Are American lives worth more than other lives?

[NoCalMike]

Ok well as far as moral relatism goes, I think it is only natural to feel a little more sorrow for folks that you know, connect with on a daily basis, and yes perhaps who are merely from the same country as you. The reason my original reply was talking about it being a loaded question, was because I figured that the question was asked as a result of the war we have been engaged in for the past few years, that was my mistake.

Also, Blue Talon, yes we still do bomb cities,(fallejua (sp?)) and no I don't think we purposely target civilians, but that also doesn't mean we necessarily honestly potray how many we have killed from Shock & Awe and the Occupation following Shock & Awe which we are currently still engaged in, not to mention getting an accurate account of what these huge bombs actually do when they are dropped, pertaining to the devastation they cause. We only hear how many casualties there happens to be.

[Ghost of]

Mike, I know we dropped bombs IN Fallujah, but do people actually think we levelled the place? Far from it.

But in a war, it is WASTEFUL to overvalue the lives of those who are not your countrymen, SPECIFICALLY your soldiers. That's a good way for a democratic nation to lose a war via slow bleeding. THe enemy in the last half century has embraced our love of life and value EVEN FOR THE ENEMY to the detriment of achieving our military and political objectives in a particular conflict.

Sometimes, I think it's sinful that Marines die to preserve the lives of people who are often collaborating (or will not rise up) against those who bomb schools and kill dozens of children for being Shi'a or talking to an American soldier.

Not all 'civilians' are created equal(even if intrinsically they do all have the same value.) One also has to weigh the culture and civilization from which those people originate. I'd rather protect Australians, Americans, Israelis and Iraqis who are working to build a better future than give a rat's behind for a Mein Kampf reading terrorist.

[BlueTalon]

Mike, I read accounts from one of the embedded reporters about our soldiers taking sniper fire from a mosque, and not returning fire because it was coming from a mosque. We are the only military I know of in history that was feeding the enemy civilians not only during the fighting in Afghanistan, but before the fighting had even reached them!

We pay a tremendously high price in lives and money to be the good guys. We are the good guys. It would be a lot cheaper and easier to bomb a city like Falujah flat than to send Marines in door to door. As a Marine, I'd like to see more of my fellow Marines survive, but we pay the price to make the smallest possible impact on the civilian population.

I'm sure some (if not most) of that food we provided to the Afghan civilians ended up in the hands and mouths of the people fighting us -- so it would have been a lot easier and better for our guys to not have done it.

It would have been a lot easier to simply flatten a mosque from which snipers are firing -- and supported by the Geneva Convention, as well. And I'm glad we finally changed our policy to be less hands-off in that regard.

But the point here is that we bent over backward, lost lives we didn't have to lose and spent money we didn't have to spend, to protect the civilian population.

As opposed to the terrorists, who specifically target them.

If you don't see that, it's because you choose not to.

[smsmith40]

Sorry, been to Germany (East and West) England, Scotland, Belgium, Spain, Switzeralnd, Austria, France, Italy Denmark and Sweden. Whether they admit it or not, America is the envy of Europe

Maybe I'm in denial but honestly Sarge I'm happy where I am. I've been to the US for work and fun, I think its great. I've always worked for American corporations, with Americans, for Americans. I know colleagues who have went to the US and worked there for years and really enjoyed it.

But when it came time for me to be offered the chance to do the same I just came to the decision that I liked it better here in the UK.

[BlueTalon]

Originally posted by smsmith40

Maybe I'm in denial but honestly Sarge I'm happy where I am. I've been to the US for work and fun, I think its great. I've always worked for American corporations, with Americans, for Americans. I know colleagues who have went to the US and worked there for years and really enjoyed it.

But when it came time for me to be offered the chance to do the same I just came to the decision that I liked it better here in the UK.

For what it's worth, I don't think you're in denial at all. Most of the rest of the world tends to be more liberal, socially speaking, than here. People who don't like the idea of commoners carrying guns, for example, will definitely prefer to live in a place like the UK (until and unless they ever find they have a need for such a practice themselves, then they won't be quite as happy. But as those people will likely always be in the minority, chances of those policies ever changing are slim.)

I don't blame you a bit for wanting to gravitate towards places and people who share your values. That's one of the reasons I'm in Texas.

