Quote:
Originally Posted by archimedes11
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.
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"?