|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
posted July 04, 2008 02:52 PM |
|
|
Quote:
People that don't think "The end justifies the means" (e.g. kill 1 person for saving 1000, or even better, kill 1 person for saving 100 when that single person would also die along with those 100) kinda annoy me
That makes that someone who "decides" an authoritarian, which you despise though, I do not see why.
That basically violates any rights. You said it, not everyone wants to be "good", so if the respective individual does not want to sacrifice, you force him?
Hmm... and you are against forcing the mother to do "what is good"
I'd say, if you want to save 1000 because it annoys you, sacrifice yourself, not force others to. See, simple, right?
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted July 04, 2008 02:57 PM |
|
|
As I said, even your precious God did make sacrifices, why did you ignore that huh?
Why did God not sacrifice Himself, huh? Why did Lot have to leave the city and his house (some kind of sacrifice, no?) See, it's NOT simple!
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 04, 2008 02:59 PM |
|
|
Quote:
As I said, even your precious God did make sacrifices, why did you ignore that huh?
Why did God not sacrifice Himself, huh? Why did Lot have to leave the city and his house (some kind of sacrifice, no?) See, it's NOT simple!
Not going into a religious debate, but we are not to judge God. This is also not a religious debate, but you did ignore my last post about authoritarian, and I know why
I'm surprised you said that actually makes you far more an authoritarian than me. I tell you, you are only when it is "convenient" for you.
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted July 04, 2008 03:06 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I was talking hypothetically, because we humans have a tendency to use others. For example, what if you were a fetus and someone does stem-cell research on you? Of course, now it's easy to say "go with it" since you are not involved.
Yes, it is easy. That's why I would do it.
Life's tough, but I'm sure the fetus doesn't care too much.
Quote:
It's really like allowing some scientists to pick people on the street for experiments when the "greater population" (aka the society) will benefit. You know what I'll tell them? Pick yourself!
Well, there aren't too many cases similar to this one involving killing things lol.
But if there was, and if everyone took this stance, then we would still be in the stone age.
Fortunately not too many ppl had to die in order to make the computer etc. lol.
and as you said, in this case specifically (even though no others come to mind apart from Nazi Germany), it is impossible for them to "sacrifice themselves" (well, not impossible, but it wouldn't benefit the research any.. lol) so the argument is defunct.
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 04, 2008 03:14 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Life's tough, but I'm sure the fetus doesn't care too much.
Do you like authoritarian systems too?
Quote:
But if there was, and if everyone took this stance, then we would still be in the stone age.
Ok think of it like this.
You are a person and don't want to take part in the experiment (let's say you die). Then, you might claim the others got "better" in the end, but that person is dead -- for him it's much worse. And you know what? That's the perfect recipe for being an authoritarian, deciding what others should do, for the "good" of the society... much like wars, which are involuntary 
Quote:
Fortunately not too many ppl had to die in order to make the computer etc. lol.
If they want to die for it, then it's ok, but if someone picks who should die because HE FREAKING thinks that the so-called "progress" will be good, then it's much worse than even a normal authoritarian. You see, when you go and pick someone for what you think is good, then there's really no different than a criminal picking someone for what he thinks is good.
Quote:
and as you said, in this case specifically (even though no others come to mind apart from Nazi Germany), it is impossible for them to "sacrifice themselves" (well, not impossible, but it wouldn't benefit the research any.. lol) so the argument is defunct.
I don't care whether it would be pointless or not, I only care that they don't decide in the name of others of what they think is ok -- is their thinking better than the others that they can pick whoever hopeless they want? Why should not the others pick them instead for whatever reasons they have (e.g: cannibalism )?
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted July 04, 2008 03:29 PM |
|
|
Quote:
You are a person and don't want to take part in the experiment (let's say you die). Then, you might claim the others got "better" in the end, but that person is dead -- for him it's much worse.
But he died for a noble cause you know. His soul will know this and have an "emotional" benefit or whatever
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 04, 2008 03:31 PM |
|
|
Quote:
But he died for a noble cause you know. His soul will know this and have an "emotional" benefit or whatever
If he does not want it, it's worse than a "noble cause".