Anyhow, I wish you the best in the UK. (If I ever make it over there, you can buy me a beer! )

[Baculus]

I think it comes to tribalism - most folks tend to protect, or choose, their tribe, the ones they know, over others. Now, that being said, that does not mean it's an absolute either. Within our own "tribe," there are also groups that we tend to favor: the rich sometimes look out or have more symthpathy for the rich, and the same for the poor. And I feel that goes for many groups, whether it's political, social, or race. This is important, since I believe some groups in this nation have little interest or loyalty to this "tribe." And without any sense of loyalty, we're just a random band of strangers with no cohesion.

That being said, and in the same vein, I believe that human life is important, and I am not ignorant or uninterested in the suffering or others, or what my tribal leader does in the name of my tribe.

It's a tough and complex question when you say "value" - but since Americans are my immediate neighbor, my countrymen, and the ones whose culture I share, along with the fact my family has been in this nation and fighting for it since the 1700's, then the honest answer has to be yes. And I would expect most folks in their resptive countries would answer the same way.

[NavyDave]

Would I go out of my way to save a god fearing patriotic american?

Heck yeah

Would I do the same for a hate spewing anti american foreign national?

No.

Of course we are the envy of the world and having lived abroad you could say england is an option since it is a self substaining democracy yet flawed because of liberalism, while the other countries have to depend on America for their economy to remain stable.

Germany who already said they wouldnt take action against Iran even if they escalate their nuke program (because of oil, construction and weapon deals) is a country that would take a hit once we pull out our bases and move to a nation that appreciates us.

[Barney B]

Originally posted by Baculus

I think it comes to tribalism - most folks tend to protect, or choose, their tribe, the ones they know, over others.

I'm betting on this horse.

The evolutionary psychologists, whose theories have long been tarnished by their association with those notorious eugenicists, may nonetheless be onto something in their explanation of the origins of tribalism -

simply put, tribalism may be an adaptive response to the imperative of humans competing for limited resources, against both other tribes and other species. The more tribal the behavior of individuals within a society, the better fitted for survival that society may be.

[Barney B]

Originally posted by Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin

The profits or size of given companies(especially with international operations) does not have proportional bearing on the income of the average European.

Is this not also true in the U.S. ?

[BlueTalon]

Just to bring the original point of the thread back into focus,

It's a personal, ethical question: given a choice, would you save an American life over a non-American life? Over 5 non-Americans? Over 100?

If the answer is "yes," then why? Don't appeal to legal reasons: this is a question about morality. What is the ethical justification for valuing lives of your own nationality over those of other nationalities?

If the answer is "no," then why not? Why should morality be universally applied to all people, regardless of the personal (imagined or real) distance between those peoples?

Chief, I don't see how your point about tribalism answers any of these questions.

[Barney B]

Originally posted by BlueTalon

Chief, I don't see how your point about tribalism answers any of these questions.

I see your point. I always seem to find that every inquiry I make raises more questions than it answers.

In order to make my response more than tangentially relevant, I'll have to raise the possibility that ethical justification is a chimera, a rationalization for an unconcious impulse.

As an example, we explain that it is "morally wrong" to kill our children, and of course it is, rationally. Unconciously, though, most of us are viscerally repulsed by the mere thought of such a deed, and the true reasons for such revulsion may have more to do with evolutionary psychology than with such constructs as ethical justification.

[BlueTalon]

I think you're being exceedingly generous in crediting anything to evolutionary psychology.

By the way, what's your background in this area (assuming you have one)?

[Barney B]

Originally posted by BlueTalon

I think you're being exceedingly generous in crediting anything to evolutionary psychology.

By the way, what's your background in this area (assuming you have one)?

Actually, I've no backround at all, other than an appetite for the printed word.

The thing about evolutionary biology:

we have no problem (if we accept the premise of evolutionary adaptation) accepting the idea that animal behavior is shaped by evolution. After all, a lion that behaves like a zebra would die of malnutrition.

So, if humans evolved from lower forms of life, why would behavioral adaptation cease with humans? Wouldn't humans whose behavior was shaped by the forces of evolution outlast humans whose behavior was NOT adapted to their environment?

BTW- gotta go now, I'll be back later tonight.

[Ancalagon the Black]

Originally posted by NavyDave

Would I go out of my way to save a god fearing patriotic american?

Heck yeah

Would I do the same for a hate spewing anti american foreign national?

No.

What about an American citizen whom you don't know and a foreigner whom you don't know?

And what about a hate-spewing, atheist American and a foreigner whom you agree with, politically?

[BlueTalon]

Originally posted by The Chief

Actually, I've no backround at all, other than an appetite for the printed word.

