Assuming there was no environmental/economic impact to the Earth, would it be moral to blow up Mars (completely destroy it) to save a single human life?
Assume there is no life on Mars- Mars is in fact as it appears to be at present. Ignore whether or not we would one day exploit Mars financially in some way (resources, colonization). Assume that destroying Mars isn't going to screw up our tides or send meteors hurtling towards the Earth or whatever. The only material consequence is, there was a Mars, and now there is not.
If that question seems irrelevant/impossible/too easy to you, then go ahead and add in some of the things I told you to ignore/assume not, but I'd really like to see an answer abstracted from those concerns.
I don’t know. I think morality is an art, not a multiple choice test with a right answer. I generally think life is sacred, but fixating on life at all costs is degraded. Blowing up Mars sounds kind of stupid to me. I hope I’d rather die myself than do something so base.
I think you share a common instinct, that blowing up Mars would suck, and dying isn’t so bad in comparison. But there ought to be a reason besides “Boooooo”. I’m trying to identify things that humans value that aren’t commonly discussed. Mars doesn’t feel pain, it’s not a work of labor or art, it’s not an enduring symbol of some ancient culture, it’s not even something we can appreciate aesthetically without a bunch of expensive equipment most of us don’t have.
Followup: Does your response change any if we shift our discussion from Mars to Planet Y, a mars-like world in another solar system so far away that we will only know of it through faint signal readings? Does Mars warrant some special consideration that Planet Y does not?
The idea of obliterating one of only a small number of central, meaningful astronomical objects in our solar system strikes an emotional nerve. It isn’t that we have utility value invested in Mars. It’s the fact that Mars is a part of us. Of who and what we are.
Planet Y is the same problem. Once we know about it we cannot help to self-value it somewhat, to draw it into the circle of our meaning. Of course that value drawn from Y might be overpowered by the value that we ascribe to another human being. Same if we substitute Mars for Y.
That’s for the reply, Mechanical. I think you’ve identified a good reason why we feel something when I ask this question. My question to you would be, are we judging correctly if we decide to let somebody die to preserve Mars, or is this emotional response you describe something we ought to overcome in order to save somebody?
In the complete abstract, I don’t see a problem with destroying Mars.
It seems like a terribly inefficient and ugly solution that anyone would have to blow up a planet to save one person’s life, however. Even in the abstract scenario as presented I wouldn’t promote going to such lengths for just anybody. It would have to be for a person important to me and it would have to be a well-though-out decision. Depending on the person, Mars might be worth more.
Because I suspect a lot of people will have an instinct that they ought not blow up Mars, and I wanted to explore if that instinct is based on anything. You seemed to take it further though, and talk about just the BENEFIT to a person. So I suppose you would see nothing wrong with blowing up Mars in exchange for something even more minor than a person's life? Like say, a person's extreme gratification or financial gain?
There would, in fact, be an environmental impact to Earth if Mars were destroyed, so I have difficulty assuming there would not be. [size=85][Furthermore, some believe that bacterial life, of the kind that live in the Arctic Ocean, will eventually be found on Mars.][/size]
I find it very hard to speculate on a problem that seems so far-fetched and as likely not to arise in reality. OMG, there are enough real-life dilemmas about which to be concerned without searching for extra ones …But this is just me.
To respond to Volchok’s question: “Morality” means being true to one’s moral principles, living up to them, so “immorality” would be failing to do so. One of the principles derived in the Katz system of Ethics (the Unified Theory, the UTE) is to maximize the well-being of conscious creatures. If destroying an inanimate object would help do that, would contribute toward a quality life for all, then because (in that coherent, reliable system) conscious life is worth far more than a thing is worth, the choice is clear: you destroy the thing. It’s a case of employing the findings of a sound ethical theory in order to arrive at reliable conclusions.
By minimizing suffering and misery we can all find ways thus to contribute toward maximizing well-being - i.e., toward contributing to the quality of life - since the two principles when applied vary inversely.