A criminal can say that killing women is a "noble cause" to free men of women's temptations too 
It's quite subjective and it can be abused, it's really why we have wars in this "so-perfect" society. It sickens me when people advocate freedom of rights and so on when they are pro-such things, which is a direct contradiction -- in fact, the former is simply a delusion to make the masses think that they are "free" even though they are still authoritarian where the strong feast upon the weak
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 04, 2008 03:54 PM |
|
|
Quote:
But of course you use the "purpose" argument with guns
The purpose of a gun is to kill - that is, that is the only thing a gun can do. But life can have a great variety of purposes, so you can't look at it the same way.
Quote:
But if the computer tortures them every 5 seconds, you are literally violating their rights every 5 seconds
No, only when you give them the computer.
Quote:
You have repeated yourself with exactly the same thing I replied to.
You are not forcing it to starve because you are not preventing it from getting fed. How many times do I have to repeat myself?
Quote:
When it is locked in YOUR basement (body) and it CANNOT feed itself even if it would WANT.
You avoided my question. At what point are the fetus's rights violated? Conception? Point of viability? Birth?
Quote:
Again, you use the "purpose" argument which you bashed when I talked about life...
That's because guns have only one purpose, while life can have many.
Quote:
That makes that someone who "decides" an authoritarian, which you despise though, I do not see why.
In practice, you're correct here, but look at it in theory: you have one innocent person in front of you, and 100 innocent people are surely going to die if you don't kill this person. You, at the moment, haven't done anything either way yet. So, what do you do?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted July 04, 2008 04:01 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
But he died for a noble cause you know. His soul will know this and have an "emotional" benefit or whatever
If he does not want it, it's worse than a "noble cause".
Why go into the experiment if you did not want it?
Lets say you got AIDS, and some scientist approved by the goverment goes over to you and said: "I think i got a cure for AIDS, it is this medication. However it is not 100% completed and may have some serius drawbacks, however i am 100% certain that it will cure your AIDS."
Then he ask you this: "Do you want to test this medication? You will get paid ofcourse."
You where given this information:
*It will cure AIDS(most likely)
*It may have some serius drawbacks
*You where asked if you wanted to test it
This is kind of a universal thing about testing stuff, you know there MIGTH be fatal troubles if you take it. However it can also help others when completed. It may also cure you.
Quote:
A criminal can say that killing women is a "noble cause" to free men of women's temptations too
This is murder because:
*Men are suppose to be control themself like any being with a mind
*The reason did not justify the means
*On the long run, 1 out of 50% of earths population is phailing delux.
*If killing all womens was succesfull, would that not mean the evolution would stop? It would have no greater benefit whatsoever.
*etc
Quote:
It's quite subjective and it can be abused, it's really why we have wars in this "so-perfect" society. It sickens me when people advocate freedom of rights and so on when they are pro-such things, which is a direct contradiction -- in fact, the former is simply a delusion to make the masses think that they are "free" even though they are still authoritarian where the strong feast upon the weak
I agree the current society model got way too many flaws.
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 04, 2008 04:18 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 16:20, 04 Jul 2008.
|
@mvassilev:Quote:
The purpose of a gun is to kill - that is, that is the only thing a gun can do. But life can have a great variety of purposes, so you can't look at it the same way.
Ok, what 'variety' can a life in which you're trapped in a mother's womb and starving have? What other purpose than suffering?
Quote:
No, only when you give them the computer.
You are completely wrong, how is that different than 'manually' torturing someone? Or if you control it with a remote? You are too subjective in this area -- there is no such thing as a "special" kind of assault like a 'punch' or whatever -- there is only good influence and bad influence, or should I say, influence with their will and influence against their will.
Quote:
You are not forcing it to starve because you are not preventing it from getting fed. How many times do I have to repeat myself?
But you are preventing it from getting fed. Enlighten me Great One, how can a fetus feed himself by it's own?
You are preventing it because he was conceived in YOUR body, not in someone else's. That is, if you took the egg and sperm and let someone else use it, then they are responsible for the "fetus being there".
Quote:
You avoided my question. At what point are the fetus's rights violated? Conception? Point of viability? Birth?
Any point in time -- violation does not stack up, remember.. but you violate it every moment, until you "pay your debt" that is, treat him until he can feed himself. (and that is quite far, in this society, since he has no income ).
