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 4,339 - 4,350 of 6,170
Bev, don't you find any situation always "black" isn't there something that you think is EVIL all the time
I find some actions to be evil by my judgment, but I know that is colored by my perspective and value system and such evil exists on a continuum and must be judged in terms of the circumstances. I would still do what I could to fight the "evil" but I would see that it is a label I gave it, and "good" is also based on my point of view. I then have an obligation to evolve a system of ethics and stand by it, so that my actions are in tune with my values.
Nietzsche* once gave an example of a lion and a lamb. To the lamb, the lion is evil. To the lion, the lamb is dinner. If a wild animal eats her own children, is it "evil"?
When human kills her child, I say yes, it is evil. However, that same person came to do that evil based on many conditions, and may also do "good" at other times. I call her monster, but maybe her surviving children call her mommy. I judge the acts, I want her held responsible, but I also want to know what happened that would make a woman do that, and how to heal her family.
Across the board, I'll go out on a limb and say that unless there is an extreme case where others' survival depended on it, killing a 5 year old is "bad". I will go on the record and say I am against killing little kids and if I can stop such killings I will. Those are my moral values, I think they are good for society as a whole, and I vote, through my actions, that we all adapt such morals. I can't vote fro everyone else though. Also it is the action I am against, not "evil people".
I have to say that I find your response to the medical dilemma a little troubling too. Half a dose, while superficially "fair", is a death sentence for all, since it has already been determined they need a full dose to live. Praying may mitigate it in terms of your intent, but by your acts you would have refused to save hundreds of people you could have just because you couldn't save them all. If you can pray that half a dose may work, why not pray the weak survive and give half to those most likely to make it? If it's a miracle, get a miracle, but why not play the odds and try for the greatest good? Surely any loving god would see th wisdom in that, and if a miracle suits her purpose at that time, she will grant it even if you gave medicine out to some.
*I am not really a big fan of Nietzsche in general, but I thought I'd throw a little of his argument in there.
positions. I just need to point out that it's still a choice, I half the doses, pray for a miracle and the all live or all die. I know that wasn't one of your options, but that is what I would do.
I'd already decided to give it to the first 500 in the queue regardless (assuming it to be dosed unsplittably in some way.)
A situation like that, you WANT a cold, calculating bastard in charge.
Well, if you're fit and able and young, yes you probably do. If you're unfit and old, and likely to be triaged to the back of the queue, you definitely don't. You probably want Prob or me.
Posts 4,339 - 4,350 of 6,170
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?
Irina, They aren't really mine. I am playing with versions of the classic moral dilemas used by philosophers and psychologist to push people's moral reasoning. I guess I just can't stand black and white and I have to get everyone dirty 
Bev, don't you find any situation always "black" isn't there something that you think is EVIL all the time? I think there are things that are always good, and I think there are things that are always going to be evil.
positions. I just need to point out that it's still a choice, I half the doses, pray for a miracle and the all live or all die. I know that wasn't one of your options, but that is what I would do.
My definition of evil is something so foul it turns your stomach.
The dictionary says
1 a : morally reprehensible : SINFUL, WICKED b : arising from actual or imputed bad character or conduct
2 a archaic : INFERIOR b : causing discomfort or repulsion : OFFENSIVE c : DISAGREEABLE
3 a : causing harm : PERNICIOUS b : marked by misfortune : UNLUCKY
I think it's one of those things you know when you see it.
The dictionary says
1 a : morally reprehensible : SINFUL, WICKED b : arising from actual or imputed bad character or conduct
2 a archaic : INFERIOR b : causing discomfort or repulsion : OFFENSIVE c : DISAGREEABLE
3 a : causing harm : PERNICIOUS b : marked by misfortune : UNLUCKY
I think it's one of those things you know when you see it.
Incidentally, I find prob123's response to the medical dilemma to be evil. The only response likely to be worse is to withhold the medicine entirely. From a practical standpoint, you would have to prioritize. Highest priority: able-bodied adults who have not been so severely hit that they are unlikely to recover. Next priority: children able to walk and help out. Lowest priority: helpless children and elderly invalids. Why? Because they're the least likely to recover AND they won't be much help through the crisis.
A situation like that, you WANT a cold, calculating bastard in charge.
A situation like that, you WANT a cold, calculating bastard in charge.
On prob123's remarks about evil (4345):
I think it's one of those things you know when you see it.
Well, it is true that we all have some understanding of what evil is, although, as shown by Ulrike's latest post, we don't always agree about the details.
The dictionary definitions seem to substitute other words for "evil", but this doesn't give much philosophical insight. It's not that I know those other English words, but haven't yet learned the word "evil". On the contrary, I know enough about the meaning of "evil" to know that only a few of those terms is anywhere near being a synonym for it.
If people were clear about what evil is, then why would so many people end up doing horribly evil things in the name of goodness?
The dictionary definitions seem to substitute other words for "evil", but this doesn't give much philosophical insight. It's not that I know those other English words, but haven't yet learned the word "evil". On the contrary, I know enough about the meaning of "evil" to know that only a few of those terms is anywhere near being a synonym for it.
If people were clear about what evil is, then why would so many people end up doing horribly evil things in the name of goodness?
I find some actions to be evil by my judgment, but I know that is colored by my perspective and value system and such evil exists on a continuum and must be judged in terms of the circumstances. I would still do what I could to fight the "evil" but I would see that it is a label I gave it, and "good" is also based on my point of view. I then have an obligation to evolve a system of ethics and stand by it, so that my actions are in tune with my values.
Nietzsche* once gave an example of a lion and a lamb. To the lamb, the lion is evil. To the lion, the lamb is dinner. If a wild animal eats her own children, is it "evil"?
When human kills her child, I say yes, it is evil. However, that same person came to do that evil based on many conditions, and may also do "good" at other times. I call her monster, but maybe her surviving children call her mommy. I judge the acts, I want her held responsible, but I also want to know what happened that would make a woman do that, and how to heal her family.
Across the board, I'll go out on a limb and say that unless there is an extreme case where others' survival depended on it, killing a 5 year old is "bad". I will go on the record and say I am against killing little kids and if I can stop such killings I will. Those are my moral values, I think they are good for society as a whole, and I vote, through my actions, that we all adapt such morals. I can't vote fro everyone else though. Also it is the action I am against, not "evil people".
I have to say that I find your response to the medical dilemma a little troubling too. Half a dose, while superficially "fair", is a death sentence for all, since it has already been determined they need a full dose to live. Praying may mitigate it in terms of your intent, but by your acts you would have refused to save hundreds of people you could have just because you couldn't save them all. If you can pray that half a dose may work, why not pray the weak survive and give half to those most likely to make it? If it's a miracle, get a miracle, but why not play the odds and try for the greatest good? Surely any loving god would see th wisdom in that, and if a miracle suits her purpose at that time, she will grant it even if you gave medicine out to some.
*I am not really a big fan of Nietzsche in general, but I thought I'd throw a little of his argument in there.
Here's something that would always be evil, no matter what: torturing babies just for the fun of it.
I'd already decided to give it to the first 500 in the queue regardless (assuming it to be dosed unsplittably in some way.)
Well, if you're fit and able and young, yes you probably do. If you're unfit and old, and likely to be triaged to the back of the queue, you definitely don't. You probably want Prob or me.
» More new posts: Doghead's Cosmic Bar