Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[kaijyuu]

There's a reason why hundreds of years of philosophizing has never satisfactorily answered those types of questions 

Indeed~


Morality is pretty useless if we can't apply it in difficult scenarios. You have to decide whether your position just "sounds" evil or if it actually is. I won't judge; this is just for mental exercise, not trying to trap people so I can silently judge them ;P

[Reelya]

Piff. Google does not directly control that. What can they do?

They can do the same thing they did when they censored the "she invented = > did you mean 'he invented' " auto-complete.

http://blogoscoped.com/archive/2007-05-24-n36.html

[kaijyuu]

Piff. Google does not directly control that. What can they do?

They can do the same thing they did when they censored the "she invented = > did you mean 'he invented' " auto-complete.

http://blogoscoped.com/archive/2007-05-24-n36.html

That's kinda humorous actually xD

[lorb]

There's a reason why hundreds of years of philosophizing has never satisfactorily answered those types of questions 

Philosophy has a ton of answers to those question. Just pick the one that satisfies you the most.

[Glowcat]

Let's do it a bit generally first. "You use only enough force so you can make a retreat and call for help. What's important is that the force you use does not exceed the aggressor's, for if you do then you're no better than him."
We'll assume this.
In order for lethal to be an option, the aggressor needs to use enough force. This can be e.g. pointing a gun at you (loaded or unloaded since the victim probably wouldn't know). At that point, you can (morally) use the lethal option. However, if he isn't pointing a gun or any other weapon at you, then you may not (morally) use the lethal option. This determines the "upper limit". The lower limit may be whatever you feel like.

So if you allow the dichotomy of "lethal" case and "non-lethal" case:
Second one: If "lethal", then yes, you may choose a lethal option. If "non-lethal", you may not.
First one: There are only two cases I can currently think of (at night) that could potentially necessitate lethal force to prevent rape. Either they're pointing a weapon at you or you're being physically restrained to the point of immobility (or both, but then the former takes precedence).
If the former, then you may choose lethal. The latter's a "special" case. Since you're being restrained to the point of immobility, only a third party could remove the aggressor. He, however is not restrained, thus he has also non-lethal options. And since it's not a "lethal" case, then the lethal option is out of the question.

Right, so your position is that a person being raped should think of their assailant before themselves. I was just making sure.

[Sirus]

There's a reason why hundreds of years of philosophizing has never satisfactorily answered those types of questions 

Philosophy has a ton of answers to those question. Just pick the one that satisfies you the most.

Can't. I have no idea what I'd do until I were actually placed in a situation like that, and I hope it never actually happens.

[kaijyuu]

There's a reason why hundreds of years of philosophizing has never satisfactorily answered those types of questions 

Philosophy has a ton of answers to those question. Just pick the one that satisfies you the most.

Can't. I have no idea what I'd do until I were actually placed in a situation like that, and I hope it never actually happens.

Ah, but if you decide what you should do in these situations, in the unlikely chance they'll actually come up, you're less likely to do something you'll regret. So it's not worthless to think about, despite the unlikelihood.

[Sirus]

There's a reason why hundreds of years of philosophizing has never satisfactorily answered those types of questions 

Philosophy has a ton of answers to those question. Just pick the one that satisfies you the most.

Can't. I have no idea what I'd do until I were actually placed in a situation like that, and I hope it never actually happens.

Ah, but if you decide what you should do in these situations, in the unlikely chance they'll actually come up, you're less likely to do something you'll regret. So it's not worthless to think about, despite the unlikelihood.

Well, I have to admit that what I'd do would probably depend on which lives I had to save/condemn. If, say, the one were my wife/lover, while the ten were child rapists, I'd probably let the ten die and not need as much therapy.

Please note that all of this is purely hypothetical

[kaijyuu]

Haha, people actually thinking about their morality is what's important to me. What conclusions they draw are their own

[Sirus]

Hey, I think about stuff like this quite often. I'm just naturally indecisive and rarely reach any actual conclusions. I'd probably be a great philosopher if I could just get the degree for it

[Realmfighter]

Morality is pretty useless if we can't apply it in difficult scenarios. You have to decide whether your position just "sounds" evil or if it actually is. I won't judge; this is just for mental exercise, not trying to trap people so I can silently judge them ;P

"Evil" to me means what I consider society to consider wrong, which I don't really follow except to the level needed to exist inside of it.

[penguinofhonor]

Criptfiend, can you calm down a bit? You're not explicitly in ad hominem territory but you're quite close.

Also this discussion seems to have moved completely out of politics and into philosophy by now. I'm not sure if it belongs in this thread now. Perhaps I could add philosophy to the atheism/religion thread? I doubt it could hurt.

[Sirus]

It kinda evolved into a philosophy discussion, sorta. You know how Bay 12 is; before long we'll all be discussing how progressive the Neanderthals were, or something.

[kaijyuu]

Neaderthals were an oppressed minority.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

They were a majority for a while, but....well, Sapiens Wins, Flawless Victory.