Because it's a useful plot device. ... sorry for the cynical answer. Well, also it makes people like the character. Most people, anyway. Myself included. Because it shows that the person is a warm and human character, who cares about people and who wants them to be well and happy and not about to die. And who will put others above themselves. Because the kind of person who values himself, his comfort, and so on, less than he does other people. Such characters are admired, inspiring, successful. I don't know why, exactly - whether it's because we recognize that this is a good and moral and unselfish person, and we want to be like that, or because we decide this is a person we'd really want to be friends with because we know that person would stick up for us and save us if we needed saving. Or some combination of those. I'm not a great philosopher, but that drive or desire to help others is a trait that we, humans that we are, admire. Maybe, if only we were hyper intelligent, pan-dimensional beings, we could all be ruthless and self-centered and ditch our friends and loved ones at a moment's notice when it suited out convenience.
Well, I suppose it is understandible, but quite frankly, I'm stubborn. Nobody can make me kill an innocent, and I really shouldn't expect others to be as stubborn as I am, though admittedly I do it anyway. Borrowing Tourist's Patton quote, it really is better to make the other poor dumb bastard die for his country. In the situation you describe, I'd probably pretend to go along with the baddies, but then kill them the instant I get a gun. The best way to stop evil is to defy it, even if such effort is futile in the end. That way, future evil knows that if they try to manipulate you, even in victory they will suffer. I'm an admirer of Boudicea, can't you tell? As for your "white tower" concept, yeah, I suppose. But really, isn't anything discussed on a forum pretty much "white tower"? And by discussing such matters while we are safe and sound, we can be in better position to know what to do should the choice come before us. Sort of like discussing drugs with your kid before they grow up.
"I've never killed a man, but I've read many an obituary with a great deal of satisfaction." - Clarence Darrow
I think this is a slightly naive and imaginary concept. I can't speak to all situations, but the one I described it just wouldn't work. Well yes, that is why I said it. However, I am always hesitant in making broad brushstrokes like that. Everyone is struggling with their own imaginary demons and all that. I think hypothetical situations are far different than actually being faced with them.
And that is the most intelligent thing I've read in this post. Any action is the bi-product of nurture (the education of social mores and familial conventions), nature (your nature physical gifts to complete this or any task), your willing adherence to the application of laws, any spiritual conscience, and a personal stake in the outcome. Without a "cost-risk" analysis, even decided in a passing whimsy, there is no action. If you are befuddled or undecided, most people freeze or run. So when MissRis states "in my opinion" she has provided the crux to the argument. You, me, a guy named Marvin who changes my oil and my Aunt Clara have to decide on a the cafeteria slate of possibilities and choose. Davy Crockette chose to be altruistic for the good of his society. Me? I would have packed up my mule and told Santa Ana to shut the lights off when he left. That is my "opinion." And I base it upon the same choices MissRis is making.
Folks. EVERYTHING on this site is an opinion. Some opinions are backed up by factual evidence, some are purely personal preferences. It is not necessary to belabor the point, and it is not appropriate to slap someone in the face with it.
I wasn't using think as an opinion, simply the statement "I think hypothetical" tickled me. I was just teasing you dear.
As others have said already, between choosing a loved one and a million strangers, it'd actually go AGAINST logic to go for the million strangers, even if it does appear more altruistic. My mother would choose me and my sister over a million strangers, guaranteed. I'd choose my family and my husband over a million strangers. They're the ones who have loved me. And how should I repay their love? Oh sorry guys, I'll be really noble and save the strangers. What do I care for the million strangers whom I'll never know, selfish though that sounds? It's only human - you save who you love. It's the ones whom you love that you care about, hurt over, cry over, want to spend your life with. Given that, isn't it natural to wish for your loved one's life more than any other person's? And yes, it's a great plot device... And also, it's like a demonstration of true love. Deep down, we all want someone who would love us so much they'd die for us. And somehow we'd like to believe that such love exists, and we celebrate it when we see this kind of love. When you read a book or watch a film, it's not really the masses you care about - it's the chosen few characters - and therefore we celebrate when we see that this love is real, and that someone we care about benefited from it.
Why must I sacrifice people for only one I love? Because I'm human and selfish. I don't know a million other people that will die by me saving one loved one. I'm not attached to them other than the knowledge that they're living and people. Sure, I'll feel guilty and like a monster afterwards but that knowledge won't stop me from throwing someone else into the frying pan before hand.
To many people, it may seem logical to make the choice that saves the higher number of people. They may believe that strongly. Then, the day comes when they need to save a loved one instead, and they decide to forfeit the lives of many others in exchange. Even taking a bullet for someone. Under normal circumstances, survival is our top priority. Love can defy all logic.
