Seasons
This is a forum or general chit-chat, small talk, a "hey, how ya doing?" and such. Or hell, get crazy deep on something. Whatever you like.
Posts 4,330 - 4,341 of 6,170
2. It would probably do no good to kill baby Hitler, he did not do all that himself. The society, conditions etc allowed him to rise to power. If not him maybe Hess. or someone else would have been there to rise to the evil occasion.
Funny you should say that - I just watched the movie Butterfly Effect 2 the other day, and the basic premise (like the original,) is a man who can go back and change things that have gone wrong in his past (girlfriend dying in a car wreck, business deals going bad, etc.)
The outcome predictably is an escalating nightmare as every change he makes just makes the resulting situation even worse.
I hope I'd have the courage to refuse to change anything, if I had the opportunity. But little Adolph in his cradle's a tempting target for a little clandestine infanticide nonetheless.
I must just keep telling myself that it's not my place to change the past, present or future if the means involved are (or might be) bad in themselves. No good end ever justifies evil means. Even if more people end up dying that way, it is not my place to make the decision. Maybe that's a cop out, but I am a fallible and partial human being, and as such at least as able to be corrupted by the exercise of such responsibility as anyone else.
Going back to Bev's point-switching analogy - I ought to leave the points in whichever position I found them, even if that killed the 5. In fact I fear I probably wouldn't be able to resist the urge to switch them to position B if they were set to position A, and only kill the 1. But I regard that as a weakness in me. What if that one turned out to be a pioneering doctor who would have invented a cure for AIDS and saved millions of lives had he survived? Or if one of the 5 turned into another Hitler and killed millions? Whatever choice I made, I'm not sure I'd be able to live with myself afterwards, so I hope it remains a purely hypothetical situation.
It's not my place to evaluate the relative worth of other people's lives, and I do my best to refuse to participate in any process that demands I should do so, whether that's in Baghdad, Darfur, or closer to home.
All I can say is insects are bugs, a spider is a bug..but it is not an insect.
It seems like you are trying to avoid the fallacy of the undistributed middle there. It is true that the following syllogism would be a fallacy:
All insects are bugs
all spiders are bugs
Therefore all spiders are insects.
I love the logic lesson, but (and please don't think I am being rude) how does that relate to the moral dilemma? I am not asking whether or not killing one to save many is the same as killing one for no reason. I am not saying that All who kill humans are murders, and soldiers kill humans so soldiers are murderers. I am asking if there are times we should kill one to save many, and if making the choice not to kill one in those circumstances is not the same as choosing to kill many.
You keep wanting to change the problem.
The point of the moral dilemma is you must choose. You are too far away to save any children. All you can do is push the big guy, killing him, or let the children die. The car is moving too fast, and you cannot move fast enough to stop it. You are not big enough to stop it. If you don't push the big guy, you are killing the children by not acting.
Let me make one even harder to wriggle out of. You are shopping and an armed maniac comes in and takes everyone hostage. For some reason he takes a shine to you but in his twisted way wants to torment you. He lines up 5 other shoppers and tells you, "I will either shoot all five of them or one. If you pick one to die, I kill that one and let the other 4 go. If you won't pick, I'll kill all 5." What do you do?
Going back to Bev's point-switching analogy - I ought to leave the points in whichever position I found them, even if that killed the 5. In fact I fear I probably wouldn't be able to resist the urge to switch them to position B if they were set to position A, and only kill the 1. But I regard that as a weakness in me. What if that one turned out to be a pioneering doctor who would have invented a cure for AIDS and saved millions of lives had he survived? Or if one of the 5 turned into another Hitler and killed millions? Whatever choice I made, I'm not sure I'd be able to live with myself afterwards, so I hope it remains a purely hypothetical situation.
Your position seems similar to Prob's. Doesn't such logic, applied to our present time as opposed to messing with the past, promote a sort of apathy bordering on negligence? If all it takes for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing, isn't doing nothing the same as letting evil win? We may never know whether the acts we do will have the results we hope, but aren't we morally bound to fight the good fight (so to speak)?
Your position seems similar to Prob's. Doesn't such logic, applied to our present time as opposed to messing with the past, promote a sort of apathy bordering on negligence?
Probably. I don't claim to be able to rationalize it. A lose-lose situation always ends in a loss. And without perfect knowledge, we can't accurately evaluate the lesser of two evils.
