Morality vs Survival

[K_Jira]

I've read/watch many survival stories where the protagonist is unwilling to sacrifice anyone even for the greater good. Being the hero/heroine they are, I took it as face value.

But sometimes it got me thinking whether moral really is more important than survivability in urgent events. Like, for example, there is a community of survivors in an apocalyptic world. Let's say that the people inside ranged from small children until elderly. Then, this group can't find any more source of food and they must lessen the people in the community. Is it wrong for me to agree that the elderly is quite a reasonable option to be kicked out. It's a different story if they contribute to the community in some way, but for the sake of argument, let's say this elderly is just an incapable old person.

We're not going to bring the topic whether this person is a good person or not. The elderly is a simple elderly who require special attention, special protection, more food, and can't do any work. Of course, as an elderly, they are also unable to create any more descendants even if they survive until the end of the apocalypse.

Is it wrong for me to agree with the side characters if they decided to kick this person out for the sake of the community? Sometimes I feel like the protagonists are kind of selfish for wanting to put their holy moral first than the survivability of the rest of the community. It's more reasonable to do this rather than sending out a completely able person just because they have a higher chance of surviving outside. Even if they kick this able person out, the elderly will meet the same end, which is death, only with a different method.

I've been thinking about this recently and it makes me worry about my morality. This is only one of my wondering thoughts and there are many instances that my personal opinion makes me question my morality in my daily life.

Of course, I know what's good and what's bad, but compared to what's logical or not, I couldn't help but agree with logic.

What about the rest of you? Moral or logic?

 

[Anon2024]

When I was a child I liked childish things, but when I grew up I put away those childish things.

Saving everyone is only possible if they want to be saved and are willing to push forward, if there is an idiot, saving the idiot could lead to everyone’s doom in real life.

 

[nike01x]

Isn't this just a Trolley Problem?

If it was me in that situation, it depends on what connection I have to the elderly. If they're someone I don't know and they doesn't contribute anything to the group, they need to go. But if the elder has history with me and a bunch of others, they need to stay to hold the group together and reminiscing the old days before all the tragic things happened.

 

[LesserSarcasm]

I've read/watch many survival stories where the protagonist is unwilling to sacrifice anyone even for the greater good. Being the hero/heroine they are, I took it as face value.

But sometimes it got me thinking whether moral really is more important than survivability in urgent events. Like, for example, there is a community of survivors in an apocalyptic world. Let's say that the people inside ranged from small children until elderly. Then, this group can't find any more source of food and they must lessen the people in the community. Is it wrong for me to agree that the elderly is quite a reasonable option to be kicked out. It's a different story if they contribute to the community in some way, but for the sake of argument, let's say this elderly is just an incapable old person.

We're not going to bring the topic whether this person is a good person or not. The elderly is a simple elderly who require special attention, special protection, more food, and can't do any work. Of course, as an elderly, they are also unable to create any more descendants even if they survive until the end of the apocalypse.

Is it wrong for me to agree with the side characters if they decided to kick this person out for the sake of the community? Sometimes I feel like the protagonists are kind of selfish for wanting to put their holy moral first than the survivability of the rest of the community. It's more reasonable to do this rather than sending out a completely able person just because they have a higher chance of surviving outside. Even if they kick this able person out, the elderly will meet the same end, which is death, only with a different method.

I've been thinking about this recently and it makes me worry about my morality. This is only one of my wondering thoughts and there are many instances that my personal opinion makes me question my morality in my daily life.

Of course, I know what's good and what's bad, but compared to what's logical or not, I couldn't help but agree with logic.

What about the rest of you? Moral or logic?

It is not the problem lies in where you draw the line,

 

[Daitengu]

There's usually SOMETHING a person can do to co-exist In a community. The example given ignores the fact that the elderly are often the teachers, the historians, the child care takers. Tbh, at the point a person lost all skill to live, they'll often accidentally die. I've read too many irl stories of elders with dementia or other mental illnesses that have just wandered off and died. And believe it or not, slipping I'm the bathroom is the number one cause of fatal injury I'm the home for the elderly. Generally they break their hip, and later die from infection. There's usually no way to heal major injuries in your scenario, so the physically handicapped will often die of infection before they can cause a permit burden.

