Well it's self-governed in the sense that you are not being coerced into following the moral code by any force or actor outside of your own conscience. You have supreme, personal power over whether or not you choose to subscribe to, and abide by, the belief that murder is wrong (or the Categorical Imperative for that matter), and thus whether or not you (try to) kill the other person or not.

So you agree that "being murderous" would be just as self-governed?

Well it would have to be, yeah. Actively choosing not to kill the other person is simply taking one side of the fence. "Being murderous" would be the other side. Pointing that out seems sort of redundant though, as it's naturally implied. All that self-governed really means is "free will".

I'm not quite sure how you mean it, but it seems as though you took my word "realist" as meaning "realistic". While that would make sense normally, I don't think it's totally accurate in the sense that I meant it. I meant "realist" to mean the logic of "realpolitik", in the oldest sense of the term: "the strong do as they will, the weak do as they must". After all, considering the question of killing someone under a literal state of anarchy (meaning there exists no over-arching authority) on the deserted island - removed from the social and legal constraints of greater society - means that realpolitik must be the only moral code possible, right? After all, if your moral code is that of the Categorical Imperative - and thus you refuse to kill the other person - that in no way precludes the other person killing you, since they could choose to follow the code of realpolitik and nobody could stop them.

No not realistic... I understood you to mean some form of moral realism and understood "realist" as an adherent to a form of moral realism. It seems to me, you are making some moral assumptions and choosing a moral system which you feel is preferable.

Hence my question, why do you prefer a killed or be killed approach to moral realism in this situation over another system of moral realism? Or why do you feel the kill or be killed approach is the only moral code possible?

First I am assuming that you are arguing that in your "thought experiment" it is OK to kill the other person.

So, I guess I can put my objection in another way - let's assume this "realpolitik" as a first premise.

P1: The strong do as they will, the weak do as they must
P2: Either Castaway A or Castaway B will die if A or B does not kill the other.
P3: Castaway A will not kill, even knowing he will die.
P4: Castaway B will kill so he can live.
C1: Castaway A is strong.
C2: Castaway B is weak.

Now, I am sure the syllogism isn't perfect, but I think its close enough to demonstrate that the person "not killing" is exercising his will and therefore is strong, while the person "killing" is doing as he must (to survive) and is therefore weak.

Are these the conclusions you wish to draw from the "realpolitik"?

I'll start by clarifying that I personally don't prefer a kill or be killed system. I would abide by the Categorical Imperative myself, but that's not the point here. It just seems to me that outside the constraints of greater society all moral systems should theoretically be equally legitimate, including "kill or be killed". What objective basis is there to say that one moral system should override another in an isolated game like this? And I suggested that the kill or be killed approach may possibly be the "only" solution because that would seem to be the Nash Equilibrium, no?

haha well ultimately I'd definitely agree that to refuse to kill the other person in the face of certain death is indeed a strong act of will, and I agree with both your logic and your ethics to that extent. But I think that when "the strong do as they will and the weak do as they must" is considered in its traditional, historical sense, the assumption must be made that neither player is willing to submit to death.

Yes, I would agree, you would have to make an additional assumption that neither player is willing to submit to death for this to be solvable in some mathematical sense ...

so I guess we go back to Ganstaman's original question, how is this relevant to morality?

Or perhaps is "realpolitik" even a moral consideration? Is it an accurate statement to say that "no one is willing to submit to death?" If not, why bother with this "realpolitik?"

Although I personally am against realism in principle, it is the dominant paradigm in international relations for instance, which is obv very relevant and important. In fact, game theory again seems to dictate that it is a highly relevant if not dominant strategy in any anarchic system, whether it be between state actors in the world or between two people alone on an island. While I'll be the first to say that it is by no means a straightforward cut-and-dry question, it's safe to say that not only is nobody (no country) willing to submit to death in the international arena, they are not even willing to submit to the risk of destruction. That's why we are faced today with the issue of nuclear proliferation, for example. It's simply a high-stakes prisoners' dilemma. To answer your question, although I wish it wasn't, "realpolitik" is definitely a moral consideration for many people out there.

I'm afraid this thread is becoming a little sidetracked though. What I'd like to focus on is this:

If it was you on that island, why wouldn't you kill the other person (provided that they are not threatening you)? And to be clear, if you answer "because killing is wrong," you need to explain why killing is wrong in this specific situation.

Killing the other person would only slightly increase your own chance of being rescued and permanently end the possibility of rescue for the other person.

Good point. But now I wish I hadn't gone through the trouble of outlining the island situation with the possibility of being rescued, etc because I'm not really interested in the survival aspect. I only framed it like that to try and make it seem like a plausible, real-life scenario. My only interest here is why or why wouldn't you kill the person, regardless of your chances of rescue. I'm trying to figure out where we derive this sense of moral responsibility to not kill people from, but in an isolated, controlled case where the factors involved in existing within greater society are removed.

I think maybe you are trying to hard to remove reasons for morality. If you remove all reasons for having morality, then ofcourse... morality makes no sense. This goes for any individual's morality, it doesn't matter if it is a fundamentalist Christian or the most secular of moral relativists.

To answer the question, in the comfort of my livingroom; I would rather die knowing I didn't kill my only fellow human being than live knowing I did.

Ok, so that's your own moral code then, based on the empathy you have for a fellow human being. But there's no certainty that everyone shares this sentiment. Should someone who values their own life over that of another, and thus kills the other person, be condemned?

ps. this is all on the island of course.

I'm searching for an objective basis or foundation for morality, that's all. So far neither I nor anyone else in this thread has been able to come up with one.

I don't think that, except for rare exceptions, our sense of moral responsibility is derived from some rational principle in the way you are assuming here. Rather, it comes from our feelings of empathy, or kinship, or honor, etc. Of course, we can develop moral systems to follow that are based in rational principles (e.g. utilitarianism or Kantianism), but I don't see how we could force other people to also follow them, which seems to be what you are asking for.

You probably should have made this your OP, then. Instead, you are basically distracting us from giving you what you want.

muh bad. now you know.

As long as you start with the premise that the two individuals are not on the same team.

You will not find morality from an eq. type situation. This is why each religion has a set of morals derived from an 'external' source such as the 10 commandments written by god's finger. Morality derived internally is as corrupt as the man it tries to direct.

But seeing the emptiness of morality in its root form in which you cannot extract rules is the beginning of true I believe. It may cause you to questions all your foundations.

Not being able to logically extract morals doesn't point to kill or be killed .

Well, I am going to respectfully disagree ... I believe by definition "realpolitik" does not take into account moral judgments.

It would seem you are looking for an ethical solution, using a methodology which doesn't take into account ethics.

Well, I am not sure you can find some "moral objectivity" that is akin to some predictive formula always coming up with the best moral action. I have actually been reading over a website, moralobjectivity.net, its the PhD thesis of Robert Ellis.

He makes a pretty interesting argument - admittedly applying the Buddhist Middle Way (though, the approach is rather secular). I don't quite have my head wrapped around it yet, but it is somewhat interesting if you are into this kind of stuff:

Robert Ellis - Practical Solutions to Moral and Political Problems

Hopefully this is somewhat interesting/helpful.

I admit I phrased that very poorly indeed, given the actual definition of realpolitik. I guess I meant it in the sense that actors often find themselves (seemingly) forced to act according to realist logic in times of conflict, and thus can derive a sort of justification for their actions through the argument that abiding by realist logic is pragmatic and indeed even necessary given the situation of conflict they find themselves trapped in.

But yeah this is great, thank you.

I'm not sure I entirely understand. Does not being able to logically extract morals then leave us without any (objective) morals? Or am I missing the point here somehow