For details and full comprehension, it helps if one reads, and grasps completely, the references linked-to below. Just click study, and learn.
That’s what morality means to you. I certainly don’t agree with that definition. Though we do seem to arrive at the same conclusion: maximizing the well being of conscious creatures and minimizing their suffering.
Yeah, that’s a real possibility. And I think there are a couple of reasons:
Most people are afraid of change. They react when they have to but will otherwise resist changes .
And in spite of the talk of the sanctity and value of human life, most people don’t value a random human life very highly. They might value friends and family and occasionally they feel ‘a relationship’ with some suffering person shown in the media but they only feel connections with identified individuals.
That’s not such an easy question to answer…or is it? Well, at least not at first glance.
Aside from that, that’s kind of a stupid question, isn’t it? Well, from my point of view, it is. In what way could Mars be such a threat to one human being that we would consider blowing up a planet?
Could we even answer that question unless we had a lot more facts to consider?
And who is this human being who’s life we would be saving? Some scientist who would ultimately find a cure for every disease on the planet? Would there EVEN BE a planet Earth left? Consider this. By NOT making the decision to blow up Mars, we might be saving ALL of life on this planet, including that very important person.
Okay right there, bad decision. We can’t do something this drastic based on simply an ASSUMPTION. Are you some kind of an ass? Okay you know I’m kidding. But anyone who would destroy a planet based on an ASSUMPTION would have to be far beyond an ass, wouldn’t you say? There could be all kinds of repercussions/possibilities which could occur if we blew up this planet. How would this affect the other planets which orbit our sun? How could this affect Life on this planet? How could this affect the speed of the planets and Earth? How could it affect gravity? Everything fits neatly into its own little slot, its own little orbit. Imagine that within the moment right before Marswent kaboom, life exploded onto that planet. Some say that there may be life on Mars; some say that it was Mars that began Earth’s life. Do we want to, in a sense, blow up our mother? Who would make this final dastardly decision? Would it be a combination of world scientists and arrogant narcisstic powers that be?
Would it be immoral to blow up Mars? Hmmm. At the very least, it might be the most stupid thing humanity has ever done. Immorality is stupid in light of the fact that it touches human beings in a negative way…it doesn’t preserve the human species. Can that act be considered immoral based on the fact that there are so many different given possibilities which could occur from this single act? Yes, because we have no idea how life on Earth, any life, could be affected, whether it took a moment or years to come. Aside from that, to take the chance to destroy just about the most incredible and awesome and beautiful and mysterious design that took what a billion or so years to achieved - and one which we are still yet not finished discovering - would be INSANE.
That would be immoral…just as immoral as deliberately destroying someone’s home.
…But this is just me.
Okay you know I’m kidding. But anyone who would destroy a planet based on an ASSUMPTION would have to be far beyond an ass, wouldn’t you say? There could be all kinds of repercussions/possibilities which could occur if we blew up this planet. How would this affect the other planets which orbit our sun? How could this affect Life on this planet? How could this affect the speed of the planets and Earth? How could it affect gravity? Everything fits neatly into its own little slot, its own little orbit. Imagine that within the moment right before Marswent kaboom, life exploded onto that planet. Some say that there may be life on Mars; some say that it was Mars that began Earth’s life. Do we want to, in a sense, blow up our mother? Who would make this final dastardly decision? Would it be a combination of world scientists and arrogant narcisstic powers that be?
At the very least, it might be the most stupid thing humanity has ever done. Immorality is stupid in light of the fact that it touches human beings in a negative way…it doesn’t preserve the human species. Can that act be considered immoral based on the fact that there are so many different given possibilities which could occur from this single act? Yes, because we have no idea how life on Earth, any life, could be affected, whether it took a moment or years to come. Aside from that, to take the chance to destroy just about the most incredible and awesome and beautiful and mysterious design that took what a billion or so years to achieved - and one which we are still yet not finished discovering - would be INSANE.