"Save a life at all costs" is a dangerous philosophy, is it not?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maxirad
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Maxirad

Guest
Is it not? Aren’t various world leaders blinded by this philosophy?
 
Cruciferi said:
Care to elaborate…?
Click to expand...
From what I’ve been told, leaders blinded by the “save a life at all costs” philosophy can’t see the big picture because they don’t believe in it. Leaders blinded by the “save a life at all costs philosophy” are that way because this life is all so many leaders have.
 
I tend to think so. And I think a good example of it is the American response to 9/11.

3k Americans died. As a result, we destroyed two country’s in an effort to prevent future terror attacks and in doing so almost 100k civilians dead in both countries.

Even if we had one 9/11 scale terror attack every year from 2001 onward there’d have been less than death than occurred. And I didn’t even count the number of US soldiers or enemy combatants killed.

Protecting life is a noble goal, but often when it becomes the only goal you lose sight of a bigger picture.
 
Last edited:
“Save a life at all costs” is a dangerous philosophy, is it not?
Maxirad said:
Aren’t various world leaders blinded by this philosophy?
Click to expand...
I’m not aware that any world leaders have adopted this philosophy, let alone that they are blinded by it.

Care to elaborate?
 
Last edited:
I can think of several ways that world leaders are avoiding measures that could save many lives. Abolishing cigarettes is the first that comes to mind. That kills about 7 million per year worldwide.
 
Yes, I had already read that.

Tell me, is this thread about pandemic response?
 
Well, I write this with dismay not knowing if the mods will let it go through. What is rational is often times not moral and moral isn’t the opposite of rational but exists outside the dichotomy of rational and irrational.

So, yes, it is rational to follow unbridled self-interest even if it is at the expense of others, Utilitarianism. But as a moral Catholic with religious leaning following philosophers like Hegel, I don’t find it admirable, advisable, or enviable to live such a way. I can’t teach morality to others or why it is the best path, to honor all life and their integrity and sanctity, but I can put the message out there for other moral people to see and be relieved there are still moral people in the world who are not irrational and don’t believe rational is a goal.

Basic thought: Spock isn’t ideal, he is not presented as a happy man who can enjoy the fullness of life and all it’s creations without a need to control it with logic. I don’t envy or find Spock admirable.
 
Last edited:
Could you be a whole lot more specific than this thread prompt?

What, specifically, are you arguing against?

Some perceived global movement to ban cigarettes, alcohol and human-manned cars?

The phenomenon of expending healthcare resources on transplanting organs for those who need them? I’m in favour of organ transplants, personally.

Or are you arguing some specific pandemic response thing, in which case why not make a thread about that – or if you have, leave the discussion on that thread?
 
Last edited:
Some elaboration or examples you have in mind would be helpful
 
Beryllos said:
Tell me, is this thread about pandemic response?
Click to expand...
It essentially is about pandemic response.
MNathaniel said:
Could you be a whole lot more specific than this thread prompt?

What, specifically, are you arguing against?

Some perceived global movement to ban cigarettes, alcohol and human-manned cars?

The phenomenon of expending healthcare resources on transplanting organs for those who need them? I’m in favour of organ transplants, personally.

Or are you arguing some specific pandemic response thing, in which case why not make a thread about that – or if you have, leave the discussion on that thread?
Click to expand...
Well, MNathaniel, do you think the coronavirus-related lockdowns in the United States have gone too far?
 
Last edited:
As I see it, the governments in the US (federal, state, local) are not operating in a “save a life at any cost” mode.

They have been trying all along to work out how much we can open up economic and social activities without COVID-19 cases rising beyond what our health care system can handle.

It’s not going smoothly because too many Americans are stubborn and willful and not following the good and appropriate advice given to them.

Now COVID-19 cases are on the rise, and that’s why we’re considering greater restrictions.

A few countries are doing much better: Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea, Thailand. What are they doing that we could be doing?
 
Last edited:
From the Talmud: “He who saves a single life, saves the world entire.”
 
Are you replying to something in this thread? I’m not seeing a connection.

I see what you’re saying. There is probably a discussion on that topic here at CAF.
 
Last edited:
I not sure of this topic, i only just joined, i will search other topics. God bless
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top