(any point in time obviously after he is conceived)
Quote:
That's because guns have only one purpose, while life can have many.
But I am not talking about a 'normal' life, but about a soon-to-be-aborted fetus' life. MAKE THE DIFFERENCE!
Quote:
In practice, you're correct here, but look at it in theory: you have one innocent person in front of you, and 100 innocent people are surely going to die if you don't kill this person. You, at the moment, haven't done anything either way yet. So, what do you do?
If I kill this person, what would prevent other people from doing the same for what they "think" is good (that is, I think that 100 people are more important than that innocent).
Of course, if you are an authoritarian, a simple "gun" control works, like in communism Where obviously, the guy in power is the law.
@del_diablo:Quote:
Why go into the experiment if you did not want it?
Lets say you got AIDS, and some scientist approved by the goverment goes over to you and said: "I think i got a cure for AIDS, it is this medication. However it is not 100% completed and may have some serius drawbacks, however i am 100% certain that it will cure your AIDS."
Then he ask you this: "Do you want to test this medication? You will get paid ofcourse."
You where given this information:
*It will cure AIDS(most likely)
*It may have some serius drawbacks
*You where asked if you wanted to test it
This is kind of a universal thing about testing stuff, you know there MIGTH be fatal troubles if you take it. However it can also help others when completed. It may also cure you.
I don't think anyone asked the fetus if it wants to be killed in the experiment (because that's what stem cell research does, it has no chance of "not killing" the fetus!).
I understand what you meant, and it's completely ok since it's done with the person's will -- but not so with the fetus (stem cell research).
Quote:
*The reason did not justify the means
The reason NEVER justifies the means.
Quote:
*If killing all womens was succesfull, would that not mean the evolution would stop? It would have no greater benefit whatsoever.
In the criminal's eyes, it is a benefit -- it's much better to not live at all than to live with women, or so the criminal says. He says to you: "Who are you to judge what's correct and what's not? What's good and what's not?".
Of course, if you apply that "do no disturb" anyone else message, then it applies universally, without anyone being a "judge" -- thus, you should "do not disturb" the fetus (that even means conceiving it in the first place!!).
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 04, 2008 04:31 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Ok, what 'variety' can a life in which you're trapped in a mother's womb and starving have? What other purpose than suffering?
I'm talking about life in general, not that life in particular. That is, I can't sue my parents for giving me life, because life is not an inherently negative thing.
Quote:
You are completely wrong, how is that different than 'manually' torturing someone? Or if you control it with a remote?
Because it is not by your will that it is happening, and not because of something you continuously do.
Quote:
But you are preventing it from getting fed. Enlighten me Great One, how can a fetus feed himself by it's own?
I'm not saying that it can feed itself. I'm saying that I'm not preventing other people, if they are so inclined, from feeding it.
Quote:
You are preventing it because he was conceived in YOUR body
But once it is aborted, it's not in your body any more.
Quote:
If I kill this person, what would prevent other people from doing the same for what they "think" is good
That's why I said "in theory". Let's add to that scenario that no one will find out that you did it (if you choose to do it), and no one will try it themselves. Would you do it or not?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted July 04, 2008 04:53 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The reason NEVER justifies the means.
Maybe in YOUR opinion.
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 04, 2008 04:59 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I'm talking about life in general, not that life in particular. That is, I can't sue my parents for giving me life, because life is not an inherently negative thing.
Your life is not inherently a negative thing -- the fetus' is however.
Quote:
Because it is not by your will that it is happening, and not because of something you continuously do.
But you put the computer and it is (supposedly) your will to torture that person every 5 seconds!
Quote:
I'm not saying that it can feed itself. I'm saying that I'm not preventing other people, if they are so inclined, from feeding it.
In your womb?
Quote:
But once it is aborted, it's not in your body any more.
Once you kill someone, he is not in your house anymore, even though you dragged him in.
Once you kill someone annoying, he is not in your way anymore.
Let's kill!!
Quote:
That's why I said "in theory". Let's add to that scenario that no one will find out that you did it (if you choose to do it), and no one will try it themselves. Would you do it or not?
Of course not -- if you read the Moral Philosophy thread I don't care whether I am 'caught' or not (example with the "invisible" necklace).
