Worse action possible.

Status
Not open for further replies.

lawtonfogle

My solace my terror, my terror my solace.
Apr 20, 2005
11,585
350
35
✟13,892.00
Faith
Christian
EDIT: To grammar Nazis: I think it should have been 'Worst'... oh well.

Any action can be justified when given an either or action with a worse action. Torture is bad, but raping then killing someone is worse, so given a situation where you had to do one or the other, torture would be the better alternative. Raping someone is bad, letting them die is worse, so in a situation, rape is the better option. Or, maybe you think letting someone die is bad, and rape is worse, so letting them die is the better option. Either way, one is better than another, because the other is a worse action. So in your own mind, what is the worst possible action?
 

cantata

Queer non-theist, with added jam.
Feb 20, 2007
6,215
683
37
Oxford, UK
✟24,693.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Choosing of a lesser of two evils?
I'd play Russian Roulette with the person using a blank cartridge. Not only would I get the info, it would scare the [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth] out of them.

How does this answer the question? o_0

Random torture designed solely to produce the worst suffering possible for the victim is probably the "worst" action for me, in the sense that it's the action I would least want someone to perpetrate.
 
Upvote 0

lawtonfogle

My solace my terror, my terror my solace.
Apr 20, 2005
11,585
350
35
✟13,892.00
Faith
Christian
How does this answer the question? o_0

Random torture designed solely to produce the worst suffering possible for the victim is probably the "worst" action for me, in the sense that it's the action I would least want someone to perpetrate.

How about we take that, and I add some too it (to try to make it worse), where once you have 'broken' people you breed them so you will have more people to torture. Also, you don't all them to die, giving them just enough food and drink to live. Also when one does die, well lets just say you end up supplementing some meat into the other's diets.

Or does that last part fit into the torture to begin with?

But yeah, I'm confused with #2's answer as well.
 
Upvote 0

jayem

Naturalist
Jun 24, 2003
15,262
6,943
72
St. Louis, MO.
✟371,263.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
So in your own mind, what is the worst possible action?

All-out, world-wide nuclear warfare. Depending on the amount of environmental damage, persisting radiation, and climate change from "nuclear winter," it could extinct our species. Not to mention having catastrophic effects on many other animal and plant species.

The fossil record tell us that all species eventually go extinct. But if biology has any moral dimension, the sudden extinction of a life form, expecially when due to the actions of that life form, has to be about as bad as anything can be.
 
Upvote 0

lawtonfogle

My solace my terror, my terror my solace.
Apr 20, 2005
11,585
350
35
✟13,892.00
Faith
Christian
All-out, world-wide nuclear warfare. Depending on the amount of environmental damage, persisting radiation, and climate change from "nuclear winter," it could extinct our species. Not to mention having catastrophic effects on many other animal and plant species.

The fossil record tell us that all species eventually go extinct. But if biology has any moral dimension, the sudden extinction of a life form, expecially when due to the actions of that life form, has to be about as bad as anything can be.

You made me think of something. There should be two limits. Worse possible thing possible right now (such as a nuclear winter) and worse possible thing which may be possible (destroying the uni(multi)verse). I would like to stick to the first one.
 
Upvote 0

lawtonfogle

My solace my terror, my terror my solace.
Apr 20, 2005
11,585
350
35
✟13,892.00
Faith
Christian
Did anyone Godwin this thread yet? Because if not, I'm about to.

Be Adolph Hitler


Burn the Godwinnian.

Actually the 4th word of the post (not counting title) Godwinned it. I was trying to sneak it past so no one else would notice.

Anyways, as to the one who said murder was the worse... ever heard the phrase 'things worse than death'? If not, I can point you to a short story which will elaborate. Ok, so actually I won't being some kid would come read it, google it, and be scarred for life.

But let us try making slight modifications. How about tricking a parent into murdering his/her own child? Basically, you continue doing things to a person till they finally commit suicide.
 
Upvote 0

TeddyKGB

A dude playin' a dude disgused as another dude
Jul 18, 2005
6,495
453
46
Deep underground
✟8,993.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I put rape and torture on an equal footing.
By far, I see murder as the worst option.
Are you approaching this as an imperative? Personally, and the fact that I have never had the dilemma put to me in practice notwithstanding, I rate death easily preferable to countless hypothetical situations involving mental anguish and/or physical pain beyond what my comparatively tame imagination can conceive. While I cannot attribute my feelings universally, I have to assume that they are shared by at least a not-insignificant minority.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Catherineanne

Well-Known Member
Sep 1, 2004
22,924
4,645
Europe
✟76,860.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Widowed
EDIT: To grammar Nazis: I think it should have been 'Worst'... oh well.

Any action can be justified when given an either or action with a worse action. Torture is bad, but raping then killing someone is worse, so given a situation where you had to do one or the other, torture would be the better alternative. Raping someone is bad, letting them die is worse, so in a situation, rape is the better option. Or, maybe you think letting someone die is bad, and rape is worse, so letting them die is the better option. Either way, one is better than another, because the other is a worse action. So in your own mind, what is the worst possible action?

