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.
Having satisfied my rational need to justify the act as good I may now let my emotional side determine which of the two good acts to perform. I choose five.
I question how you made this leap sometimes thats just a fact of life sometimes you gotta lie to protect an innocent, sometimes you have to hit someone to save someone. Sometimes all you can do amounts to damage control.It's your moniker, not my invention.
Your sentiment is identical to his on doing evil that good may come of it.
If one examines the food and knows it to be good to eat then one may follow their tastes.Yeah. But on what basis does your emotional side make that call?
I don't believe that lying, stealing or murdering is an act that one ever has "gotta" do.I question how you made this leap sometimes thats just a fact of life sometimes you gotta lie to protect an innocent, sometimes you have to hit someone to save someone. Sometimes all you can do amounts to damage control.
While were at this I also question if this is really anything Stalin used or if you arn't just being dramatic.
A poor starving man steals food to feed his starving family. A police sniper shoots a man who was getting ready to kill the hostages. A man in nazi Germany lies about jews in his attic. But of course according to you all 3 of these guys are as bad as Stalin.I don't believe that lying, stealing or murdering is an act that one ever has "gotta" do.
No drama. Look it up. Stalin's apologist for the rapid industrialization of the Soviet Union used the phrase to justify the starvation of millions.
If one examines the food and knows it to be good to eat then one may follow their tastes.
Both broccoli and green beans are good foods to eat. I choose the green beans ... but sometimes asparagus ... especially the white asparagus in season. If I'm in Germany and its spargelzeit then I'll order spargel as a soup and a side dish.
On a serious note, there is no truth in matters of taste (de gustibus non disputandum est).
That act is not stealing.A poor starving man steals food to feed his starving family.
What's wrong with that act?A police sniper shoots a man who was getting ready to kill the hostages.
A man in Germany tells the Nazis there are no Jews in his attic (for them). Same as when your mom told you to tell the Fuller brush man at the door that she was not home (for him).A man in nazi Germany lies about jews in his attic.
And I do care, that's the difference. You allow your emotions to overwhelm your reason, I do not. Oh dear, Bradski wants us all to be guided by our passions. It's OK to murder if it feels like the right thing to do.Because I don't really care whether you use emotion, logic or rational arguments to make your decision.
There you go again with that "sacrifice" bogeyman. The definition of murder is the direct killing of an innocent. Is the one on the track innocent? Yes. Does pulling the lever (like pulling the trigger) directly cause his death? Yes. That's murder. Did you "sacrifice" yourself yet? It appears not.And the simple answer to that is that you consider it murder which cannot be countenanced. Whereas quite a few people posting consider it a sacrifice rather than murder and it certainly can be countenanced.
So your saying you now CAN imagine scenarios where you "gotta" lie, steal and murder to do good. Glad to see tou've come around.That act is not stealing.
What's wrong with that act?
A man in Germany tells the Nazis there are no Jews in his attic (for them). Same as when your mom told you to tell the Fuller brush man at the door that she was not home (for him).
And I do care, that's the difference. You allow your emotions to overwhelm your reason, I do not.
There you go again with that "sacrifice" bogeyman. The definition of murder is the direct killing of an innocent. Is the one on the track innocent? Yes. Does pulling the lever (like pulling the trigger) directly cause his death? Yes. That's murder.
Pls try my alternative hypothetical in post #30 and see if you get the same result before I comment.Then I am a jerk because I do not hold a utilitarian view of morality and I do not see human beings as sacrifices to the good of the group. Such examples smuggle these views in surreptitiously, and they do not represent reality in the first place. These are known as lifeboat scenarios and they do not represent the conditions in which men and women live their lives. Such thought experiments divorce morality from reality and therefore from facts, reason, and logic.
Why should I take on the guilt of having killed someone by my own actions when their plight is not of my doing, hmmm? And if self-sacrifice is the standard of virtue then shouldn't those people on the track be willing to sacrifice themselves in order to save me from that burden of guilt?
If that be the case, then I take the view that, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of a few. A Vulcan saying as recorded in Star Trek.
Here's a more realistic scenario:
There's a death trolley barrelling down on all of us and we all have a lever right beside us.
Pull the lever and someone else may live, but you'll die.
Don't pull the lever...
And see what happens.
So your saying you now CAN imagine scenarios where you "gotta" lie, steal and murder to do good. Glad to see tou've come around.
Id try to steer the plane to a place where there is no people if possible. If my only option was to steer the plane towards less people then I wouldn’t steer the plane at all.
I'm talking about how we can tell that a person values something: its by what they will give up to preserve that thing.I don't see the logic that the value of a thing is dependent on ... what? Its fragility, its robustness, its whatness ... ? Help me out here.
One way to act that demonstrates the infinite value of human life is to never commit murder.
Ar you reading-challenged? Or did you just want to post a feeble zinger and get "outta" town?So your saying you now CAN imagine scenarios where you "gotta" lie, steal and murder to do good. Glad to see tou've come around.
That's not the given problem, though.
Ah, no. You have to read these posts carefully, Jack. O_mlly says 'there's no Jews in his attic (for them)'. Note the brackets. He thinks that if he crosses his fingers behind his back and actually says 'There's no-one in the attic for you' and finishes the sentence sotto voce then that's a get-out-of-jail-card. God will clap His hands with delight that His rules have effectively not been broken. Positively Pythonesque. I see Cleese as the German officer and Palin as the owner of the house. Just change the cheese shop for a nice detached house in Berlin.
Yeah, I know. It's absurd. But that's the length that some must go to adhere to their rules. Maybe he doesn't have to pull the switch on the track either. Maybe he can sorta brush up against it accidentally and tell the guy on the track that he'll be back in a minute after the trolley has killed him.
Oh wow @Bradskii you were actually serious and correct. To answer your question @o_mlly both. In my defense the position of "i'm going to ignore reality" to make my system work is a position I assume no one takes i'm not sure where to go from here.Ar you reading-challenged? Or did you just want to post a feeble zinger and get "outta" town?
Yeah, I know, the given problem is who is justified in taking life, to save life.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?