Notices
Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: "Behind every great treasure, there is a great crime&qu

  1. #1 "Behind every great treasure, there is a great crime&qu 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    15
    If any of you are as big of nerds as me, you've probably seen a zombie movie. Okay, well, nerds with as much time as me.

    Not present in every zombie movie, but present in some, there is a point where a character either kills another person or himself to stop from spreading the contamination. This usually happens after they've been bitten.

    But what about the person who has the least chance of survival? What about the 90 year old woman who knows if she takes a stand against a deadly obstacle, she wouldn't last a second?

    Is it logical to kill oneself, or kill another being, before said being turns against you? Of course it wouldn't be ethical. But it would be a course of action for someone who needed to live, or needed to continue on in life.

    Off the subjects of zombies.

    Lets say you and your associate start a business. The business grows wildly and before long, you grow enemies. Such as another business who's been stealing your employees. Would you stoop to a level where you fire your associate, simply so the other company can't get to him/her, and use him/her against you.

    Possibilities:
    -The associate could actually be a random person, who you aren't friendly with.
    -The associate might not be very loyal.
    -The list goes on.

    Finally, is it a reasonable hypothesis that: "If under a circumstance of self-benefit, then the subject will choose the benefit over being morally acceptable."?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: "Behind every great treasure, there is a great crim 
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere
    Posts
    814
    Quote Originally Posted by DecemX

    Finally, is it a reasonable hypothesis that: "If under a circumstance of self-benefit, then the subject will choose the benefit over being morally acceptable."?
    Yes without a doubt.

    I think if the 'civilized' world experienced a disaster and there was a threat to survival, we would certainly see many real life examples of 'survival of the fittest'

    It makes me laugh some of the do-gooders with their love peace humanitarian philosophies.
    I wonder how they would react should they be under threat. Ironically they might be the worse considering they go to so much effort to deny or restrain this potential in humans.


    Absum! has never been bored in her life, but is becoming increasingly bored of the Science Forum! :?


    (..❀.`.☼....-♥゜・*.:。✿*゚゚・✿.。.:* *.:。.❀.`.☼....-♥゜・*.:。✿*゚゚・✿.。.:* *.:。.❀.`.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    15
    Deniance in such an idea of survival of the fittest is pretty much denying how you came to be. Many people do swing for civilized. A lot of people are. Per se, domesticated humans.

    But, of course, it's been known in several animal cases that introducing a threat will cause a domesticated animal to revert to its instincts.

    I quote my psychology teacher "It's like humans are the best problem solvers of the animal world, and we're the problem."
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •