Print

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

[Hanslanda]

Legally, yes. It's called second-degree murder, IIRC.

[Criptfeind]

If society can produce enough food for them without a large decrease of quality of life for the rest of society (like we uh, sorta have now) then yeah, I would certainly say it is murder.

[PanH]

Produce or starve, would probably be a bit more palatable, I think. I mean, it's more-or-less the same thing, but it's a philosophical distinction, at least.


Is refusing a starving guy food killing?

Produce or starve is a bit what is done currently, but not as violently.

I guess that would be a "Failure to assist a person in danger". So, yes.

[Hanslanda]

I throw away a horrifying amount of edible material at work and at home. I would greatly prefer if there was a place I could take that stuff where it would be distributed to less fortunates. Why do we not have such places?

[pisskop]

Okay, recent questions had me wondering a slightly new train of thought. . . tries to amuse myself but.

SHTF.  WCS.  All technology gone, dangereous land, zombies, WGAS.  But the important part is resources are difficult to impossible to find.  At what point is the betrayal/killing of others be ethical, if at all?  Do we ever degenerate so far as to less our obligation to morality or find conditions so horrible that our own survival is tantamount to none?

I throw away a horrifying amount of edible material at work and at home. I would greatly prefer if there was a place I could take that stuff where it would be distributed to less fortunates. Why do we not have such places?

A food kitchen?  a pantry?  You could just hand it out yourself.  . .  The problems include sanitation, expiration dates, organization, funding, etc.

OH!  a shelter may be helpful.  either give it to the volunteers/workers or hand it out to those outside.  Just, ya know be weary.

[Facekillz058]

Basically, your point is: We should kill the people who CHOOSE not to produce, but not the people that CANNOT produce.

Yes, thank you.

That's a much better point, then. However, does your uncle have a right to support said deadbeats if he wants to? I mean, I'm justified in spending my money however I choose, within reason, right?

My uncle does indeed have the choice to do with his money as he pleases, I'm just say, I wish he wouldn't support dead beats.

Basically, your point is: We should kill the people who CHOOSE not to produce, but not the people that CANNOT produce.

Yes, thank you.

Sounds like a position that would be strongly supportive of reinstating child labor. Consequences, consequences... produce or die seems like a silly thing to attempt to actually institute.

Well, child labor is obviously counter-productive.
I could have little Johnny here making teapots for his entire life, or he could study for his degree in some helpful science field.
Children are just like... seeds. Plant them, and they'll grow. Eat them, and, well, that was a short lived victory.

Well, that's different, that isn't her fault.

This still has the same issue, where do you draw on fault? What about a super depressed person? What about someone who had a accident because of stupid reasons and is unable to work? (such as being permanently hurt in a car accident they caused by them drinking?)

Not to mention physiology is not a solved thing, how can you really say it is someone fault that they don't do something? We deal with it the best we can in real life, but death is a very final very non reversible solution. Which is why we pretty much never do it for any avoidable reason now a days.

Depression, IIRC, is a disease. Diseases should be studied. The odds of injury being permanent would probably be lowered, as we would have extra funds to study solutions to problems like that. We would eventually, will the extra millions, develop some form of brain/spine/muscle/whatever regeneration/cybernetics. And people probably wouldn't drink and drive in my society, knowing how incredibly severe the laws would be to prevent stupid things like that. But I guess you are right in alot of areas. Death can't be reversed, but at the same time, so can't some peoples mind sets. The punishment would revolve around choices, not things that just happen. You don't choose to get depressed, you choose to get drunk and get in a head on collision.

[Strife26]

I throw away a horrifying amount of edible material at work and at home. I would greatly prefer if there was a place I could take that stuff where it would be distributed to less fortunates. Why do we not have such places?

Because the logistics of getting it anywhere is more work than the foods worth. Same reason why the "enough food is produced in the world to feed everyone!" claims are a little misleading.





