Emotional Bias

[FunkyIce]

Emotional Bias​

This is just a little thing that has been floating around at the back of my head for a couple of days. 99% of the population would most probably kill a number of strangers to save a loved one, such as a mother of father. I would personally kill 3 strangers to save my mother, there is no doubt about it. But in my act of killing a complete stranger, you have already placed more value on one life over another. As you so easily decide that your loved one has value, so too can the stranger place more value on his loved ones. It’s a conflicting situation. Everyone places value on one life over another. As I see it, you have no right to place more value for a loved one than a stranger. If you were placed in the situation where you had to decide between a loved one and two strangers being killed, you should in fact place the two stranger’s lives over your loved ones life. So a stranger has as much value as your loved one. So when we immediately place value on a loved one, is that emotional greed?

Is there anything I am overlooking?
Your comments………………..

 

[SilentEyz]

Emotional Bias​

​

This is just a little thing that has been floating around at the back of my head for a couple of days. 99% of the population would most probably kill a number of strangers to save a loved one, such as a mother of father. I would personally kill 3 strangers to save my mother, there is no doubt about it. But in my act of killing a complete stranger, you have already placed more value on one life over another. As you so easily decide that your loved one has value, so too can the stranger place more value on his loved ones. It’s a conflicting situation. Everyone places value on one life over another. As I see it, you have no right to place more value for a loved one than a stranger. If you were placed in the situation where you had to decide between a loved one and two strangers being killed, you should in fact place the two stranger’s lives over your loved ones life. So a stranger has as much value as your loved one. So when we immediately place value on a loved one, is that emotional greed?

Is there anything I am overlooking?
Your comments………………..

I think your missing, Why are we killing one over another. You said as is the case of a mother or father. We do not randomly choose that to go out and kill someone, But if they Threaten or are a danger then, no their life has no value, and I would not change that opinion.

And when it comes to that, If put in a situation I think it could be a complete stranger, who is being harmed by another stranger, I could still decide that one life has more value then the others.

 

[lemon]

Emotional Bias​

​

This is just a little thing that has been floating around at the back of my head for a couple of days. 99% of the population would most probably kill a number of strangers to save a loved one, such as a mother of father. I would personally kill 3 strangers to save my mother, there is no doubt about it. But in my act of killing a complete stranger, you have already placed more value on one life over another. As you so easily decide that your loved one has value, so too can the stranger place more value on his loved ones. It’s a conflicting situation. Everyone places value on one life over another. As I see it, you have no right to place more value for a loved one than a stranger. If you were placed in the situation where you had to decide between a loved one and two strangers being killed, you should in fact place the two stranger’s lives over your loved ones life. So a stranger has as much value as your loved one. So when we immediately place value on a loved one, is that emotional greed?

Is there anything I am overlooking?
Your comments………………..

the item of which you are greatly overlooking is this fact: they have already determined that the life of your mother has a lesser value of theirs. so that infact drops the value of their lives completely to zero. thus, enabling you to kill them without regret, providing you are using the death as a way to prevent death to a person with a more valualbe value to society.

 

[FunkyIce]

Thanks for the comments, but I don’t think I got my point across as clearly as I intended.
In this hypothetical scenario the strangers are not attackers or trying harm to your loved one. The strangers are merely innocent people. You, in this scenario, have to decide between two innocent strangers(you have no emotional connection to the strangers) and a loved one. What I am trying to say is that you have no right to think your loved one has more value.

 

[Peter Parka]

In what situation would you have to chose between the life of a loved one or the lives of two innocent strangers, anyway?

 

[FunkyIce]

In what situation would you have to chose between the life of a loved one or the lives of two innocent strangers, anyway?

Its a hypothetical scenario. The point of the scenario is to analyze what a persons reaction to the situation would be. It does not really matter if it would ever happen, the point is to see how a person would react.

 

[SilentEyz]

So your thinking if we are in a situation where we are forced to take the life of another, and the options presented to us are that of a loved one and 2 strangers.

This is definatly a hard place to try and imagine what you would do, because yes obviously it would be impossible to take the life of the one you love, it is not about saying the life has more value, it is simply, an emotional standing.

Secondly I believe that most people would find themselves unable to choose one life over another without good cause, ( life depending situation) I think they would find it hard to choose that any life.. the strangers or their loved ones life is of more of less value, that they could just take a life without consideration.

 

[lemon]

well, considering i didnt get the situation... i cant answer, because i still dont know what situation we are speaking of...

 

[Kat]

so basically in saying ...to make things clearer...say you were in the middle of a robbery and the robbers told you you had to choose...either kill your loved one or 2 strangers.... it is hard to imagine even if it was more clear of a situation...

still how can anyone be expected to choose the life of 2 strangers over someone they loved? ...it is an impossible situation

 

[FunkyIce]

The point is very simple, emotional attatchment to someone can warp your view on a situation. Emotional attachment can lead to a person making a bad judgement. Very often, hypothetical scenarios will never happen, but these scenarios are created to analyze a situation. Emotion places value on life, just as I would go out of my way to save a loved one. I know I would choose my loved one in this situation and I am sure many people would do the same thing, but you still dont have the right to place more value on your loved one. I cant really express myself any clearer.

 

[OUZBnd]

FunkyIce: I understand what you are saying.