The mentality is important, not the fact that you are seen or not.
@Asheera:Quote:
Quote:
The reason NEVER justifies the means.
Maybe in YOUR opinion.
Well, at least MY OPINION does not force it on someone else (i.e the bad 'means' that lead to good 'reason') -- so it's YOUR opinion that is harmful and authoritarian
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted July 04, 2008 05:41 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Because it is not by your will that it is happening, and not because of something you continuously do.
But you put the computer and it is (supposedly) your will to torture that person every 5 seconds!
Lets say you send a package to somebody, from it is sendt to it has arrived is in teori equal to the fetus and birth. Birth = it gets there.
Lets say you shoot a nuclear bomb at a far away country(the US), if it arrives it is equal to birth.
So pain ever 5 seconds eh? That is belonging to the aftermatch category, what happend after the baby is born.
Quote:
But once it is aborted, it's not in your body any more.
Once you kill someone, he is not in your house anymore, even though you dragged him in.
Once you kill someone annoying, he is not in your way anymore.
Let's kill!!
Worst comparision ever............
If you kill somebody you will get in trouble with the law.
And why does a dead person have major rigths? Simply because in most cases the dead person has stated how he wants to be buryed/incarnated/etc.
Quote:
Quote:
The reason NEVER justifies the means.
Maybe in YOUR opinion.
Well, at least MY OPINION does not force it on someone else (i.e the bad 'means' that lead to good 'reason') -- so it's YOUR opinion that is harmful and authoritarian
If it never does so, what if 1 person suddenly gets this uber deadly uber spreading virus on it. Isolate/kill the person from stopping the spreading?
The virus is extremely deadly, it cannot be cured and kills whoever gets it in 1-2 days. It spreads in the air around the infected, and so on.
The reason here is to save humanety, it justifies the means for it(on a reasonable scale however).
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 04, 2008 05:51 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Lets say you send a package to somebody, from it is sendt to it has arrived is in teori equal to the fetus and birth. Birth = it gets there.
Lets say you shoot a nuclear bomb at a far away country(the US), if it arrives it is equal to birth.
Shooting the bomb = birth.
What happens thereafter (including the radioactive aftermath) is MY OWN FAULT, and if one radioactive stuff happens to someone and gets a bad genetic mutation, then HE CAN BLAME ME. But of course I presume in such a case I would get executed earlier, unless I'm in power (government) and they can't touch me (you know, the strong prey upon the weak).
Quote:
If you kill somebody you will get in trouble with the law.
If you abort, you will get in trouble with the law in some countries.
Basically what you're saying is that the law is the Bible we need to follow right? Really, I'm tired of using that argument for the abortion/killing -- JUST BECAUSE the law does not prohibit abortion doesn't mean it's more ok than murder (unless of course you provide arguments).
Quote:
If it never does so, what if 1 person suddenly gets this uber deadly uber spreading virus on it. Isolate/kill the person from stopping the spreading?
That person violates someone else's rights by spreading the virus, thus it's ok to isolate him.
Quote:
The reason here is to save humanety, it justifies the means for it(on a reasonable scale however).
"Wars" save the nation too -- something far more important than "humanity" for some nationalistic people (e.g: black people are bad, they say). Basically, they use the same argument to 'justify' the war.
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted July 04, 2008 06:16 PM |
|
|
Quote:
"Wars" save the nation too -- something far more important than "humanity" for some nationalistic people (e.g: black people are bad, they say). Basically, they use the same argument to 'justify' the war.
Ok how about this example (I know it's a bit of a fairy tale, but...):
A terrorist plants a nuclear bomb inside someone innocent and it will explode in 5 minutes. The only way to stop it is to kill that person (let's suppose that the nuclear bomb is dependent on his pulse). Of course, you and your close-mindedness will not want to kill the person, and thus let a whole city to die (along with that innocent person!) because hey, the reason NEVER justifies the means (how could you kill an innocent person?!)
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 04, 2008 06:18 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Your life is not inherently a negative thing -- the fetus' is however.
Life can't be inherently negative, or it'd always be negative.
Quote:
But you put the computer and it is (supposedly) your will to torture that person every 5 seconds!
