Morality vs Survival

[K_Jira]

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.

Thank you. I would say that mentally handicapped people would need their own rankings depending on their type of disability, but I find your priority reasonable.

I think morality by self-justification is the best.

At the very least, self-justifying yourself means you are conscious of your action and what consequences it brought. Sometimes, it's a coping form of guilt and I guess it's better than not having justification at all.

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.

Agreed. Mostly because they classified the knowledge from elders as conservative.

At the end of the day it is unconditionally best to think for yourself

Though many argue this is equal to selfishness, if done right and not cause any harm to others, I think it's the main core of survival and the most humane thing to do.

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

THIS. It irks me the most when the protagonist rejected a plan/idea that is against their moral, which is not the problem itself, but doesn't have any better plan in mind. All they think about is that 'this conduct is wrong' but they can't provide a morally-good-plan which kind of prove the point as to why the other character can only resort to their morally-wrong-plan.

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.

I get your point. But in the end, a leader can't satisfy everyone within a community. Being hated is a part of many risks and sacrifices for for a leader to shoulder. What if, in result of them not kicking out a disabled person a child die? They would still be hated by the child's parents. Such scenarios is endless.

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.

I can't disagree with this. It's better to regret a decision you make for yourself rather than regretting a decision made by the influence of others.

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.

Sometimes, mutual benefit and respecting the benefit received is enough of a foundation for a stable community.

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

So, what you mean is that rules and goals must be established in order for the community to survive? It's true that humans have weaker resistance to doing things against their moral conduct when there is something or someone they can 'blame' for it. I think if a rule is established when the community is built, for example, that 'elderly must leave when they are incapable of contributing in a period of a month, they must leave the community' the people must and will accept it when they enter the community.

 

[TheEldritchGod]

I saw this stupid clip where the bad guy is going,"the colony would have failed,so we killed everyone to minimize the suffering."

Bull.

The truth is, they could have killed half, or 3/4ths, or .4377 people. The fact is, idoubt they actually went the optimal route. They went the easy route.

The way I would handle something like that. Pull everyone together and say,"bad news. Looks like most of us are gonna die. Here is why." Explain. Then ask, " got any ideas? Because my plan is to send people out on very high risk raids. Either you die and decrease the surplus population, or you find food. Yeah, it ain't fair, but the truth is, the math is clear. I will start with volunteers."

People aren't dumb and can be very noble. Or they can panic, giving me an excuse to murder the rioters. Either way, they had a chance, which most people would be happy with.

How'd you like to be the useless one?

You'd like a fighting chance and if it was explained right, you'd agree. Or give me an excuse to kill you when you do something stupid.

 

[Jemini]

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.

This is exactly the correct way of thinking in this sort of situation.

There's another factor to consider. Do you know how the French Revolution, in which Ropspier was killing everybody, finally ended? To paraphrase the situation, he essentially walked into congress and told the ruling body of the nation that there were traitors among them who must loose their heads, and did not specify who he was going to target. This got every single person in the congress thinking "he might be talking about me," and therefore everyone in the congress more or less unanimously decided Ropspier should loose his head instead.

That's just how it works. If a leader proves he does not value the lives of his followers first and foremost above everything else, they will not have the trust of their followers. In fact, their followers may soon decide that the only way for them to live is if their leader dies, and they will conspire to make that happen.

Therefore, when human nature is accounted for, this so-called "naive" way of thinking in which you refuse to sacrifice anybody is actually the most optimal way to operate in a group even using the cold logic of pragmatism.

 

[Zakuro]

I am the self-sacrificing idiot. The base's majority want to kick the wheelchair guy and/or the old WW III veteran who know stuffs? I say nope. Democracy? More like democrazy.

They prioritize kicking people who need the protection more and won't survive living outside than a willing volunteer? There must be something wrong with them... or me. It's majority vs one, am I the crazy one?

The problem is... will there be another person who stop them from kicking those in need after I left? I guess it's no longer my problem? I will still help them if we meet again in the wasteland, but what are the odds?

 

[StrongArm]

So, what you mean is that rules and goals must be established in order for the community to survive? It's true that humans have weaker resistance to doing things against their moral conduct when there is something or someone they can 'blame' for it. I think if a rule is established when the community is built, for example, that 'elderly must leave when they are incapable of contributing in a period of a month, they must leave the community' the people must and will accept it when they enter the community.

