|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
posted August 06, 2009 06:32 AM |
|
|
Taking a life is not a moral delima? Interesting. Even though I would do it, if push came to shove, not only would I be in a moral quandry over it...I would have nightmares the rest of my life over it. Killing anybody, for ANY reason, to me is morally wrong. If it came down to me or another person dying, I would ALWAYS chose myself. If it came between another person and one of my friends or family I would ALWAYS choose the other person. Even if I would hate myself for it forever after.
Although yes I would kill 1 to save 1000 it is not about the math, but the moral implication of killing somebody even for the 'greater good'. If somebody would have no problem with doing so, nor lose sleep or feel guilty..then that is them. Regardless of what reason, for myself there would be a moral delima.
____________
Message received.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 06, 2009 07:23 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Suppose that dude then says "Ok I was just joking".
1. "So was I. You think you can make me choose among my children like that?"
2. Kill the guy. 
Quote:
Then please look into the child you picked's eyes, alright?
"Kid, seeing as how this contrived existence made me value you and the other child equally, my choice of you was random, so don't feel special or anything. It might have been the other kid just as easily."
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 06, 2009 08:20 AM |
|
|
Death, the law sees it different. If someone needs help and you don't give that help, you ARE responsible, whether you like it or not. If someone is starving right beside you and you have lots of food, but do nothing, you ARE responsible. I don't think that is debatable.
Responsibility is the consequence of KNOWLEDGE. If we KNOW what will happen, if... we are responsible. You can see that in Mytical's examples as well: the cancer-cure problem arises only because you gained a certain knowledge about how to cure cancer. Without that knowledge there was no problem at all.
So it's knowledge that makes you responsible, but knowledge is far from TRUTH, which is the problem.
What Corribus means, is what I'd call the Spiderman-dilemma. Remember Part 1 of the movies? The crucial cable car scene (which in the original comics cost Gwen Stacy's life, PP's first big love)? The Goblin cuts the cables of the car with a dozen or so passengers in it and at the same time lets Mary Jane fall down: make your choice, Spiderman, save either the girl or the people.
Of course Spiderman saves them all, after all he's a superhero, but that's a genuine one: no time to think, decision time.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted August 06, 2009 11:19 AM |
|
Edited by Mytical at 11:23, 06 Aug 2009.
|
Ok here is a not so serious (ie not life and death) question.
You and your buddy decide to have a guys night out. About half way through painting the town red you see a watch that your girlfriend (or wife) would just love to have and decide to suprise her. (Maybe to make up for the Guys only night out?). Your buddy comments on how nice the watch is, and is thinking about getting one himself. The watch was about 30% of a weeks salary (but she is worth it). Well you proceed to finish your night out, and you get home.
The next morning you can not find the watch anywhere (you didn't think to get it engrave or mark it in any way). Suprise, surpise your buddy's girlfriend (or wife) is sporting a identical watch to the one you lost. Do you think he stole it?
If so do you confront him?
Might depend on the following also. How long you have known them. So might want to factor this in as well. Remember there really would be no way to be sure the watch was the one you bought either way.
Edit : I am not sure this would be considered a moral issue, but deffinately A issue.
____________
Message received.
|
|
Darkshadow
Legendary Hero
Cerise Princess
|
|
posted August 06, 2009 11:24 AM |
|
|
Id go ask him if he stole it.
*looks at my friend groups* at that is most likely, so I would go to his face and say "GIVE ME THE ******* WATCH BACK, NOW!"
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 06, 2009 11:58 AM |
|
|
I'd go back to the shop and ask the owner, how many of those he sold within the possible time frame, whether he can remember me and my friend and so on. I might ask friend's wife when she got that watch and where. That should give me a couple more clues about what's going down.
If the evidence would point to friend=thief I'd tell my wife and confer with her about what to do. If it was MY friend exclusively (i.e. no pair contact) I'd follow Darkshadow's way.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 06, 2009 06:05 PM |
|
|
I really doubt my friends would steal from me like that, so I'd probably ask him nicely, something like "Hey, that's a nice watch your girlfriend/wife has. I bought one like that yesterday, but seem to have misplaced it. Might you have any idea where it is?  "
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted August 06, 2009 08:25 PM |
|
|
Quote:
1. "So was I. You think you can make me choose among my children like that?"
Right. You tell HIM this when the picked kid is the one devastated.
Quote:
"Kid, seeing as how this contrived existence made me value you and the other child equally, my choice of you was random, so don't feel special or anything. It might have been the other kid just as easily."
You have no experience with children. In fact personally myself I would get quite annoyed at it, even now.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 06, 2009 08:35 PM |
|
|
I did say (on multiple occasions) that I don't want kids.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 07, 2009 07:26 AM |
|
|
|
People who don't want (and later don't have) kids shouldn't be allowed full citizenship. They document a disinterest in the future of society and a general unwillingness to invest time and money in its continued existance. Consequently they should have no say in determining the future, so voting, for example shouldn't be allowed for them.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted August 07, 2009 07:29 AM |
|
Edited by Mytical at 07:30, 07 Aug 2009.
|
I disagree with that entirely. Nobody should be 'left out' (Except maybe convicted felons.) of citizenship because of that (or race, or sex, or ...).