So I disagree but not for morality. I'm just saying weakness usually ends in death, so there's no reason not to keep them for the short time they'll be around.

 

[Prince_Azmiran_Myrian]

If the community is having to kick people out because they can't feed them or take care of them, they should probably focus on fixing the problem rather than mitigating the issue temporarily.

Secondly, the way they treat the elderly has implications on their society as a whole. It signals that people are only valued for their utility, rather than their inherent worth as human beings. Essentially the abandonment of a moral society. When this happens, things are likely to continue getting worse.

Taking care of the elderly teaches the youth to value people beyond burden, to love each other. It signals a stable society that trusts each other to take care of you when you are hurt or weak. Trust is what builds communities, what keeps them together during hard times. It is what will help them all survive sustainably.

 

[georgelee5786]

Tragically, logic. The younger members must be prioritized over the elder ones. They are more valuable for survival. But in the end, it is a shitty situation I'd like to avoid being apart of

 

[K_Jira]

Isn't this just a Trolley Problem?

If it was me in that situation, it depends on what connection I have to the elderly. If they're someone I don't know and they doesn't contribute anything to the group, they need to go. But if the elder has history with me and a bunch of others, they need to stay to hold the group together and reminiscing the old days before all the tragic things happened.

I agree that if the elder has relationships and sentiments with the community, it will affect them negatively if the elder was gone. Despite all things, moral support is much needed in hard times.

There's usually SOMETHING a person can do to co-exist In a community. The example given ignores the fact that the elderly are often the teachers, the historians, the child care takers. Tbh, at the point a person lost all skill to live, they'll often accidentally die. I've read too many irl stories of elders with dementia or other mental illnesses that have just wandered off and died. And believe it or not, slipping I'm the bathroom is the number one cause of fatal injury I'm the home for the elderly. Generally they break their hip, and later die from infection. There's usually no way to heal major injuries in your scenario, so the physically handicapped will often die of infection before they can cause a permit burden.

So I disagree but not for morality. I'm just saying weakness usually ends in death, so there's no reason not to keep them for the short time they'll be around.

I understand your point. But what if, for example, the rations can only provide them meals for a month? The portion this elderly have will be enough to feed the children for a longer period of time who need it more to grow and become strong enough to live a long life?

If the community is having to kick people out because they can't feed them or take care of them, they should probably focus on fixing the problem rather than mitigating the issue temporarily.

Secondly, the way they treat the elderly has implications on their society as a whole. It signals that people are only valued for their utility, rather than their inherent worth as human beings. Essentially the abandonment of a moral society. When this happens, things are likely to continue getting worse.

Taking care of the elderly teaches the youth to value people beyond burden, to love each other. It signals a stable society that trusts each other to take care of you when you are hurt or weak. Trust is what builds communities, what keeps them together during hard times. It is what will help them all survive sustainably.

So, you mean, it is important to not abandon them so as to not degrade(?) human morals even further? Well, I can't disagree that if the bars keep getting lowered one day humans will return to live no difference than savages.

Tragically, logic. The younger members must be prioritized over the elder ones. They are more valuable for survival. But in the end, it is a shitty situation I'd like to avoid being apart of

Agreed.

 

[NotaNuffian]

I feel like this only happens in the extreme of cases, where one forgoes the weak in the batch. Weak as in those that are unable to serve purpose in the pack.

Elderly can provide knowledge and experience to the pack, therefore they still serve some purpose.

But like you said, extreme cases where shortage of ration, ease of mobilization and other unexpected obstacles the pack may face, the numbers need to drop in order for said pack to evacuate/ save themselves.

Not just the elderly, children, the handicapped and pregnant women might also be considered into the group that might be required to be removed in order for the pack to "thrive".

Some psychological trauma will definitely be inflicted.

 

[K_Jira]

Not just the elderly, children, the handicapped and pregnant women might also be considered into the group that might be required to be removed in order for the pack to "thrive".

Out of curiosity, from the 4 group of people you mentioned here, how would you order them in terms of priority? Like, which should be the first one to be removed? And do you rank them morally or logically?

 

[NotaNuffian]

Logically speaking, handicap would be the first to go, especially the mentally handicapped ones.

