Please or Register to create posts and topics.

How Should We View the Life of Someone? Value-Adding or Value-Taking

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on February 26, 2021, 1:27 am from YouTube Channels to Learn From

OFF-TOPIC

Maybe we have a different view of life.

To me, it's not an indissoluble right to stay alive.

If one is an asshole and repeatedly assaults, harms, or threatens other's people's lives and livelihood as if it were dirt, then the world is better off going on without him.
He's already proven he's not here to do anything good for the world.

In some cases, it's a very worthy goal and accomplishment to kill someone.

Think for example of the generals that tried to kill Hitler, how many lives that would have saved if they had succeeded -and what a poorly executed attempt that was :S-.

Plus, there are plenty of situations in which it's about "your life, or someone else's life".
Then, it's no different than competing for a promotion, or for a leadership spot.

And in those cases, if that "someone else's life" is a bandit's life, I'll always be on the side of the "good" guy, and against the bandit.

OFF-TOPIC

I have not thought about this in much detail yet.
But it's a very interesting topic to consider.
It crosses over into values and ethics as well.

Think for example of the generals that tried to kill Hitler, how many lives that would have saved if they had succeeded -and what a poorly executed attempt that was :S-.

I watched the documentary/movie on this.
I was disappointed with the execution as well.

Hitler had skills in power dynamics, especially charisma.
Another example that climbing to the top requires power dynamics rather than adding value.
To stay at the top for a long period of time, that's another matter.

The above is a clearer area on this topic.

GREY AREAS

There are greyer areas when it is fair to take someone's life.
Let's leave the legal aspect aside and focus on ethics & values.

  • Getting robbed
  • Woman getting raped
  • Killing powerful value-takers

Maybe this is a grey area as well:

In this case, the video suggested that the homeless person was repeatedly trying to take advantage of the shop owners.
As Lucio says, there may be ways to frame the situation as a win-win without getting into violence too.
This would be cleaner.

Lucio Buffalmano has reacted to this post.
Lucio Buffalmano

Yep, repeatedly is the keyword to me.

Repeatedly = constant and endless problem / menace.
Proven over a period of time that he's a heavy value taker, potential safety threat as well.

I agree that in that video it's still very much a grey area, and way too early to properly discuss solutions.

We don't know a lot of information such as how damaging to the business that guy was, how generally aggressive, how dangerous, and how potentially vindicative and/or connected to other criminals in the area -which increases the risks of pepper-spraying him as a temporary solution-.

THE STRATEGIC APPROACH TO "FINAL SOLUTIONS" - Even when sensible-

Going back to "final solutions", such as getting rid of threats for good: they are almost always bound to be a communication and PR nightmare.

Even if we're talking about "getting rid of lethally poisonous snakes" in an infested house, there will always be someone who will accuse you of being a heartless killer if your best solution is to kill the snakes, rather than capturing and freeing them.

So you must tread very carefully of how you word, frame, and communicate your choices -even when they seem the only sensible solutions-.

Matthew Whitewood has reacted to this post.
Matthew Whitewood
Have you read the forum guidelines for effective communication already?

And more on a general level, I personally don't see life as "sacred", or like an eternal right that one always has a right to.

I'll go even further:

LEADERSHIP AND "EXTREME SOLUTIONS"

I think that extreme solutions are among the leadership's most important and gravest decisions.

And those extreme solutions include when and how to execute potentially life-ending solutions towards threats or extreme value-takers.

Very rare any of those decisions will ever be taken in 99.99% of modern-life leadership positions.

But still, thinking that good leadership should a priori exclude anything just because it may sound extreme within our modern civilization is a limited -and disempowering- approach to leadership, in my opinion.
Leadership and group dynamics are atavic.
Much of our brain and psychology are still based on the Savannah days, when those graver decisions were far more common.

This is one of the pillars of the power moves that we're talking about.

What we're talking about here are extreme situations of "being bad to be good".
If you can't be bad with value-takers, then you will lead yourself -and your group- to lose out -or succumb- to those value-takers.
If the value taker is not highly threatening, you might still be allowing a leecher to suck up on the group. And if he's an extreme value taker, the group survival might be at stake.
And that's naive leadership, not good leadership.

Instead, ruthlessness must be in the quiver of any good leader.
Buried deep inside, and never taken out lightly or gladly.
Collaboration first, inclusion first, de-escalation first... But never take any option off the table.

THE BALANCE OF LEADERSHIP & VALUES

As usual, balance.

A leader who revels in extreme solutions is an extremely poor leader himself, a leader who spreads death, lowers people's quality of life, and puts the group itself at risk.

But a leader who refuses to even entertain the most extreme solutions is also a weak leader who puts his group at risk.

Have you read the forum guidelines for effective communication already?

This goes back to how much one values life in general. And how much one values other lives: his, others' and non-human life.

It also seems that you think that life is something that should be deserved and not a right. The corollary is that you are for the death penalty. Is this correct?

I have never put too much thought into the death penalty, to be honest.

Let's say that for now, more than being "in favor", I'm not against it -for a specific subset of repulsive crimes, of course-.

I think it's also fair if the victim(s) or their dear ones should have some say in it.

So yes, the death penalty is a very difficult decision to reach, but that doesn't mean it must completely be off the table.

Have you read the forum guidelines for effective communication already?