Ethical Proposition By A Bunch Of Aliens (from one of my philo classes)

So, a bunch of aliens come along and tell us this:

We are beings from another dimension. In case you're wondering, we are the ones who created the comos in which you live. We can destroy it instantly or let it continue on as is. Your choice."

We ask, "What, then, is the choice?"

"Just give us an 8 year old girl who we'll make immortal and we'll give you back your cosmos."

"What will you do with her? Whatever we want. Primarily, we enjoy torture. We'll torture her till the end of time. If you won't do that, we'll bring everything you know to an abrupt end. What is your choice?"

How would you analyze this? The greatest good for the greatest number or what?

Views: 780

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Because for some reason we see girls as more sensitive and helpless than boys. It's a stereotype, but it's a strong one, and the question was to designed to act on such sentimental feelings. 

Which raises the question of whether it's really a stereotype if it's generally true? Girls generally are smaller, less strong, and more sensitive than their male counterparts, although not so much at a very young age.

Girls have a higher pain tolerance than males if I'm not mistaken....

Yahweh should know. :)

yes :D

I disagree wholeheartedly. Young boys are equally vulnerable when exposed to pain and suffering. 

You're not disagreeing with ME. You're disagreeing with the stereotype.

And young boys are more fun...just ask a catholic priest...:0

Blink of an eye we are done. Living with another humans known torture lasts forever. Pretty easy really. We would always be at the mercy of the aliens. Let them blink us and themselves out of existance.

Allow me to employ a debating technique I will call: the twitter technique...

We are beings from another dimension.


we are the ones who created the comos


We can destroy it instantly or let it continue on as is.


The philosophical question is irrelevant until the accuracy of the original statements can be shown.

But then no hypotheticals could exist. How does that prepare you for adecision when the proof is supplied? I didn't want to take the question as incomplete I want to take the question as already proven. There is no need for the answer or the question without taking the question as fact. And since proof is not required for the answer of no who needs proof? A better answer is not to answer at all. Any given deadline or reponsiblity is null at that point. All humanities progress is completely worthless when derived by fear. We are better off being obliterated.

One cannot ask for proof they created and can destroy the universe. It's kind of a Pascal's Wager. If you call their bluff and they aren't who they say they are, you can have a laugh at their expense. If it turns out they are who they say they are...goodbye universe!


© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service