Edit : For instance, if I would have children (not that I can now, but just saying) they would have the same disease I have. Since I do not want to subject them to that, I would rather not have children. Which I believe is the responsible thing to do.
____________
Message received.
|
|
Darkshadow
Legendary Hero
Cerise Princess
|
posted August 07, 2009 07:59 AM |
|
|
Quote:
People who don't want (and later don't have) kids shouldn't be allowed full citizenship. They document a disinterest in the future of society and a general unwillingness to invest time and money in its continued existance. Consequently they should have no say in determining the future, so voting, for example shouldn't be allowed for them.
Good thing then, cause I don't vote either...
____________
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted August 07, 2009 03:31 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Taking a life is not a moral delima? Interesting.
That is NOT what I wrote.
The point of your questions is supposed to be that we sit back and think about some sort of "difficult situation". There's a fundamental difference between that and having to make a split decision, where perhaps an emotional, knee-jerk response is more likely. In this scenario, one has time to think more logically about a more complete list of pros and cons of each possible solution to the problem.
So when you pose that a question like "Would you kill Bob if you could save forty other people?" you'd probably get a very different response if you put them in the actual sitation where they had to make an immediate, snap decision, and if you ask them here. In the former, you're apt to not realize that by killing one person, you save forty, a benefit that clearly outweighs any emotional hurdle to killing Bob. Humans don't make decisions - particularly fast ones - based purely on logic. Emotion plays a big role in human decision-making, and perhaps an almost complete role when a decision has to be made hastily. On the other hand, when you have an infinite amount of time to make the decision (particularly when you're only doing it theoretically), it's easier to deny the emotional response and weigh the options from a purely logical standpoint.
With that in mind, your questions are quite easy, because the logical answer is pretty clear and yes, it comes down to simple math.
Kill 1 person, save 100.
Save 1 person, kill 100.
Sorry, but that's not a difficult mathematical equation at all if you adhere to the belief that less human death is superior to more human death. Especially when the people are "random", which is to say, that the "value" we apply to each human life is equal.
You can make the questions much more difficult by making that value judgment much more difficult, so that the math is not so simple.
For instance, consider this question. You are a OB doctor, and a woman is giving birth to a child. It soon becomes clear that the birth is not going well, and that either the mother or the child is not going to make it, and the choice is up to you who to save. Do you save the mother or the child? There is no time to ask the opinion of the husband.
So here is your math equation:
Kill 1 person (mother), save 1 person (child).
Save 1 person (mother), kill 1 person (child).
Even with an infinite amout of time, the logic here isn't so simple. You can't apply a simple logical princple like "less human death is superior to more human death" here, because both options have the same amount of human death. You have to apply some other, more subjective bit of logic to make the decision, even when you're able to take the emotional response out of the decision making process. What criteria do you use to make that choice?
Do you see what I mean?
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted August 07, 2009 03:39 PM |
|
|
I am going to get to the more 'difficult' questions. I post them as I think of them. Also you are free to add any questions you would like as well. Even I have said that the 'math' has been a factor in my decisions. (Or at least I am pretty sure I have mentioned this). Also to answer some if you wish. For me, even the question of killing one person to save 'x' is a moral issue and not just a math problem. I would have moral issues with killing a person regardless of circumstances, even if I would do it.
____________
Message received.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted August 07, 2009 04:29 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 16:35, 07 Aug 2009.
|
Quote:
People who don't want (and later don't have) kids shouldn't be allowed full citizenship. They document a disinterest in the future of society and a general unwillingness to invest time and money in its continued existance. Consequently they should have no say in determining the future, so voting, for example shouldn't be allowed for them.
I think Tesla contributed more to society than a peasant with 10 children.
Besides isn't voting for a particular party actually the thing that establishes what direction the society should go? "Contribution" is subjective. On the other hand, when you choose a party (vote for it), you are sort-of telling what direction you want it to go.
For instance, will you say nukes are contribution to society? What if people vote for the party that abolishes them completely? But what if the people vote for the party that makes them more than ever? (just an example)
It is subjective and voting is supposed to exactly go against that (of course it's more like tyranny by majority but whatever).
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 07, 2009 06:41 PM |
|
|
*Sigh*
That was supposed to be a joke! I did show it with
But you can have it, if you want to:
Parents are more trustworthy then childless adults because they have more of an incentive to think FUTURE.
Who is more likely to start a nuclear war? A father of 3 children or a 50 year old childless single?
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 07, 2009 06:54 PM |
|
|
JJ:
People who have kids shouldn't be allowed to vote. If they were stupid enough to give up a bunch of time and money for a crying baby - who grew into a whiny toddler - who grew into a demanding pre-teen - who grew up into a rebellious teen - and then you had to pay for his/her college - then who knows what other stupid decisions they might make?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 07, 2009 11:15 PM |
|
|
|
17 years old? are you a rebellious teen?
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 07, 2009 11:16 PM |
|
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 07, 2009 11:29 PM |
|
|
maybe not, but rebellious teens stand out of the mass.
I've never been a rebellious teen myself, but I'm considering becoming a rebellious adult.
|
|
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
