post-apocalyptic govt...

[Mike70]

I think it boils down to this: Do you believe there is any fate worse than physical death? If not, there is nothing you will not stoop to in order to survive. Me, I believe I will one day stand before a God who will expect me to account for my actions. His expectations are not "archaic." If you don't believe in God, and therefore don't believe in a transcendent objective morality, I can understand how your choices would be different. great point and even though i don't believe in god, such considerations should cause any rational person to pause and think about it. i've said i don't believe in god but i might be wrong. something some of you would rather die than even consider. some of the ridiculous things i've read in thread make me wonder how some of you were raised. by wolves? by jackals? i strongly believe that you go through life treating people the way you want to be treated, regardless of the situation.

[EvilNed]

EvilOne, the human race wouldn't be facing extinction. Only those unprepared for the crisis (the "I need, want, gimme" crowd) would become extinct. And what of those who are unable to prepare? Who do not have the money to prepare? Who's stockades are lost or overrun by the undead? Who, in turn, are raided by people who refuse to share with them? I'm not proposing we TAKE and KEEP. We SHARE and REBUILD. If you see "evil" or "communism" in that then I can't be bothered to talk with you on this matter. In the end, anyone who is clogged down with Cold War mentality is just digging his own grave. It's not about communism or capitalism. It's about rebuilding and surviving, something we have to do TOGETHER. Oh, I know the die hard capitalists in you tremble at the thought of doing something together, but that's the reality of it. Raiding parties led by you and Khardis might thrive for a short time, but eventually you'd come up against a well-prepared group that would slaughter you, thus ensuring the survival of the human race. Why would we "eventually" com up against such people, when we'd simply rebuild, prepare and share? If so, they would have to come to us, and we'd invite them in. Few would say that China is a more moral nation than Tibet for instance. Uhm, I would say that China today is ten times more moral than Tibet, pre-invasion.

[Mike70]

Yes, it makes people like you who believe morality is relevant in a chaotic world easy prey to those of us who put survival ahead of archaic notions from a dead civilization. Of course at that time civilization would have died and the moral code and ethos with it. At least until Chaos is reigned in and the zombie plague has finished and society rebuilds itself. Until then though, morality is just going to make you weak. If you are fine with that, then fine... for me though survival of my loved ones would undoubtedly push me to do whatever was necessary and by whatever means to ensure their survival. if it means wiping out your village of soft targets by infiltrating it etc then thats what it would be. you fail. i have been to a country without a central govt., no law, no order. the vast majority of the people behaved as if it made no difference. the reason? because they had moral ideas and beliefs about how you conduct yourself in dealing with others. granted there were people acting the fool. folks who thought that they could push people around and take what they want but they were a small, small minority. besides, they were probably total scumbags before the govt. collapsed anyway.

[bassman]

If we lose our morals, beliefs, and general code of conduct, we sink to the same level as the mindless creatures that are attacking us....

[Mike70]

If we lose our morals, beliefs, and general code of conduct, we sink to the same level as the mindless creatures that are attacking us.... or we become something worse...

[EvilNed]

In the event of an apocalyptic event, the most moral choices are those which save the largest amount of human life. Wether they be close family or complete strangers makes no difference, because the goal is to save the human race.

[Khardis]

i strongly believe that you go through life treating people the way you want to be treated, regardless of the situation. Fairly naive, did you grow up with 2 parents middle class with plenty to eat? If you did it might explain your naivety. you fail. i have been to a country without a central govt., no law, no order. the vast majority of the people behaved as if it made no difference. the reason? because they had moral ideas and beliefs about how you conduct yourself in dealing with others. granted there were people acting the fool. folks who thought that they could push people around and take what they want but they were a small, small minority. besides, they were probably total scumbags before the govt. collapsed anyway. Sounds like you were in a country thats used to having no centralized government and live in a tribal society. Thats not chaos. Chaos would be the united states government falling apart and people being left to fend for themselves. What you are describing sounds like a country that can exist and does exist without central government for 1000s of years. Thats like saying Native Americans lived in Chaos and Anarchy which we know isn't true at all. In the event of an apocalyptic event, the most moral choices are those which save the largest amount of human life. Wether they be close family or complete strangers makes no difference, because the goal is to save the human race. Maybe from where we sit now it is... in my opinion, in the even of an apocalypse the most moral choice is for me to make sure my loved ones survive 1st and foremost, and screw everyone else if its a choice between them and mine.

[darth los]

It seems that an apocalyptic event would accomplish something that we as americans seem unwilling or maybe just unable to do... Scrap this crazy system of government where no significant legislation ever gets passed and our elected officials break the law with impunity. Anything that does that can't be all bad.

[Trencher]

Uhm, I would say that China today is ten times more moral than Tibet, pre-invasion. How about today? As the invasion is the main point of the example. Maybe from where we sit now it is... in my opinion, in the even of an apocalypse the most moral choice is for me to make sure my loved ones survive 1st and foremost, and screw everyone else if its a choice between them and mine. Did you catch the post above I made right before the thread was closed? I tried to explain to you why your attitude is counter productive.

[Khardis]

How about today? As the invasion is the main point of the example. Did you catch the post above I made right before the thread was closed? I tried to explain to you why your attitude is counter productive. it might be counter productive to you, to me though my family is more important than you and every other human on earth. I would gladly sacrifice all humans on earth to save just my own loved ones. In a heart beat without second thought.

[Trencher]

it might be counter productive to you, to me though my family is more important than you and every other human on earth. I would gladly sacrifice all humans on earth to save just my own loved ones. In a heart beat without second thought. As would we all. But I think I made some good points for how raiding lifestyle would be hazardous for all even the raiders and their loved ones. What do you think about those arguments?

[Bub666]

it might be counter productive to you, to me though my family is more important than you and every other human on earth. I would gladly sacrifice all humans on earth to save just my own loved ones. In a heart beat without second thought. I agree.My family is more important to me,then anyone else on earth.

[EvilNed]

Maybe from where we sit now it is... in my opinion, in the even of an apocalypse the most moral choice is for me to make sure my loved ones survive 1st and foremost, and screw everyone else if its a choice between them and mine. So you'd rather face annihilation? I know it might not be an easy choice to make, but it's definetly the most moral. Not only do you save the human race right now, but all those people yet to be born. How about today? As the invasion is the main point of the example. Today Tibet is occupied by China and is integrated into Chinese society. They still obey the same feudal structure as 50 years ago, so I'd probably still say China.

[Khardis]

So you'd rather face annihilation? I know it might not be an easy choice to make, but it's definetly the most moral. Not only do you save the human race right now, but all those people yet to be born. Today Tibet is occupied by China and is integrated into Chinese society. They still obey the same feudal structure as 50 years ago, so I'd probably still say China. Most moral to you, to me letting my loved ones die and saving the world is immoral.

[EvilNed]

Most moral to you, to me letting my loved ones die and saving the world is immoral. I didn't even know there were people who held that opinion.