In the long term we can no more predict the effect on the future, or make any quantative assessment of Net happiness or pain that results from either choice, if one person dies or a million people die. And without that perfect knowledge, I am not competent to make the call. In the hostage situation, I'd offer myself, but I wouldn't choose other victims.
Perhaps if I took death to be a bit more of a big deal, I would feel differently, but I have a fairly unshakable faith that death is not the end. Certainly the prospect doesn't bother me (I'm rather looking forward to it actually - I hope it's not too quick to savour the experience. I'll be so pissed off if I die in my sleep and miss it!)
If all it takes for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing, isn't doing nothing the same as letting evil win? We may never know whether the acts we do will have the results we hope, but aren't we morally bound to fight the good fight (so to speak)?
Yes, we must take a stand against evil - doing nothing is not an option. But I will never take anything other than an entirely non-violent stand nonetheless. Fortunately we don't have time travel, or bumping off a few infant dictators might just prove too tempting for me, and we have no perfect foresight to know what the future will bring.
It's not an entirely rational thing, and I wouldn't necessarily judge anyone else who chooses to admit the notion that violence is sometimes necessary in extremis. But I don't.
You are too far away to save any children. I could only call to the big guy, jump in front of the car, hope he would take the cue and follow me in a suicide attempt.
apathy bordering on negligence. Sorry, I try not to be apathetic. I do still think that human life is precious. I don't kill animals for sport or fun. In fact I would die for my dog, and I am having to put down a couple of cats, and that is almost killing me. BUT human kind is still my kind. I have every moral obligation to do the best I can toward them. I don't know that I could switch the train without derailing it..killing even more.
So...it's not killing if you kill an animal? It's only killing if you kill a human? It is only MURDER, if you kill a human.
All insects are bugs
all spiders are bugs
Therefore all spiders are insects.
I meant that for the murder vs killing, not the jumping in front of a car. And yes that would kill me, but that is my option.
Posts 4,330 - 4,341 of 6,170
All I can say is insects are bugs, a spider is a bug..but it is not an insect.
!.I would sacrifice myself by pushing as many kids as I could out of the way. It is all I could do morally
2. It would probably do no good to kill baby Hitler, he did not do all that himself. The society, conditions etc allowed him to rise to power. If not him maybe Hess. or someone else would have been there to rise to the evil occasion.
3. The lack of pity. Doesn't mean I am out to kill or maim
4. Yes, everyone is capable of great evil. I think that is why we can not have tolerance for it.
5 If all actions are neither good nor bad. Where does humanity draw the line?
6. Understanding and reason can come without pity. You can help someone without having pity for them.
Are you distinguishing killing humans from killing animals? It's ending a life either way YES I am distinguishing killing humans from killing animals..YES beyond a shadow of a doubt!
!.I would sacrifice myself by pushing as many kids as I could out of the way. It is all I could do morally
2. It would probably do no good to kill baby Hitler, he did not do all that himself. The society, conditions etc allowed him to rise to power. If not him maybe Hess. or someone else would have been there to rise to the evil occasion.
3. The lack of pity. Doesn't mean I am out to kill or maim
4. Yes, everyone is capable of great evil. I think that is why we can not have tolerance for it.
5 If all actions are neither good nor bad. Where does humanity draw the line?
6. Understanding and reason can come without pity. You can help someone without having pity for them.
Funny you should say that - I just watched the movie Butterfly Effect 2 the other day, and the basic premise (like the original,) is a man who can go back and change things that have gone wrong in his past (girlfriend dying in a car wreck, business deals going bad, etc.)
The outcome predictably is an escalating nightmare as every change he makes just makes the resulting situation even worse.
I hope I'd have the courage to refuse to change anything, if I had the opportunity. But little Adolph in his cradle's a tempting target for a little clandestine infanticide nonetheless.
I must just keep telling myself that it's not my place to change the past, present or future if the means involved are (or might be) bad in themselves. No good end ever justifies evil means. Even if more people end up dying that way, it is not my place to make the decision. Maybe that's a cop out, but I am a fallible and partial human being, and as such at least as able to be corrupted by the exercise of such responsibility as anyone else.
Going back to Bev's point-switching analogy - I ought to leave the points in whichever position I found them, even if that killed the 5. In fact I fear I probably wouldn't be able to resist the urge to switch them to position B if they were set to position A, and only kill the 1. But I regard that as a weakness in me. What if that one turned out to be a pioneering doctor who would have invented a cure for AIDS and saved millions of lives had he survived? Or if one of the 5 turned into another Hitler and killed millions? Whatever choice I made, I'm not sure I'd be able to live with myself afterwards, so I hope it remains a purely hypothetical situation.