I am the first to go then.

Jokes aside, why I chose to forgo the mentally handicapped first because, and especially when, they response to orders poorly. During the times of crisis, the chain of command is best not to be hindered.

Then comes the physically handicapped, I would prioritize those who still has the basic function of their legs over those who can't walk, more so in cases where the chances of losing modes of transport and having to go through rough terrains is a thing. I get that hands are useful in tool making but if we are on the constant run, legs is more important.

Then comes the elderly. Morally this is very wrong. Akin to discarding one's parents especially after they had spent so much in raising you. But pregnant women and children are considered the next generation and knowledge can be somewhat preserved via books.

Last are the pregnant women and children. Both have their pros and cons so I put them both in dead last to abandon.

 

[Alfir]

We keep in check our morality because of our conscience. This is a very philosophical tread, which explores the struggles of morality and the desire for survival. This reminds me so much of walking dead. If you can relate, I'd be Glenn. Yes, he's long dead, but meh. I'd rather be a romantic/hero than a worthless side character.
I know, I know... Glenn died a horrible death, and having a strong sense of morality doesn't automatically make you a hero. But you must admit, morality is the standard. Even the Punisher, Decter, and whatever anti-hero there is... possesses their own code. I think morality by self-justification is the best.

 

[RavenRunes]

If it's an apocalypse, the usual (Western) culture we're used to would already have taken a savage beating. The survival of the community becomes the problem of the whole community and this is a choice the 'burdens' in question should have already made (if able), much as they would have done in other cultures in more 'primitive' times. (and I use terms like 'primitive' and 'moral' in the Western way most of us here understand, without taking our Western culture as superior, by the way).

The knowledge and wisdom of the elderly should already have been passed on. It is the fault of modern society that younger generations don't listen to the older ones.

Why do we insist on keeping people alive who should, or want to be, dead?

If you're going to take all the trappings of modern Western (Christian) morality into an apocalyptic situation then you probably....should change that mindset....

 

[TotallyHuman]

I feel like a person without dignity is not alive. What constitutes having dignity is up to the person. As society grows further, the scope of dignity for each individual will tighten - people nowadays build their whole life on the foundation of commodity-money relations losing a lot in the process - which is why I dread the future.
At the end of the day it is unconditionally best to think for yourself

 

[Nekroz]

I've read/watch many survival stories where the protagonist is unwilling to sacrifice anyone even for the greater good. Being the hero/heroine they are, I took it as face value.

But sometimes it got me thinking whether moral really is more important than survivability in urgent events. Like, for example, there is a community of survivors in an apocalyptic world. Let's say that the people inside ranged from small children until elderly. Then, this group can't find any more source of food and they must lessen the people in the community. Is it wrong for me to agree that the elderly is quite a reasonable option to be kicked out. It's a different story if they contribute to the community in some way, but for the sake of argument, let's say this elderly is just an incapable old person.

We're not going to bring the topic whether this person is a good person or not. The elderly is a simple elderly who require special attention, special protection, more food, and can't do any work. Of course, as an elderly, they are also unable to create any more descendants even if they survive until the end of the apocalypse.

Is it wrong for me to agree with the side characters if they decided to kick this person out for the sake of the community? Sometimes I feel like the protagonists are kind of selfish for wanting to put their holy moral first than the survivability of the rest of the community. It's more reasonable to do this rather than sending out a completely able person just because they have a higher chance of surviving outside. Even if they kick this able person out, the elderly will meet the same end, which is death, only with a different method.

I've been thinking about this recently and it makes me worry about my morality. This is only one of my wondering thoughts and there are many instances that my personal opinion makes me question my morality in my daily life.

Of course, I know what's good and what's bad, but compared to what's logical or not, I couldn't help but agree with logic.

What about the rest of you? Moral or logic?

I can only think of one good answer.

Rather than sacrificing no one or someone else, the protagonist should sacrifice themselves.

To sacrifice another is evil. To sacrifice no one in this hypothetical situation (assuming someone ABSOLUTELY has to be sacrificed) for one's own morals is evil. So, to satisfy both is to sacrifice oneself.

I can only think of one good answer.

Rather than sacrificing no one or someone else, the protagonist should sacrifice themselves.