Why must everyone else have to sign on to sacrifice their own lives for some form of politically correct angst? People espouse many differing opinions on society, and even just what portion of society they wish to belong. I chose not to belong to any segment of society that wishes me to sacrifice myself quietly for "the good of mankind." If this portion of society is so valuable, we don't they defend themselves and die for me?
WriterDude, I think the answer to your question if fairly obvious. Most people act on impulse. Additionally, most people are selfish enough that they will do what they think is best for them (and their loved ones) no matter what. Logically, it ALWAYS makes sense (in this hypothetical situation) to choose to save hundreds/ thousands/ millions over one loved one. Any intelligent, thinking being will realize that those hundreds/thousands/millions are all loved ones as well. Emotionally, it might make sense to save your loved one and let/cause all those other loved ones to die. Most people don't think, they react. That's why most people will choose to do the wrong thing. I mean, come on, most people can't even muster the thought to put away their shopping carts or throw their garbage into a trash can. People have stood by while terrible crimes have been committed. Doing the right thing is just too hard for most people.
But that doesn't really address the situation. By assuming that you can avoid both options, you're avoiding, rather than making, the choice. Would you kill them when you got that gun if you knew that the inevitable, unavoidable consequence of doing so was the death of your family? In my case, I agree that the right thing to do is to refuse to kill, and to let my family die. That's what this man should have done - that's my opinion, based on my philosophy and morals. And that's what I should do if faced with the same situation. Is it what I would do? I doubt it. I struggle with the idea that he deserves forgiveness, but I struggle more with the idea that he deserves to be condemned as evil. ChickenFreak
That's never an option. There's an old Sicilian adage, "Regret or reload." I would never play situational ethics with the lives of friends or family. C'mon, there must be space story geeks here. Remember what Starbuck said in BSG? She said, "We fight 'em till we can't."
Only read the first Hunger Games book, but I disagree with your assessment of Katniss. I don't think it was love that made her do the suicide pact thing, but rather defiance. Throughout the book, she's quite clear about how vehemently she hates the whole Hunger Games system, and her desire to do something to wreck the established order. Then they yank her chain by making her think she can save one other person out of all the ones she has to kill or see others kill, only to take that away last minute. At that point, she basically gets fed up, and decides that even if it means she has to die, she refuses to let the system win. It could've been pretty much anyone there with her - the fact that she actually liked the guy was just icing on the cake. Now, her boyfriend, he probably was willing to die for love. If Katniss hadn't decided to buck the system, he probably would've willingly let her kill him so she could win. (Not that he could've taken Katniss anyway.) That reminds me - I really need to read the rest of that series.
I see what you're saying. And yes, I was avoiding the choice. That's the entire point. You can say for the sake of this debate that I need to make a choice between innocents and my family, but real life is far too four-dimensional, and oftentimes when life seems to force you two ways, you need to look for the third. Besides, would the villain really spare my family anyway? Like say how they forcefully draft people into their gangs in Africa. Are they really going to keep up with who comes from what family? They kill when they need stuff, and that could mean killing relatives to somebody they've forced in. Also, just because you do what they say doesn't mean they'll spare your family. There's no need for them to keep their promise once you do what they want. Actually, a self-defense book I read says its very, VERY bad to obey what the guy with the gun tells you. Your best hope for survival is to resist, even though you will probably get hurt.
It seems to me like every plot point boils down to love. Whether it be the acquisition of love, the maintenance of love, protecting love, showing love, the attempt to escape love, etc . Love is motivation for the original question. I'd save my wife over my entire town because I love her, and I don't necessary love Joe Shmoe down at the gas station. It's sad, but true. You fight harder for the people you love.
I think the question is much more suited for your parents, or other parents. Unconditional love is a strange yet powerful thing, and leads people to do some seriously crazy things, sometimes throwing everything aside in the hopes of preserving the one they love. For me, it is a concept one could get lost in. It really has no set explanation. It just is what it is. I think humans are innately drawn to love and compassion. My friend, who is a pysch major, believes every behavior can be explained through this idea he calls, "Nature vs Nurture vs Nurture." We have something that exists naturally that we like, so we nurture whatever that is, and then it becomes a part of us. It becomes such a strong part of our being it eventually transcends that original state and we then achieve the ability of sharing it with those around us, out of love for ourselves and our fellow human. This is probably the reason why 'Love' has been the topic of poets, bards, artists, writers, musicians, ever since the origin of language. It is just one of those things, so powerful, so hard to put to words, so many people have attempted to explain, either the answer or their own experience of its strength. But, in the end, words unfortunately can not do the feeling justice. That does not mean we cannot keep trying. *wink*
