Is it moraly and ethnicaly correct to take over the world even though some people may die if you make it a better place?
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
world domination
- Thread starter MercuryAndy
- Start date
gwenmead
On walkabout
Hmmm.... I don't know about this "better". I might beg to come up with my own definition. If we're pushing the population envelope, for instance, is fewer people dying really "better"?
And really, what's wrong with explosions? They're shiny and sparkly and loud and fun.
I'm kind of dodging a bit though, admittedly. You asked whether or not it would be morally acceptable to take over the world in order to make it "better", even if it meant that
people would die in the attempt.
I don't know. I have an idea of "better", I suppose, but who am I to say that my "better" is really actually better for real? Would my wanting to impose my idea of "better" really justify my taking over the world, and having people die because of it?
My idea of "better" would include less suffering, enough food and water for everybody, things like that - but the problem with folks who take over in the interest of making things "better" is that they tend to end up as dictators. And dictators tend to make egregious constraints on things like free thought, individuality, and free will. I don't think I could live like that, and I don't think I could impose such conditions on other people.
So I suppose for me it settles into a "security vs. liberty" question. And I tend to favor liberty.
On the other hand, if I were the type to take over the world, I probably wouldn't stop to consider whether or not there were any moral issues with it.
That probably didn't really answer your question, but it's some thoughts I had anyway.
And really, what's wrong with explosions? They're shiny and sparkly and loud and fun.
I'm kind of dodging a bit though, admittedly. You asked whether or not it would be morally acceptable to take over the world in order to make it "better", even if it meant that
people would die in the attempt.
I don't know. I have an idea of "better", I suppose, but who am I to say that my "better" is really actually better for real? Would my wanting to impose my idea of "better" really justify my taking over the world, and having people die because of it?
My idea of "better" would include less suffering, enough food and water for everybody, things like that - but the problem with folks who take over in the interest of making things "better" is that they tend to end up as dictators. And dictators tend to make egregious constraints on things like free thought, individuality, and free will. I don't think I could live like that, and I don't think I could impose such conditions on other people.
So I suppose for me it settles into a "security vs. liberty" question. And I tend to favor liberty.
On the other hand, if I were the type to take over the world, I probably wouldn't stop to consider whether or not there were any moral issues with it.
That probably didn't really answer your question, but it's some thoughts I had anyway.
Upvote
0
it would be akin to impossible to prove the world actually would be a better place,
but i consider any decision which supports more freedom than could be supported had the decision not been made, to be the right decision...
with the exception of situations where the person making the decision didn't really think he/she was supporting freedom, but the rest of us got lucky, and similar situations.
so to answer your question: I am an anarchist, but if you have absolute proof you can support more freedom than could possibly otherwise be supported, if you take over the world you have my blessings.
but i consider any decision which supports more freedom than could be supported had the decision not been made, to be the right decision...
with the exception of situations where the person making the decision didn't really think he/she was supporting freedom, but the rest of us got lucky, and similar situations.
so to answer your question: I am an anarchist, but if you have absolute proof you can support more freedom than could possibly otherwise be supported, if you take over the world you have my blessings.
Upvote
0
StarCannon
Warmaster
Heh.
I've had that question: what would the world be like if I took over? Well, I guess the initial casualties would be terrible -- the seeded opponents of my rise would have to be dealth with. And then there's the consolidation of my power... that's another bloody stain on the fabric of history.
Consider the book God Emporer of Dune. Leto II came into power with bloodshed. His father's rise sparked a jihad across the universe -- billions fighting and dying.
So would rising to the top of this world, would that be immoral? I'd have to say so. Necessarily immoral unless I choose to do this a peaceful way.
But as for improving the world, yes. I would improve the world considerably.
I've had that question: what would the world be like if I took over? Well, I guess the initial casualties would be terrible -- the seeded opponents of my rise would have to be dealth with. And then there's the consolidation of my power... that's another bloody stain on the fabric of history.
Consider the book God Emporer of Dune. Leto II came into power with bloodshed. His father's rise sparked a jihad across the universe -- billions fighting and dying.
So would rising to the top of this world, would that be immoral? I'd have to say so. Necessarily immoral unless I choose to do this a peaceful way.
But as for improving the world, yes. I would improve the world considerably.
Upvote
0
No.
Killing people for a promise of 'something better' can never be justified.
Would your world be better for the friends and relatives of those who died?
Killing people for a promise of 'something better' can never be justified.
Would your world be better for the friends and relatives of those who died?
Upvote
0
Dune fans are _everywhere_ .
I didn't read any of the Dune books by Frank Herbert's sons but I thoroughly enjoyed the original series and the movies
I didn't read any of the Dune books by Frank Herbert's sons but I thoroughly enjoyed the original series and the movies
Upvote
0
This "even though some people may die" is pretty unprecise. I also drive my car even though some people may die.
If however you talk about intentionally killing other people (and this includes things like knowingly accepting "collateral damage" and similar euphemistically circumscribed killings), my answer is no.
Killing others for a supposedly greater good is one of the worst things I can think of, so no - it makes the world a worse place, in my book.
Upvote
0
ArchaicTruth
Ridiculously reasonable, or reasonably ridiculous
The taking of life is acceptable only if it is saving another life of equal or greater value and only if there is no other option that will ensure more "value" is saved.
Value is measured in innocence.
Value is measured in innocence.
Upvote
0
innocence once lost can be regained?
for instance, is it possible by your thinking for a serial killer/rapist/torture artist who flip flops to dedicate the rest of his/her life to serving humanity every way possible, can ever regain innocence?
for instance, is it possible by your thinking for a serial killer/rapist/torture artist who flip flops to dedicate the rest of his/her life to serving humanity every way possible, can ever regain innocence?
Upvote
0
ArchaicTruth
Ridiculously reasonable, or reasonably ridiculous
-1 + 2 = 1
you bet babe, but he's gonna have to be pretty damn nice if he used to be a serial killer. This also means of course, babies beat all.
you bet babe, but he's gonna have to be pretty damn nice if he used to be a serial killer. This also means of course, babies beat all.
Upvote
0
Not all (assuming the following scenario is possible, which I do assume):
a 24 year old man who has never committed an act of malice, and has dedicated his whole life to the service of humanity every way possible, would outweigh the infant, by my calculations based on your math
a 24 year old man who has never committed an act of malice, and has dedicated his whole life to the service of humanity every way possible, would outweigh the infant, by my calculations based on your math
Upvote
0
ArchaicTruth
Ridiculously reasonable, or reasonably ridiculous
Well, whilst I agree with that statement, it's kind of on my "that's never gonna happen list"
And in any case, a man of that caliber would be willing to sacrifice his life for another
And in any case, a man of that caliber would be willing to sacrifice his life for another
Upvote
0
depends. he might think, "If I die, not as many people will be helped."
if the man was good-willed and logical, he-she'd have to have hard evidence his-her death would result in more positive than his-her life,
all the more reason this man's more valuable than the infant. this man provides a very good service! not to mention, akin to the incorruptible...
if the man was good-willed and logical, he-she'd have to have hard evidence his-her death would result in more positive than his-her life,
all the more reason this man's more valuable than the infant. this man provides a very good service! not to mention, akin to the incorruptible...
Upvote
0
Similar threads