The thing about evolutionary biology:

we have no problem (if we accept the premise of evolutionary adaptation) accepting the idea that animal behavior is shaped by evolution. After all, a lion that behaves like a zebra would die of malnutrition.

So, if humans evolved from lower forms of life, why would behavioral adaptation cease with humans? Wouldn't humans whose behavior was shaped by the forces of evolution outlast humans whose behavior was NOT adapted to their environment?

Two things are wrong with your premise. One is the reliance upon evolution as a basis for psychology. I'm a creationist, so I don't accept evolution as a premise -- but even for those that do accept it, there is no mechanism agreed upon for it to have happened. Basically, the scientific community says something like "evolution happened. We don't know how, but we know it did. And creationism is wrong, because we know evolution happened." (If you're interested, here is some previous discussion on the matter:

http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1509229#post1509229).

The second thing wrong with your premise is the notion that something like evolution can control human psychology. I have a degree in Counseling Psychology, and with the exception of Skinner, who believed we are all 100% products of our environment (and who would therefore probably agree with you), EVERYONE in the field of phsychology attributes human behavior to consciousness, to the ability to think abstractly, to make decisions, to exercise our higher mental abilities in some form or another.

We can adapt, but we adapt in ways evolution never intended.

[Barney B]

Originally posted by BlueTalon

Two things are wrong with your premise. One is the reliance upon evolution as a basis for psychology. I'm a creationist, so I don't accept evolution as a premise -- but even for those that do accept it, there is no mechanism agreed upon for it to have happened. Basically, the scientific community says something like "evolution happened. We don't know how, but we know it did. And creationism is wrong, because we know evolution happened." (If you're interested, here is some previous discussion on the matter:

http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1509229#post1509229).

The second thing wrong with your premise is the notion that something like evolution can control human psychology. I have a degree in Counseling Psychology, and with the exception of Skinner, who believed we are all 100% products of our environment (and who would therefore probably agree with you), EVERYONE in the field of phsychology attributes human behavior to consciousness, to the ability to think abstractly, to make decisions, to exercise our higher mental abilities in some form or another.

We can adapt, but we adapt in ways evolution never intended.

Ah, thanks for making the effort to clear that up for me.

A few questions. If you ignore them, you won't offend me, as I suspect that you're right in your assertion that this is not the discussion that Ancalagon was trying to evoke.

A hypothetical scenario:

A baby is born. The doctor slaps the baby's butt. The baby cries. Is this response attributable to consciousness, the ability to think abstractly, make decisions, exercise higher mental abilties?

A blind man unwittingly puts his hand on a hot stove. He feels the pain before he understands why the pain exists. He pulls his hand off the stove. Conscious decision?

Or do these responses not qualify as human behaviour?

Ancalagon, this is your thread. If you want me to shut up, just say so.

[dreamingwolf]

I guess if your saying I have some God like power to understand what nationality people are while they are in distress and need saving, then ya I will push the button to extract the americans first but only the ones who dont look like hippys, metrosexuals, or other lefty stock. canadians and the french would be at the bottom of the list, cause they are so cute when they cry.

[DjTj]

Originally posted by NavyDave

Would I go out of my way to save a god fearing patriotic american?

Heck yeah

Would I do the same for a hate spewing anti american foreign national?

No.

This thread should be a poll...

You see two people drowning in the Rio Grande river, and you only have time to save one of them. What's the first question you ask before you decide whom to save?

(1) What is your citizenship?

(2) Who did you vote for in the last election?

(3) Do you believe in evolution?

(4) Do you use UPS or FedEx?

(5) Who is the head coach of the Washington Redskins?

[dreamingwolf]

Originally posted by DjTj

This thread should be a poll...

You see two people drowning in the Rio Grande river, and you only have time to save one of them. What's the first question you ask before you decide whom to save?

(1) What is your citizenship?

(2) Who did you vote for in the last election?

(3) Do you believe in evolution?

(4) Do you use UPS or FedEx?

(5) Who is the head coach of the Washington Redskins?

can you add how much will you reward me?

[BlueTalon]

Originally posted by The Chief

Ah, thanks for making the effort to clear that up for me.

A few questions. If you ignore them, you won't offend me, as I suspect that you're right in your assertion that this is not the discussion that Ancalagon was trying to evoke.

A hypothetical scenario:

A baby is born. The doctor slaps the baby's butt. The baby cries. Is this response attributable to consciousness, the ability to think abstractly, make decisions, exercise higher mental abilties?