But a computer isn't inherently negative. And it's one thing if it's your will to torture, and another thing if it's not connected to what you're willing for it to do. Take your car accident analogy for example. The wrong occurs when you run into the person, not every 5 seconds after.
Quote:
In your womb?
If it's in my womb, then it's getting fed anyway.
Quote:
Once you kill someone, he is not in your house anymore, even though you dragged him in.
You know what I'm going to say, but I'll say it anyway: you can only drag someone in if it's against their will. Conception is not against the fetus's will, because at the point of conception, the fetus doesn't have a will.
Quote:
Of course not -- if you read the Moral Philosophy thread I don't care whether I am 'caught' or not
So if you choose to not kill 1 innocent person, and that kills 100 innocent people, I'd say that's pretty evil. Your counterargument was, "Yes, that's true, but I might give encouragement to those whose motives are less good." Then I said, "What if no one finds out?" And you point to the invisible necklace analogy, which has nothing to do with situation in question.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted July 04, 2008 06:19 PM |
|
|
Quote:
If you kill somebody you will get in trouble with the law.
If you abort, you will get in trouble with the law in some countries.
Basically what you're saying is that the law is the Bible we need to follow right? Really, I'm tired of using that argument for the abortion/killing -- JUST BECAUSE the law does not prohibit abortion doesn't mean it's more ok than murder (unless of course you provide arguments).
I do not belive the fetus is alive, and after it has started devoloping brains and stuff...... it is a potential life.
Counterargument please?
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 04, 2008 06:40 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 18:51, 04 Jul 2008.
|
@Asheera:Quote:
A terrorist plants a nuclear bomb inside someone innocent and it will explode in 5 minutes. The only way to stop it is to kill that person (let's suppose that the nuclear bomb is dependent on his pulse). Of course, you and your close-mindedness will not want to kill the person, and thus let a whole city to die (along with that innocent person!) because hey, the reason NEVER justifies the means (how could you kill an innocent person?!)
Firstly even though mvass does not like fantasy examples, I will comment on that.
No I will not kill that person without it's consent -- and you DARE to call ME an authoritarian? Only authoritarians judge "what's good for all" and in that cases BREAK the freedom of people.
You know what's the problem with this? You think that what you consider 'good' is actually 'good'. Must I remind you that's how communism works? And why do you bash my "authoritarian" ideas so prematurely if you seem to like it?
(in which case I doubt that person would not want to be killed -- because he'll die anyway).
I have a hard time understanding you but it seems to me that in the end, anyone can use any excuse "for the good of the majority". Do you think such a statement is objective? Please.
EDIT: Actually this example is a bit off -- the nuclear bomb will 'violate' the rights of the others, thus it would a bit fair to make this person leave the city/whatever in a safe zone. The idea here is that this person is not used to "help" others (which would be totally authoritarian if forced) but to not violate others' rights/life.
@mvassilev:Quote:
Life can't be inherently negative, or it'd always be negative.
There are two types of life, and I explained that already too many times, I will only list them:
"positive" life and "negative" life. See my previous post if you want an explanation..
not everything is black & white, wake up!
Quote:
But a computer isn't inherently negative. And it's one thing if it's your will to torture, and another thing if it's not connected to what you're willing for it to do. Take your car accident analogy for example. The wrong occurs when you run into the person, not every 5 seconds after.
But every '5 seconds' he is in coma, thus until he gets normal or you paid your debts to him, you have violated his rights, so to speak.
Quote:
You know what I'm going to say, but I'll say it anyway: you can only drag someone in if it's against their will. Conception is not against the fetus's will, because at the point of conception, the fetus doesn't have a will.
No, but you drag the materials that make him up. The idea is, if you wouldn't, he wouldn't be in that situation -- thus you influence him. Negatively (in the case of abortion obviously).
Quote:
So if you choose to not kill 1 innocent person, and that kills 100 innocent people, I'd say that's pretty evil.
Evil or not, we are not authoritarian. By using analogies, one can use 'moral relativist' explanations for their "evil" or "good" thus will be pretty subjective. The only way to come to a consensus is either:
1) Force (authoritarian like e.g: communism)
2) Something that respects each individual's freedom
Quote:
Your counterargument was, "Yes, that's true, but I might give encouragement to those whose motives are less good." Then I said, "What if no one finds out?" And you point to the invisible necklace analogy, which has nothing to do with situation in question.