Yeah, it is Fascist as fuck, but i think forceful integration is the only way for apocalypse communities. In the apocalypse, you no longer have the luxury of peace and morality. I'm not saying throw the elderly to the zombies, but i am saying that in times of extreme crisis, the military must take over. Democracy is a beautiful luxury that cant be afforded in the apocalypse. The reason i say this, is because if humanity remains in small apocalyptic tribal groups focused only on survival, then it is highly likely that all our knowledge, history, technology, & civilization would be lost.

It would be another dark age.

So, at the expense of some of our values and a large amount of human life, i think conquest is the only way.

The alternative is another few thousand years of tribalism, then monarchy.

 

[CarburetorThompson]

As I always say, the needs of me outweighs the needs of thee.

 

[K_Jira]

This is exactly the correct way of thinking in this sort of situation.

There's another factor to consider. Do you know how the French Revolution, in which Ropspier was killing everybody, finally ended? To paraphrase the situation, he essentially walked into congress and told the ruling body of the nation that there were traitors among them who must loose their heads, and did not specify who he was going to target. This got every single person in the congress thinking "he might be talking about me," and therefore everyone in the congress more or less unanimously decided Ropspier should loose his head instead.

That's just how it works. If a leader proves he does not value the lives of his followers first and foremost above everything else, they will not have the trust of their followers. In fact, their followers may soon decide that the only way for them to live is if their leader dies, and they will conspire to make that happen.

Therefore, when human nature is accounted for, this so-called "naive" way of thinking in which you refuse to sacrifice anybody is actually the most optimal way to operate in a group even using the cold logic of pragmatism.

So, you're saying that, in the end, trust is the most important aspect? How would that compare to absolute power though?

I am the self-sacrificing idiot. The base's majority want to kick the wheelchair guy and/or the old WW III veteran who know stuffs? I say nope. Democracy? More like democrazy.

You have my respect

 

[Shelbie]

This is a small example of a huge problem.

It is the Trolley Problem on a small scale, but on a large scale, it is something you have to decide on every. single. day.
It is the question of justice versus mercy.

Justice demands that you attempt to save the largest number of valuable people. Mercy disagrees. Justice tempered with mercy is a fallacy...if there is true justice, there can be no mercy.

The answer is often addressed by religion, but in fiction books, this question is possibly one of the greatest story drivers possible. Every author wrestles with this question at some point in their book, so there's no one best answer :)

 

[Lloyd]

Let the dead lay with the dead.

 

[Jemini]

So, you're saying that, in the end, trust is the most important aspect? How would that compare to absolute power though?

You need only look at the worst atrocities of the 20th century to answer that question. However, I actually cannot elaborate on that any further without breaking the rule on no politics on this forum. Shame, this question actually can be answered quite thoroughly using the example of a few 20th century autocrats and diving into the reasons why their regimes became so murderous.

To talk in more bird's-eye generalistic views, I will say that loosing the trust of the people makes revolts more frequent. Those revolts have to be put down with heavy crack-downs in order to preserve the regime's power. This leads into a vicious cycle in which the regime just becomes more and more murderous. In other words, while it may start with the leader pragmatically killing where they need to, these "needs" start to just become the state mass-murdering all of it's citizens left and right.

 

[K_Jira]

It is the question of justice versus mercy.

Justice demands that you attempt to save the largest number of valuable people. Mercy disagrees. Justice tempered with mercy is a fallacy...if there is true justice, there can be no mercy.

Now I'm interested in studying these three terms.

You need only look at the worst atrocities of the 20th century to answer that question. However, I actually cannot elaborate on that any further without breaking the rule on no politics on this forum. Shame, this question actually can be answered quite thoroughly using the example of a few 20th century autocrats and diving into the reasons why their regimes became so murderous.

To talk in more bird's-eye generalistic views, I will say that loosing the trust of the people makes revolts more frequent. Those revolts have to be put down with heavy crack-downs in order to preserve the regime's power. This leads into a vicious cycle in which the regime just becomes more and more murderous. In other words, while it may start with the leader pragmatically killing where they need to, these "needs" start to just become the state mass-murdering all of it's citizens left and right.

Thank you for elaborating. I should look into this as well.

