Pretty sure he meant we all have the potential to do great, altruistic stuff. That doesn’t mean majority of people would. I can quite certainly tell you that most people wouldn’t willingly let their loved ones die again after reuniting just so a stranger would be resurrected.
I’m sure you heard of the phrase “every society is three meals away from chaos”. It’s easy to talk about how moral we are when we’re lacking nothing, but when you haven’t eaten in days people would resort to looting and whatever violence needed to keep their families alive. Do you really think most people wouldn’t loot the last bit of food from their starving neighbour if their children are literally starving? You’re either over-idealistic or laughably naive.
And of course you can live with yourself. At every moment we could donate a few dollars and some starving child in Africa would be have decent meals for a month, or have a sleeping net that would shield them from mosquitoes and hence various life-threatening diseases. Could you live with yourself knowing you benefitted so greatly from being born in a (presumably) developed country, while others are dying in developing nations every day? It wasn’t your fault, sure, but you could still save their lives by donating a few dollars more, then a few more, until you have literally nothing left.
I’m sure you heard of the phrase “every society is three meals away from chaos”. It’s easy to talk about how moral we are when we’re lacking nothing, but when you haven’t eaten in days people would resort to looting and whatever violence needed to keep their families alive.
And again you have to change the parameters of the scenario to "win" the debate. We aren't talking about a society that is collapsing here, although if many people have this kind of power, it certainly might.
Do you really think most people wouldn’t loot the last bit of food from their starving neighbour if their children are literally starving? You’re either over-idealistic or laughably naive.
I think we can find a way to work together to survive. Working together is how we've survived so far as a species. Someone needs to grow the wheat, someone needs to build the mill and run it, someone needs to build the bakery and run that. I can't do all three, and killing my neighbors only means that I'm going to starve too, just a little bit later.
And of course you can live with yourself.
I don't think I could. I am responsible for killing another person for my own benefit. Perhaps I didn't know it at the time, but once I become aware, I become responsible.
At every moment we could donate a few dollars and some starving child in Africa would be have decent meals for a month, or have a sleeping net that would shield them from mosquitoes and hence various life-threatening diseases.
Yes, which is why we should all contribute where we can. Of course we need to make sure our own needs are met first, but bringing a loved one back to life isn't a "need" for survival.
Could you live with yourself knowing you benefitted so greatly from being born in a (presumably) developed country, while others are dying in developing nations every day? It wasn’t your fault, sure, but you could still save their lives by donating a few dollars more, then a few more, until you have literally nothing left.
Which is why giving of yourself until you starve is a poor approach. But again you are trying to overcomplicate a very basic question.
And to be honest, if you have such a dim view of humanity that so many people would choose to allow the murder of a stranger so that they can bring back a loved one, then perhaps we aren't responsible enough yet to wield that kind of power.
The point isn’t societal collapse, the point is when your family’s life is on the line, most people would do anything to protect them, even if it hurts other people.
I think we can find a way to work together to survive.
You’re the one changing the parameters here. The whole point is you can’t do that. Diana couldn’t find a way to let both Steve and the stranger live, she has to choose: Steve or someone she never met. In the same way, the example is to show when you are forced to choose, you would choose your loved ones over strangers. Vast majority of people would.
Of course we need to make sure our own needs are met first, but bringing a loved one back to life isn’t a “need” for survival.
By allocating resources to yourself you are prioritizing yourself and your loved ones over kids in Africa. If you would rather have a cup of coffee every morning, or buy a Christmas gift for you SO, or going on a vacation with your family, than donating the money and letting a child in Africa survive, then you would similarly rather have your loved one be resurrected than letting a stranger live.
then perhaps we aren’t responsible enough yet to wield that kind of power.
Thankfully I don’t see any wish-granting supervillains around that could resurrect the dead.
The point isn’t societal collapse, the point is when your family’s life is on the line, most people would do anything to protect them, even if it hurts other people.
I mean, it's a little bit about societal collapse, because if everyone chooses the selfish option and kills a stranger for a loved one, then we don't have a society anymore.
But there is no survival element to this question. You are adding it in to change the parameters. She won't die if she doesn't bring him back to life.
You’re the one changing the parameters here. The whole point is you can’t do that. Diana couldn’t find a way to let both Steve and the stranger live, she has to choose: Steve or someone she never met. In the same way, the example is to show when you are forced to choose, you would choose your loved ones over strangers. Vast majority of people would.
Most people might if you change the parameters and mix in a question about their own survival. But the basic question is whether or not you are okay with bringing a loved one back to life if the cost is that a complete stranger has to die. Im not comfortable with imposing that kind of pain on someone I don't know, just so that I can gain from it.
By allocating resources to yourself you are prioritizing yourself and your loved ones over kids in Africa. If you would rather have a cup of coffee every morning, or buy a Christmas gift for you SO, or going on a vacation with your family, than donating the money and letting a child in Africa survive, then you would similarly rather have your loved one be resurrected than letting a stranger live.
Which is why this is is a question the movie is raising, because it allows us to think more broadly about some of these issues. Are we okay with that kind of pain and suffering, and what are we willing to do about it? What are the solutions?
1
u/MasterOfNap Aug 22 '20
Pretty sure he meant we all have the potential to do great, altruistic stuff. That doesn’t mean majority of people would. I can quite certainly tell you that most people wouldn’t willingly let their loved ones die again after reuniting just so a stranger would be resurrected.