If no one finds out you're stealing, why not steal? That's the invisible necklace idea.
What shocks me is when you people dare to call ME an authoritarian after you say all this! Oh, I get it, you are only accepting the "freedom of rights" thing when it's convenient for you in arguments.
Quote:
I do not belive the fetus is alive, and after it has started devoloping brains and stuff...... it is a potential life.
Counterargument please?
"The Church teaches us that a human being is created at conception. Science teaches us the same thing. This is not disputable."
See this article.
some quotes:
Quote:
One argument for embryonic stem cell research is: "They are just going to throw them away anyway."
This argument recognizes they are life, but that somehow being caught in a bad situation, such as being frozen, justifies even necessitates, experimentation. Some good must come out this. This is the same logic used to allow human experimentation in Nazi Germany. The Jewish prisoners were just going to die anyway. Let some good come out their lives that could help others in the future.
We cannot answer one problem with one that is equally evil.
And, might I add, we all are going to die anyway, so if someone suddenly wants to use you as an experiment, he has all the rights to do so -- but wait, he dies too anyway sometime
Basically, let's take black people and use them in experiments -- they are not worthy anyway, right? (sarcasm)
Quote:
Because an embryo is not in the final form of a child, does not make it any less human. All the genetic material is in place. A unique human being is present. Left alone in its mother's womb it will divide, differentiate and form into a baby in 9 months. Everything about that unique baby is found at the one cell stage. Whether it is a boy or girl, how tall it will be, what hair color etc.
Quote:
We all learned the life cycle of the butterfly in the first grade. The fact is: you will never have any butterflies if you do away with the caterpillar stage, even if the caterpillar looks nothing like the butterfly. You and I were all embryos. All of our children were embryos. The embryo is the earliest stage of the human life cycle.
Quote:
The Church, The Holy Father and most physicians say it is never OK to experiment on or destroy another Human Being. The killing of one human for the benefit of another is never morally justifiable.
I love my daughter. I would love to see her grow up. But not at the destruction of another human being. My daughter's life is not more important than another's. whether it has fingers and toes or a spinal cord or not.
I give you biological facts, I give you religious (in case you believe) explanations... and I give my own society model, and you still always ask me to show some arguments (let alone facts) (remember: one of the above is objective).
EDIT: Here's another article, from a Christian viewpoint.
One interesting quote:Quote:
The history of medical experimentation is filled with horrific examples of evil done in the name of science. We must not sacrifice one class of human beings (the embryonic) to benefit another (those suffering from serious illness). Scripture resoundingly rejects the temptation to “do evil that good may result” (Rom. 3:8).
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted July 04, 2008 06:54 PM |
|
|
Quote:
(in which case I doubt that person would not want to be killed -- because he'll die anyway).
Let's say he doesn't know and doesn't believe you.
Quote:
No I will not kill that person without it's consent -- and you DARE to call ME an authoritarian? Only authoritarians judge "what's good for all" and in that cases BREAK the freedom of people.
I'm sorry, but when ALMOST EVERYONE want the same something (and think it is "good for the majority"), it is not called authoritarian.
Quote:
You know what's the problem with this? You think that what you consider 'good' is actually 'good'. Must I remind you that's how communism works? And why do you bash my "authoritarian" ideas so prematurely if you seem to like it?
Again, in communism, one single person (or few) consider what's "good"; in my example, 99% consider what's "good". BIG DIFFERENCE.
Quote:
I have a hard time understanding you but it seems to me that in the end, anyone can use any excuse "for the good of the majority". Do you think such a statement is objective? Please.
one person = subjective
majority = objective
enough said
(I mean, it is objective the fact that to kill that person is "good for the majority"; however, that person is SUBJECTIVE in thinking that it's not)
Quote:
The history of medical experimentation is filled with horrific examples of evil done in the name of science
If you don't like this, go to your cave and live as in the Stone Age.
Seriously, I hate people that are against something but BENEFIT from it everyday (why do you use the computer? I doubt that without any of these scientific experiments we (the humans) would arrive here today)
____________
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
