Print

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

PURPLE

0 (0%)

ALERT

0 (0%)

(I need suggestions is what I'm saying.)

0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 0

[Zrk2]

The underlying flaw with this argument ^ is that you assume selfishness is inherently immoral, which is at best closeminded and at worst patently false.

Inherently immoral when you're harming others.  This goes back to the Golden Rule (which corresponds to the Bible quote), which I think is a pretty good basis for morality.

Just making sure, that was the distinction I wanted to make.

[RedKing]

It's interesting that the "yes" or "I don't know" answers are still slightly in the majority, but only 3 of us on here have vocalized that (MoM and Realfighter were a yes, I was a I don't know).

Guess that means the forums are full of quiet, stone-cold killers.

[Leafsnail]

Well, murderers don't tend to last too long if they go around telling people they're prepared to murder.

[Gantolandon]

I probably would. It's not about killing or saving someone, it's basically down to choosing which person dies. Why would I prefer a stranger over someone loved?

Consider another problem - a stranger and your loved one, are both dying. You have only one bottle of medicine which would cure their disease. You cannot split it, because then the dose would be too small. Which one would you save?

[andrea]

I voted no. He is an innocent man, to drag him forcefully in my own problems, by killing him of all things, would be the greatest injustice. To me the thought that somebody could kill me while I sleep, without any reason concerning me as a person, but just looking at me as a bag of meat, without me having any chance to reply to it, is horrible. I wouldn't do it to another person.( somebody may disagree with me, but that is how I feel).

If he somehow caused my loved one's illness... I guess I still wouldn't kill him. I dislike murder. It is too permanent, an act that destroys a life and that  can't be undone.
Besides, if he really caused that illness, it is still not up to me to decide. We have a legal system to avoid this kind of thing.

Now, however, I am speaking as a sane and reasonable person. There is no way to know if that condition still holds in the described situation. If it doesn't hold... well, I guess I have a whole life as a prisoner to decide which course of action was best.

pre-edit: to the poster above, that is a whole different thing. 2 people dying, and you being able to save only one, is different than actively killing a ( mostly) healthy person to save your ill loved one. Even if the outcome is different.

[Fenrir]

Guess that means the forums are full of quiet, stone-cold killers.

I know that this was not directed a me, as I have not voted or voiced my decision, but I would like to point out that, while I may say that morality is relative, I still have a moral code that is probably similar to your own. I simply recongize that I have no objective support; my moral code is merely how I wish the world to be.

So I am not a stone-cold killer, and I do not tolerate stone-cold killers. I would not like anyone to think that, because I am a moral relativist, I go around being generally evil.

[Zrk2]

I probably would. It's not about killing or saving someone, it's basically down to choosing which person dies. Why would I prefer a stranger over someone loved?

Consider another problem - a stranger and your loved one, are both dying. You have only one bottle of medicine which would cure their disease. You cannot split it, because then the dose would be too small. Which one would you save?

In that case I would give it to my relative.

[Vector]

Wouldn't kill him.  I can barely kill mosquitoes.

Also, any "loved one" of mine is 60 or more years old and has vocally told me that they're getting ready to die.  Also, they'd never forgive me if I killed the dude--I'm not someone folks feel affectionate about for my capacity to take revenge.  So.

I guess it helps that my list of loved ones is "my parents and a very, very ill professor in the Berkeley math department."

[Gantolandon]

pre-edit: to the poster above, that is a whole different thing. 2 people dying, and you being able to save only one, is different than actively killing a ( mostly) healthy person to save your ill loved one. Even if the outcome is different.

Why is it different? In both cases only one of these people can live and it's you who make the decision which would affect their life and death.

[Vector]

Dying + saved already

Dying

The first case reflects expended effort on the part of society.  To kill him would waste that effort and require more effort to save the loved one, who would not even necessarily stabilize (as it seems the first person has).

[Zrk2]

pre-edit: to the poster above, that is a whole different thing. 2 people dying, and you being able to save only one, is different than actively killing a ( mostly) healthy person to save your ill loved one. Even if the outcome is different.

Why is it different? In both cases only one of these people can live and it's you who make the decision which would affect their life and death.

I'm going to guess this is at me? It is different because in the second scenario you are not responsible for his death and do not violate his rights.

[Fenrir]

I fully admit that I am uncertain about the following, but I am going to make points and argue anyway in the hopes that I shall gain better understanding through this debate.

I'm going to guess this is at me? It is different because in the second scenario you are not responsible for his death and do not violate his rights.

It was your decision that led to his death, so could it not be said that you are responsible for his death?

[Gantolandon]

Dying + saved already

Dying

The first case reflects expended effort on the part of society.  To kill him would waste that effort and require more effort to save the loved one, who would not even necessarily stabilize (as it seems the first person has).

The society as a reference could be a valid point. But this effort is most probably negligible to the society as a whole, as opposed to the people affected.

I'm going to guess this is at me? It is different because in the second scenario you are not responsible for his death and do not violate his rights.

You are responsible for his death. You could have saved him, but you have chosen otherwise. But it's true that you didn't violate his rights, which will probably make him happier about his demise. Not.

[Vector]

The society as a reference could be a valid point. But this effort is most probably negligible to the society as a whole, as opposed to the people affected.

And if everyone says that, where are we?

And if everyone reasons as I do, where are we?

Not so negligible after all.

[Fenrir]

To kill him would waste that effort...

Why should I care? Is that effort worth the life of a loved one? How could I tell?

...and require more effort to save the loved one, who would not even necessarily stabilize (as it seems the first person has).

This would not matter to me. Firstly, the hospital is presumably getting paid for the trouble to save my loved one. Secondly, I really do not care how much effort it takes to save the loved one, and I hope that the hospital staff would not care either. Fourthly (even a word?), I do not care if the loved one might not stablize; it would be worth the attempt anyway, so none of this would be a consideration.