A blind man unwittingly puts his hand on a hot stove. He feels the pain before he understands why the pain exists. He pulls his hand off the stove. Conscious decision?

Or do these responses not qualify as human behaviour?

Ancalagon, this is your thread. If you want me to shut up, just say so.

Both of what you described are reflexes. And yes, I suppose you could call those things behavior, but that doesn't advance your knowledge at all. (There is no behavioral scientist out there anywhere who is asking the question "what happens if I poke the subject with a pin?") Human adaptability is the result of being able to think through a problem, not jerk a leg up after stubbing a toe.

To keep this post somewhat on topic...

I've said before that I wouldn't ask for citizenship before pulling people who are drowning out of the pool. But if I happen to know that someone is a terrorist or serial murderer, I will not only not pull them out, I'd probably do what I could to keep their heads an inch or two below the surface.

[Thiebear]

Originally posted by DjTj

This thread should be a poll...

You see two people drowning in the Rio Grande river, and you only have time to save one of them. What's the first question you ask before you decide whom to save?

(1) What is your citizenship?

(2) Who did you vote for in the last election?

(3) Do you believe in evolution?

(4) Do you use UPS or FedEx?

(5) Who is the head coach of the Washington Redskins?

I do what I can to save both as theres no such thing as not trying... If i lose both sobeit, if i save both sobeit...

Valueing your countries life above others is just being a "Homer".

And in a War atmosphere it is instinctive to most.. *their our boys/girls vs. their boys*

Valueing individuals life within your country on race basis is just that; racist... As cops/fireman/individuals have shown.. life is life and they put themselves in harms way to pull them back to us.

[medicio]

If you know one of the people or you recognise one of them seen them around etc that would be the one you go for first or if one is a child or female then that would be the first i would save. I agree with Thiebear though that you got to try to get both. I am not religious in any way so that wouldn't affect my judgement on who to save either nor would skin colour. Clear as mud? Ha Ha none of us really know until or unless it happens for real.

[Barney B]

Originally posted by BlueTalon

Both of what you described are reflexes. And yes, I suppose you could call those things behavior, but that doesn't advance your knowledge at all.

Unless it is discovered that tribalism is reflexive behavior, like many other behaviors geared towards self-preservation.

[iheartskins]

Forgive me if this sentiment or logical argument has been put forth already, but this is my take on this issue...

First, anyone is going to be more inclined to relate to someone with whom they share some fundamental bonding characteristic. Among such characteristics could be, depending upon the specific characteristic involved, common nationality, religion, experience, race, national origin, among others (and perhaps even football support. )

This is a relatively broad assertion and probably requires a little basis. Rather than spew forth abstract reasoning, I'm going to employ an example that should illustrate my point. When one meets another person, he usually asks that person if they know anyone in common or if they have interests in common. (In most cases, asking someone initially if they are of the same nationality or race or religion right off the bat is innappropriate--but in war time, it might be easy to see by virtue of a uniform or other means.) There is always a desire to establish a degree of commonality in a relationship albeit a friendship, romantic relationship or other type. I can't speak to why this is, but perhaps it's because in seeking out other people's similarities, we believe that they have had similar experience and thus we can more easily empathize with their position in life and that other person can in turn empathize with our own plight--and this similarity can form a more accessible and immediate basis for the new relationship. (Maybe taken to an extreme this is why it is easier for the US to help people in Europe than it is in Africa?)

Second, based on this statement, any person who has fundamental characteristic A will be more inclined to save someone who also has characteristic A. (This is ignoring an overriding acrimonious personal relationship between the two parties.)

Thus in any context where there is a opportunity to save either the person that you share something with or a total stranger, then most reasonable people are going to choose the person they know or with whom they share some type of commonality.

Finally, a small example from World War II. When the US lost pilots over the Pacific to enemy fire, if there was a boat even remotely close, that boat came and rescued the pilot. The Japanese never tried to rescue their airmen casualties and even abandoned over 10,000 troops in South East Asia after a campaign gone awry. So, in at least one case, from a monetary standpoint, US military lives were worth more.

[medicio]

Agreed, another thing is that if your the type of person that helps others then you are a good person whether your american like most of you or english like myself chinese african etc. I don't think there is a bigger percentage of americans that help others more than other western cultures. Other religions do things differently and have a diff mentality doesn't mean they are all bad people. Not sure if i am going off topic so i will stop. Hope you understand what i mean.