It's not my place to evaluate the relative worth of other people's lives, and I do my best to refuse to participate in any process that demands I should do so, whether that's in Baghdad, Darfur, or closer to home.
It seems like you are trying to avoid the fallacy of the undistributed middle there. It is true that the following syllogism would be a fallacy:
All insects are bugs
all spiders are bugs
Therefore all spiders are insects.
I love the logic lesson, but (and please don't think I am being rude) how does that relate to the moral dilemma? I am not asking whether or not killing one to save many is the same as killing one for no reason. I am not saying that All who kill humans are murders, and soldiers kill humans so soldiers are murderers. I am asking if there are times we should kill one to save many, and if making the choice not to kill one in those circumstances is not the same as choosing to kill many.
You keep wanting to change the problem.
The point of the moral dilemma is you must choose. You are too far away to save any children. All you can do is push the big guy, killing him, or let the children die. The car is moving too fast, and you cannot move fast enough to stop it. You are not big enough to stop it. If you don't push the big guy, you are killing the children by not acting. Let me make one even harder to wriggle out of. You are shopping and an armed maniac comes in and takes everyone hostage. For some reason he takes a shine to you but in his twisted way wants to torment you. He lines up 5 other shoppers and tells you, "I will either shoot all five of them or one. If you pick one to die, I kill that one and let the other 4 go. If you won't pick, I'll kill all 5." What do you do?
Your position seems similar to Prob's. Doesn't such logic, applied to our present time as opposed to messing with the past, promote a sort of apathy bordering on negligence? If all it takes for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing, isn't doing nothing the same as letting evil win? We may never know whether the acts we do will have the results we hope, but aren't we morally bound to fight the good fight (so to speak)?
Probably. I don't claim to be able to rationalize it. A lose-lose situation always ends in a loss. And without perfect knowledge, we can't accurately evaluate the lesser of two evils.
In the long term we can no more predict the effect on the future, or make any quantative assessment of Net happiness or pain that results from either choice, if one person dies or a million people die. And without that perfect knowledge, I am not competent to make the call. In the hostage situation, I'd offer myself, but I wouldn't choose other victims.
Perhaps if I took death to be a bit more of a big deal, I would feel differently, but I have a fairly unshakable faith that death is not the end. Certainly the prospect doesn't bother me (I'm rather looking forward to it actually - I hope it's not too quick to savour the experience. I'll be so pissed off if I die in my sleep and miss it!)
Yes, we must take a stand against evil - doing nothing is not an option. But I will never take anything other than an entirely non-violent stand nonetheless. Fortunately we don't have time travel, or bumping off a few infant dictators might just prove too tempting for me, and we have no perfect foresight to know what the future will bring.
It's not an entirely rational thing, and I wouldn't necessarily judge anyone else who chooses to admit the notion that violence is sometimes necessary in extremis. But I don't.
all spiders are bugs
Therefore all spiders are insects.
Ah, but murder is more than killing. It implies prior planning TO kill. So you've placed a condition on the killing, other than just the victim being human. Again, you're confusing the action (killing) with the context (an innocent human).
Would it be murder if I decided to kill and eat my neighbor's beloved cat? The children who loved the cat would think so, even if the law did not.
Would it be murder if I decided to kill and eat my neighbor's beloved cat? The children who loved the cat would think so, even if the law did not.
I don't think you could say it was murder by definition. But it would be EVIL. And that is all I am saying, EVIL exists in this world. Good exists in this would, and even some neutral things..
1 : the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought
2 a : something very difficult or dangerous b : something outrageous or blameworthy, Getting away with murder.
1 : the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought
2 a : something very difficult or dangerous b : something outrageous or blameworthy, Getting away with murder.
OK, I can respect both Psimagus and Prob's positions. I just need to point out that it's still a choice, even if you choose to do nothing, and people live or die based on your choice. It's not murder, but it's a life or death decision for other people.
What if you were in a village with a deadly illness that has infected 1000 people and you have only medicine to save 500? Do you give no one medicine because it's not up to you to decide who lives or dies?
What if you were in a village with a deadly illness that has infected 1000 people and you have only medicine to save 500? Do you give no one medicine because it's not up to you to decide who lives or dies?
» More new posts: Doghead's Cosmic Bar