage and limitations, not necessarily deciding between A or B. Even if a person made a choice that wasn't possible to do, they'd still fail to do it and assert some level of liberty in their life.

HPHC had made the above point because the situations in which you describe, despite being hypothetical, do influence the answer, or at least what would happen in actuality, rather than whatever conclusion we make here on the forums.

At the same time, I understand you trying to answer a specific question, despite of the scenarios given. The answer is that yes, Satanists should be prioritized, as should any higher value people. However, how this actually plays out relies on the scenario itself. That is why you got a different answer within the other thread.

The question is really "What can we do for the most benefit to humanity?" Sometimes that involves prioritizing an SS life, but this may not be the case in situations where it is only money in exchange for severe, drug-induced damage. That is because this would create more overall damage than it would resolve. So the answer is like yes, but not always.

 

[Henu the Great]

" post_id=440889 time=1683361686 user_id=21286]
HPHC had made the above point because the situations in which you describe, despite being hypothetical, do influence the answer, or at least what would happen in actuality, rather than whatever conclusion we make here on the forums.

At the same time, I understand you trying to answer a specific question, despite of the scenarios given. The answer is that yes, Satanists should be prioritized, as should any higher value people. However, how this actually plays out relies on the scenario itself. That is why you got a different answer within the other thread.

The question is really "What can we do for the most benefit to humanity?" Sometimes that involves prioritizing an SS life, but this may not be the case in situations where it is only money in exchange for severe, drug-induced damage. That is because this would create more overall damage than it would resolve. So the answer is like yes, but not always.

The answer is 'maybe'. As a practical example see the principle behind binary computers versus quantun computers.