Okay, what about not giving shelter to someone? I mean, it might cut 90% off their lifespan, but it's not a sure thing. I guess that my question would be
What level of care does the social contract demand that we give everyone?

[Facekillz058]

Okay, I was thinking,
Has anyone read The Giver?
The type of community in the book is much more docile than the one in my mind, but it makes the point.

[GreatJustice]

Produce or starve, would probably be a bit more palatable, I think. I mean, it's more-or-less the same thing, but it's a philosophical distinction, at least.


Is refusing a starving guy food killing?

Produce or starve is a bit what is done currently, but not as violently.

I guess that would be a "Failure to assist a person in danger". So, yes.

I'd say no. Certainly, it's morally just to help a starving person, and I'd say most people would do so, but it isn't murder to not feed them unless you're actively preventing them from getting food. Killing requires an action, and not-feeding isn't an action.
 

Killing a sentient being is justifiable if it's done in self defense, and while they're aggressing as well. So killing someone who is actively trying to rob/kill/maim you is okay, killing someone who isn't, and killing someone who WAS trying to rob/kill/maim you but is no longer actively attacking you isn't either.

I'm not sure about this one, it depends on where you draw the line on trying. Does about to try count? How about planing to? How about having a overwhelming probability of going to plan to?

Helping someone who is going to do any of the above? I mean, there's so much grey area that it's all messed up. What about collateral damage?

Am I morally justified to take out the whole city block of innocents to make sure that that bomb workshop's dead? If I said in no uncertain terms that "everyone in this city should leave" a week ahead? Am I justified in serving food to the guy who is going to be doing the destroying of the city block?

Lots of grey area. Too much to give any real answer, I think.

Only if they're actively aggressing, and collateral damage is unjustified regardless. Even if there is someone in the crowd that I am legitimately entitled to kill (they're trying to kill me, say), I can't just go all NYC's Finest and spray into the crowd.

Killing isn't justified, however, if they only have intent, or ability. They have to be an active threat for it to be justified.

[Frumple]

Well, child labor is obviously counter-productive.
I could have little Johnny here making teapots for his entire life, or he could study for his degree in some helpful science field.
Children are just like... seeds. Plant them, and they'll grow. Eat them, and, well, that was a short lived victory.

Kids have a lot of time they're not studying or doing something useful. Might as well make 'em work! There's plenty who we know early on will likely never be able to make it in a science field. Should go ahead and set those ones on teacups, right?

And what about higher education? No collage unless you're also working a full time job? Or maybe just a complete dissolving of any grants/loans/public schooling/etc. Sounds about what you were aiming for, yes? No handouts, only get what you work for! Meh, maybe I should stop snarking while I'm ahead, I'unno.

And... going down the line of "fixing" non-neurotypical individuals is walking a delightfully slippery ledge we probably should just pre-emptively avoid.

[Strife26]

Only if they're actively aggressing, and collateral damage is unjustified regardless. Even if there is someone in the crowd that I am legitimately entitled to kill (they're trying to kill me, say), I can't just go all NYC's Finest and spray into the crowd.

Killing isn't justified, however, if they only have intent, or ability. They have to be an active threat for it to be justified.

So killing is never justified in the modern war-fighting environment? I mean, it's an impossibility to be sure that the guy's both a threat, and that there's going to be no collateral.

[Criptfeind]

I do disagree with GJ, but your question was not specific enough (in the same way I think you pointed out (correctly) that one of my was not really answerable.) such a thing really depends on the individual circumstances.

[Strife26]

Alright, then what level of risk is allowable? Ninety percent certainty that you're whacking someone trying to commit harm, and ninety-five that you're not going to over-penetrate?

[ed boy]

Also, at what point does abortion become murder, if at all?

[Gamerlord]

Posting to watch.


My two cents:

Some people deserve to be killed. The true monsters; rapists, child molesters and the like. I would have no problem if one of them was brutally killed in front of me. In fact, I would most likely join in.