 

[Kat]

FunkyIce i understnad what you'e saying...that just because we are chosing between our loved one and 2 strangers... you say we have no right to decide that our loved one is worth 2 lives... but thats just it.... THEY are our loved one.... of course most people would choose the loved one over 2 strangers.... its a little thing called "being human" ...maybe it's wrong but thats life. It doesnt mean that you wont feel bad about the choice...or hate yourself for making it (maybe) ... but still when it comes down to it... your loved one means more to you...

 

[OUZBnd]

It is true in a big picture, no one persons life should be more valuable than any one elses. But the fact is when comparing people we look at it only from our own perspective. And in that case, your loved ones life is in fact more valuable to you than a strangers.Ultimately it comes down to what you want for yourself.

 

[FunkyIce]

FunkyIce i understnad what you'e saying...that just because we are chosing between our loved one and 2 strangers... you say we have no right to decide that our loved one is worth 2 lives... but thats just it.... THEY are our loved one.... of course most people would choose the loved one over 2 strangers.... its a little thing called "being human" ...maybe it's wrong but thats life. It doesnt mean that you wont feel bad about the choice...or hate yourself for making it (maybe) ... but still when it comes down to it... your loved one means more to you...

Yes, you are then emotionally bias towards your loved one.

 

[OUZBnd]

Not to mention, the law also upholds the thought of emotional bias. Except in special circumstances, no one is required to aid another in peril. The law refuses to recognize the moral obligation to come to anothers aid whos life may be in danger.

For example, if I see a stangers baby stroller rolling slowly down a hill where at the end is a cliff, and inevitably the baby will die if it rolls over the cliff, I am under no Legal Duty to Act to save the baby.

Now to uphold your theory of emotional bias... If I am the father, or baby sitter of that baby, I am under a legal duty to act to save the baby. If I fail to do so then I would be held accountable for not taking action.

 

[greenman]

Another thing to think about is who the loved one is. For instance if there were two innocent children that where the stranger and your 80 year old grandma that you loved, i'd choose her because the two children have there whole lives in front of them. It would in no way be an easy decision of corse but I think that maybe because of some in-built mechanism in the human brain which is for the survival of the human race you would find it easier to save the life of the two children or maybe I'm just chatting shit.

I am there emotionaly biased towards the children. But if it was my dad or mum against two children it would be even harder for me to decide, although the outcome would probably be the children.

 

[sexyscott]

hi r u online n cn we cht plz

 

[sexyscott]

Another thing to think about is who the loved one is. For instance if there were two innocent children that where the stranger and your 80 year old grandma that you loved, i'd choose her because the two children have there whole lives in front of them. It would in no way be an easy decision of corse but I think that maybe because of some in-built mechanism in the human brain which is for the survival of the human race you would find it easier to save the life of the two children or maybe I'm just chatting shit.

I am there emotionaly biased towards the children. But if it was my dad or mum against two children it would be even harder for me to decide, although the outcome would probably be the children.

hi r u online if u r cn we cht plz

 

[lemon]

Thanks for the comments, but I don’t think I got my point across as clearly as I intended.
In this hypothetical scenario the strangers are not attackers or trying harm to your loved one. The strangers are merely innocent people. You, in this scenario, have to decide between two innocent strangers(you have no emotional connection to the strangers) and a loved one. What I am trying to say is that you have no right to think your loved one has more value.

ok. now i see the issue. or the hypothetical one at best..

first off - you do not get to tell me what is my right, and what is not my right. and by me telling you, i have just violated it, but i needed to tell you anyways.

secondly, there is always a best option, of which may not be the choices given. in this case, it would also depend on the environment, and the weapon used to kill. should that weapon be a hand gun, point it straight back at the person giving you the choice. turn the situation around. plus, debating is also another option. always appeal to the good side of the person, no matter how minute the chance that the person presenting you the choices actually has a good side. hell, just ask for time to make the wrong decision, just like the person who gave you the choice did.

moral - there is no moral to this story. there is nothing to be gleaned from any point in this discussion. except there are more choices than those given.

 

[FunkyIce]

ok. now i see the issue. or the hypothetical one at best..

first off - you do not get to tell me what is my right, and what is not my right. and by me telling you, i have just violated it, but i needed to tell you anyways.

secondly, there is always a best option, of which may not be the choices given. in this case, it would also depend on the environment, and the weapon used to kill. should that weapon be a hand gun, point it straight back at the person giving you the choice. turn the situation around. plus, debating is also another option. always appeal to the good side of the person, no matter how minute the chance that the person presenting you the choices actually has a good side. hell, just ask for time to make the wrong decision, just like the person who gave you the choice did.

moral - there is no moral to this story. there is nothing to be gleaned from any point in this discussion. except there are more choices than those given.

Nowhere in my posts have I indicated that in this scenario there is a man giving you a handgun, telling you to choose. I think you got this scenario from a post by another member. Do you understand that you have just redefined what the situation is? By you allowing all these other options to flow in, you have crafted the situation, allowing other decisions and then trying to attack my argument. As I have said previously, there is the choice between a loved one and two strangers. There is only that choice and nothing else. In this way, the choice can be made clearly.

Onto the issue of what your rights are, I can clearly say that you don’t have the right to place value on a single loved one over a number of people. Yes, I know people that would do far worse than kill two people to save a loved one.

And the point: Emotional attachment can lead you to make bad decisions