 

[Redemit]

The most useless people I've ever met are modern Young people

I've never met an "elderly person" who could out eat a kid and depending on their knowledge they could be absolutely vital to survival my grandfathers both knew far more than I (and I know quite a lot) about wilderness survival as they used to do it without all the modern gizmos and conveniences also Men are basically always capable of making descendants

You want to know who's actually a liability?
90% of modern women of all ages.
And probably 40% of modern men under 60.

I wouldn't toss anyone out unless they were actually just a layabout doing absolutely nothing to contribute even when they're perfectly capable everyone can be used to some degree you just need to be firm to make them do stuff

even a wheelchair bound 100 year old grandma can teach or watch the children peel potatoes mend clothes or organize logistics or something

Also look at all of human history all societies/civilizations are built on a foundation of morality and principles and when those morals and principles crumble is when their societies/civilizations without fail fall over and over and over again

I know it's incredibly hard to believe but the reality is the good/moral guys ALWAYS do eventually win because they're builders lovers and protectors before they're destroyers haters and killers and the bad/immoral are only destroyers haters and killers

 

[AliceShiki]

Trolley problem.

If you are in a situation where you need to sacrifice someone for the sake of community, there is no right answer for it. All answers suck.

Do you kill people you dislike? People that seem useless? People chosen randomly? People who volunteer to self-exile?

All options suck. If you're a leader and have to make a choice, you just have to be clear with the rest of the community... All options suck, but something must be done, or everyone will die.

And as other people said, the elderly won't necessarily be the best choice, because they can still be smart, or they can still be good at caring for children, or maybe they plain and simply don't eat as much as some healthy youth and the like.

Honestly, I think I'd be one of the biggest liabilities in an apocalypse community, simply because I eat a lot (I'm skinny, btw). I just need to eat a lot, otherwise I get dangerously underweight really fast. I tried cutting down on how much food I ate before, the result wasn't pretty.

So yeah, do you get rid of the elderly that eats a small bit each day, or the youth that needs to eat a lot to maintain themselves healthy? There is no right choice, all answers suck. You just have to find a way to convince people to accept the decision, whichever it may be.

 

[J_Chemist]

I like this question!

There's honestly a lot to unpack, some of which have been discussed already. At it's core: the needs of the pack come first. If the group is stationary and can sustain itself, defend against threats, and not so much thrive but continue to exist relatively unabated- then the weak, wounded, and "liabilities" can continue to exist. Their drag on supplies would be calculated into the resources the group has and it is likely not dangerous.

However, when we begin to tug on those strings and the survivability of the group is threatened, that's when we see this split you've brought up. Morality vs Survivability. But it's not quite morality, it's more our "attachment" and Humanity that factor in what we should do. We're not exactly taught to take care of our elderly and weak. From birth, we're mainly taught how to survive and develop into strong individuals, and then it is almost expected that at some point we'll fall off. As we age, that's when we learn the need to take care of the weak/broken because that's what we would like to happen to us. On top of that, we recognize that those older than us have things we don't; experience, skill, history, and teachable traits.

When it's a danger, though, Humanity begins to cave. We don't see it today because there are plenty of resources and it's explored in some media, but it's when your Humanity is challenged that you begin to notice the stress on the strings. If cutting the drag means surviving to see another day, you will cave. Your morals will buckle. Your mind will taint. For the good of those capable and for the good of tomorrow- you'll find you are more willing to break the "rules" and go against the "norm" than you originally thought.

The old provide knowledge, wisdom, and guidance. The youth bring the promise of a tomorrow and a future. Women who are pregnant are like catalysts that need to be protected in order to ensure the continuation of bloodlines. Strong men, wise hunters, and skilled workers need to be catered to in order to keep the core functions of the group intact.

But when the wolf comes knocking and your perfect bubble is pulled apart- all that matters is fight or flight. Some will take up arms to protect their home and those within it. Others, even those you thought would stand with you, will cut slack and haul ass. The choice in the moment that you'll take, you never quite know until you're in that situation.

And boy will I tell you it's an eye-opening experience when you watch those brave ones buckle and run. It's always the unexpected ones that seem to come out of the woodwork, and I'll never forget that fact.

 

[Tumbmar]

From a moral and ethical perspective, a leader has to do whatever it takes to ensure the survival of a group. But in most cases, including this one, I don't think dwindling resources is an excuse for killing the disabled, elderly, or any "useless" part of the population. Humans don't exist in societies based on utilitarianism. All possible avenues must be explored even if they could potentially lead to death, rather than going toward the more cowardly solution of just leaving some members behind. To do any less wouldn't be right.