To sacrifice another is evil. To sacrifice no one in this hypothetical situation (assuming someone ABSOLUTELY has to be sacrificed) for one's own morals is evil. So, to satisfy both is to sacrifice oneself.

Just to add onto my answer: I think one should (If they are a born again Christian) consult God on such a matter.

If they aren't a Christian then... Well that changes just about everything that they should and should not do in such a situation.

(Please do not add any more detention brownies to my count. I'm not trying to start any sort of argument about religion.)

 

[Twin]

If I was under a leader who kicked out elderly with such a reason, I would probably not consider him to a good leader at all. From my perspective the leader is not a reliable provider. Today he kicks out elderly because he is incapable. Tomorrow, I would probably get injured in protecting such a leader and become incapable myself. What would become of myself then? Why should I risk my life for such a leader? The answer is clear. If I have more options I would rather choose the other option than follow such a person.

From the sense of the protagonist, a certain sense of morality must be upheld if he wants to lead a group. Humans are social creatures. For creating a strong group they need absolute trust in their leader. A leader who throws out anyone who is disabled isn't necessarily the most reliable. Things can stil work out despite this. The protagonist can still cite out reasons for his cause. He could use force and fear to make things work. But he would never be able to create a strong foundation.

 

[TheEldritchGod]

Yer in yer survival base. Everyone loves grandma. You are leader and go, "waste of resources". Then feed her to the zombies.

How long until someone slits your throat?

Your equations do not handle human nature.

I give you 100 dollars. You have to give some of it to someone else. If they don't accept the amount offered, neither of you get any money.

How much do you offer?

Well, the guy in your zombie survival group would say 1 dollar. Why? Because it's one dollar more than you had.

Well, if you only offer me one dollar, I'm gonna refuse it just to piss you off.

No plan is foolproof. No calculation absolute.

 

[Love4NovelGuy]

The thing about ‘Moral Philosophy’ is that it’s useless and detached. No matter how right your decision, someone will pick it apart. Thus, it’s better to do what oneself thinks is right… rather than what the majority may think.

If survival was everything, we wouldn’t be humans.

 

[FaustVoncleave]

It's a tough question. At the end of the day, the smart thing is to kick the elderly out even if it's not the moral thing to do, being able to make those tough calls despite feeling terrible about it is part of being a true leader. Of course, whether it IS the morally wrong thing to do is questionable. To lead is to take on the responsibility of thinking of the goal of the group above all else, when one goes against that goal and abuses the power others have entrusted in them, even if it's in kindness, it's selfish and morally unjust. To lead is a heavy burden because you can be morally just as a leader, yet be morally unjust as a person. Of course this is just in the real world where a persons power comes directly from those who support them, and even then only when leaders actually uphold their obligations (Which is shockingly rare.) In fiction, groups often form around an mc because they have a special power or item that makes living easier, in that scenario the mc is under no obligation to meet the group's goals and should act according to their conscience to stay moral, because the power is entirely in their hands. At least, this is how I see it.

 

[StrongArm]

Being a good leader means being able to make hard decisions for the benefit of the group.

But there is more to humanity then just surviving, we also want to thrive. And we can only thrive in a system of justice and equality.

The apocalypse scenario seems to be a balancing act between surviving & thriving.

An example: On one hand you have a group of mad-max style raiders who will kill, steal, rape & cannibalize. They have no moral structure or long-term goals other than conquest & survival. They are always lead by a dictatorship or monarchy. The downside of this community is a very low life-expectancy.

The other example is a peaceful community who try to band together for survival. They are usually isolationists who try to uphold the values of civilization. They often take a moral stance and try not just to save everyone, but also create a community for for everyone to thrive in. This group will try to maintain a steady growth. The downside of this community is that they make the occasional stupid decision since they vote on everything.

I think a good apocalypse community should be somewhere in the middle for maximum survivability. For example, a military junta that is well organized and regulated, with the goal of re-uniting the fractured communities of the apocalypse and re-establishing the country, by any means neccessary. This means slaughtering raiders and protecting people, but it also means invading peaceful communities and forcing them into your community/war machine. You also force your military ideology on them. This group is somewhat fascist, so the downside is that personal freedoms are limited