So, I pretty much lean more towards tealterror0's way of thinking than yours.
It seems to me that you basically accept human nature as some sort of utilitarian evolutionary greater good, therefore justifying selfishness as more "human" than selflessness. I strongly disagree, and by disagreeing, I do not mean that I am selfless or that selfish people are automatically wrong and bad or that I have any reasonable expectation that any significant portion of the population ever will give up all of their luxuries in order to alleviate the misery of the less fortunate. Or that if given a choice between saving my spouse or a random stranger, I would make a careful logical decision based on whether my spouse or the random stranger was more likely to provide a greater net good to humanity.
But. I think it would more moral for me to do all those things. Maybe not realistic. But we should try to do what is moral, even if we know we will fall short. Utilitarian arguments fail for me because they can always be reduced to might makes right: "I have the power to make this decision, therefore I must be inherently more entitled to make it for my own benefit."
You seem to be saying that anyone who even tries to elevate empathy above self-interest is basically weak and probably self-selecting themselves out of the gene pool. I really, really don't agree.
So in that sense, to say that Darla's decision was admirable because it's "wrong" to value someone else's life above your own or to choose a stranger over a loved one (or rather, to decide that sacrificing a stranger to save a loved one is not a morally respectable choice) just doesn't resonate with me. I understand what you're saying, I just disagree with it.
Alexandra really, really wanted to give Darla the obol. She couldn't do it because she knew she'd be committing murder, and that would have been wrong even if she could have come up with a hundred reasons why Max deserved to live more than Darla. I like to think, if I had a choice of saving a loved one if I were willing to kill some person I don't know, or even someone I don't like, that I would not do that because it would be wrong. (Obviously, I am not talking about self-defense situations, like where I have to kill someone who is threatening a loved one in order to save them.)
On a broader, evolutionary level, taking your argument to an extreme, empathy is a negative survival characteristic and therefore it should eventually be bred out of the human race. Besides how much that makes me shudder on a visceral level, I think it's scientifically wrong. There are a lot of benefits to empathy, not just in terms of personal enjoyment, but in terms of improved cooperation, ability to interact positively with other members of your species, etc. Yes, in specific situations empathy might not be an asset in improving your personal survival odds, but I think there's a strong argument that a more empathetic person has a greater chance of living longer and spreading his/her genes than a sociopath (which is what you wind up with when empathy is completely taken out of the equation).
Empathy and selfishness
It seems to me that you basically accept human nature as some sort of utilitarian evolutionary greater good, therefore justifying selfishness as more "human" than selflessness. I strongly disagree, and by disagreeing, I do not mean that I am selfless or that selfish people are automatically wrong and bad or that I have any reasonable expectation that any significant portion of the population ever will give up all of their luxuries in order to alleviate the misery of the less fortunate. Or that if given a choice between saving my spouse or a random stranger, I would make a careful logical decision based on whether my spouse or the random stranger was more likely to provide a greater net good to humanity.
But. I think it would more moral for me to do all those things. Maybe not realistic. But we should try to do what is moral, even if we know we will fall short. Utilitarian arguments fail for me because they can always be reduced to might makes right: "I have the power to make this decision, therefore I must be inherently more entitled to make it for my own benefit."
You seem to be saying that anyone who even tries to elevate empathy above self-interest is basically weak and probably self-selecting themselves out of the gene pool. I really, really don't agree.
So in that sense, to say that Darla's decision was admirable because it's "wrong" to value someone else's life above your own or to choose a stranger over a loved one (or rather, to decide that sacrificing a stranger to save a loved one is not a morally respectable choice) just doesn't resonate with me. I understand what you're saying, I just disagree with it.
Alexandra really, really wanted to give Darla the obol. She couldn't do it because she knew she'd be committing murder, and that would have been wrong even if she could have come up with a hundred reasons why Max deserved to live more than Darla. I like to think, if I had a choice of saving a loved one if I were willing to kill some person I don't know, or even someone I don't like, that I would not do that because it would be wrong. (Obviously, I am not talking about self-defense situations, like where I have to kill someone who is threatening a loved one in order to save them.)
On a broader, evolutionary level, taking your argument to an extreme, empathy is a negative survival characteristic and therefore it should eventually be bred out of the human race. Besides how much that makes me shudder on a visceral level, I think it's scientifically wrong. There are a lot of benefits to empathy, not just in terms of personal enjoyment, but in terms of improved cooperation, ability to interact positively with other members of your species, etc. Yes, in specific situations empathy might not be an asset in improving your personal survival odds, but I think there's a strong argument that a more empathetic person has a greater chance of living longer and spreading his/her genes than a sociopath (which is what you wind up with when empathy is completely taken out of the equation).