I'm going to bring religion and mythology a little bit in the mix here, but there's a story in the Mahabharata where Arjuna and Krishna meet Agni one day near the Khandava Forest. Agni wants to eat up (burn) this forest to calm down his stomach from eating too many offerings.

Now this forest is a little bit special because it has a lot of wildlife and demons inhabiting it. Arjuna, alongside his brothers, have brought along their entire kingdom to set up territory elsewhere. They were given this forest to clear and set up a new capital. Only problem is that the demons are squatting here. They can't really chase away all the animals so we'll leave that be.

They gave multiple warnings to burn down that entire forest but the demons didn't listen. Eventually they let Agni eat up the entire place (burn the entire thing down) and killed the fleeing demons that chose to squat there.

Now a choice had to be made against either the demons, or the people that came with Arjuna and his family. Yudhisthira (the eldest of the brothers) had the final say and he chose to stay in that area, since they had no choice to move elsewhere or return from where they came. Plus that territory belonged to their family. Ultimately, he was going to incur some sin for allowing Arjuna and Krishna to kill all those demons as well as the wildlife, but he chose that path because, as a leader, he had to put his people first. There was no question of abandonment of his kin or appeasement to outsiders, who could have just as easily heeded the warning and moved away.

 

[DiscoDream]

Morality is mental gymanistics for the wealthy. When desperation sets in, most people will do things that could be considered morally repugnant. Nomadic tribes used to cull anyone who was too old, too weak, or too stupid. They weren't bad people, it was what had to be done.

For even more morally sketchy things, look at Libya, a dude I hang out with came from there originally. His family was quite wealthy and owned alot of slaves. From a Western point of view, that's hideous, but there, it was one of the best possible outcomes for a poor person. with a large portion of their population dying from starvation, or being on the edge of starvation, a way to ensure a stable lifestyle was appreciated. People would try to sell of their kids to the richer for their own benefit. While this has a great deal of problems, in such a shattered country, this was the best most people could do and hope for.

It's not about what's right or wrong, it's about what we have to do to survive, and whether or not we can live with it afterwards. Justifications can be made up, excuses thrown, but action must be taken.

 

[Bartun]

People will always go to extreme lengths to feed their loved ones. If the problem is the food they will dare hunt dangerous prey, they will dare to go farther, and even try to migrate to another area with more resources. Disposing of the elderly is simply not an option. In cavemen times old people were leaders, they reached old age for a reason.

 

[Daitengu]

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?

Throwing out people in that scenario is putting a bandaid on an amputation. The community will still die out, just slightly slower.

If you can't hunt, fish, gather, or farm enough to cover a whole community then that community needs to split and move apart. Before modern logistics that's how it was done. There's a reason pioneers were a thing for millennia.

 

[Yamemai]

lol, reminds me of that one Zombie Apocalypses anime/manga. Where the cast goes on to hunt some medication for an elderly couple. Most of the supporting side character end up eaten and the elders commit suicide. Tack on the cast end up traumatized from it.

In this scenario, if they had taken the logical option, where they don't bother finding the medicine, then it'd have been all-round better imo. -- If you think about it, once that medication runs out, they'd need to find more anyways, so they'd only be prolonging the couples suffering, even if they'd be lengthening their time together; but in that situation, how much could they even enjoy that time? With a time-limit and all hanging over their head, and barely any safety and comfort, both literally and mentally?
Saving the elderly couple had more demerits/cons than pros.
---------
Anyways, your point calls up another literature (forgot what), where the elderly would willingly head into the forest alone in times of famine and such, so the whole can survive, so, as others have said, might be better to explain things and get options/opinions first, before actually acting on it. As that's leadership

 

[N0xiety]

What really sours me from the moral high horse characters is the fact that there is almost always an asspull enabling them to continue with their unfeasible approach. If there were consequences to their seemingly impossible choices then it wouldn't be so bad, but almost none of the authors want to have those ugly consequences of having an mc making illogical decisions based on their morals and feelings. They either somehow always pull through and achieve what they wish the reality to be, or they are never subjected to situations where they must make hard choices in the first place just so they can go on along with how they have been, it just feels so nonsensical. Those who face consequences, and learn from them, is quite rare. That's why i tend to stay away from such goody moral high horse characters in most settings. So few of them are done well that, i just don't even wanna bother trying...