There is a saying (I forget who by) which says, when faced with a choice of two evils, choosing the lesser of the two becomes the morally right thing to do.

However, this does not mean that because rape is less than murder, it is better to rape someone than to kill them. That is indefensible morally.

In such a situation, the only possible choice is to refrain from doing either, at whatever cost.

As for what is the worst thing any of us can do, I would say this is the emotional abuse of a young child. It leaves no bruises, but damages the child for life, and there is practically no way to bring perpetrators to justice.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: wanderingone
Upvote 0

wanderingone

I'm not lost I'm just wandering
Jul 6, 2005
11,090
932
57
New York
✟30,779.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
There is a saying (I forget who by) which says, when faced with a choice of two evils, choosing the lesser of the two becomes the morally right thing to do.

However, this does not mean that because rape is less than murder, it is better to rape someone than to kill them. That is indefensible morally.

In such a situation, the only possible choice is to refrain from doing either, at whatever cost.

Quite nicely put. I refuse either or situations the fact is I hope that I would allow myself to be hurt before I allowed myself to be threatened into committing an act against someone else.

As for what is the worst thing any of us can do, I would say this is the emotional abuse of a young child. It leaves no bruises, but damages the child for life, and there is practically no way to bring perpetrators to justice.

I agree that destruction of someone's developing self through abuse is one of the most horrific things someone can do. I'm not sure that I can define what the worst thing is. For me it is not appropriate to define the worst thing and try to not slip that low, but to define what I wish to be in this world and try to live up to that.
 
Upvote 0

Exhausted

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2005
2,544
130
Earth
✟3,462.00
Faith
Christian
No fair saying neither guys.

Here's the dilemma, then, you have to choose. Either you, personally, do something bad to someone, or if you choose not to do that thing, then something even worse is done due to your own inaction.

Okay? None of this "well, I wouldn't do anything bad to someone so ha!" stuff. It isn't substantially contributing to the discussion (or whatever it says in the new guidelines).

Anyways, the worst thing I could do to someone is probably just unending physical and emotional torture. Nonspecific, but examples include dental torture, their worst fears personified, the forced murder/torture of their loved ones by their own hands, etc etc.

The worst thing I could do, given unlimited time and resources, assuming my goal is to be, oh, say, reviled as possible upon my death? Probably biological warfare. How about a virus that doesn't kill the host cell, but changes its genetic code, causing people's bodies to degenerate to nothing? You get my drift.
 
Upvote 0

lawtonfogle

My solace my terror, my terror my solace.
Apr 20, 2005
11,585
350
35
✟13,892.00
Faith
Christian
There is a saying (I forget who by) which says, when faced with a choice of two evils, choosing the lesser of the two becomes the morally right thing to do.

However, this does not mean that because rape is less than murder, it is better to rape someone than to kill them. That is indefensible morally.

In such a situation, the only possible choice is to refrain from doing either, at whatever cost.

As for what is the worst thing any of us can do, I would say this is the emotional abuse of a young child. It leaves no bruises, but damages the child for life, and there is practically no way to bring perpetrators to justice.

Let us say by your actions of not raping you murder. And no human is there making this the case either. Let us assume that instead we have a machine. It does two things. Recognizes rape and pulls what ever is attached to it apart. So, if it doesn't see someone getting raped, it will kill who ever it is holding.

So choosing to do nothing is choosing to let that machine kill someone. It is the same as choosing to do nothing when you could pull a kid out from in front of a train.

Let me give you the train scenario.

Old man is working at a train bridge which an be raised for ships to go underneath. Now, his grandson is playing on the tracks, the grandson gets stuck and a train is coming. Now we split this into two scenarios.

1. The bridge is currently raised. Doing nothing will have the train flying into the river, killing most on board. Doing something (lowering the bridge) will kill his grandson but save everyone on board.

2. The bridge is currently lowers. Doing nothing will have the train killing his grandson. Doing something (raising the bridge) will save his grandson but kill most people on the train.

In both cases do you do nothing?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Catherineanne

Well-Known Member
Sep 1, 2004
22,924
4,645
Europe
✟76,860.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Widowed
No fair saying neither guys.

Here's the dilemma, then, you have to choose. Either you, personally, do something bad to someone, or if you choose not to do that thing, then something even worse is done due to your own inaction.

Okay? None of this "well, I wouldn't do anything bad to someone so ha!" stuff. It isn't substantially contributing to the discussion (or whatever it says in the new guidelines).

Anyways, the worst thing I could do to someone is probably just unending physical and emotional torture. Nonspecific, but examples include dental torture, their worst fears personified, the forced murder/torture of their loved ones by their own hands, etc etc.

The worst thing I could do, given unlimited time and resources, assuming my goal is to be, oh, say, reviled as possible upon my death? Probably biological warfare. How about a virus that doesn't kill the host cell, but changes its genetic code, causing people's bodies to degenerate to nothing? You get my drift.

Hmm.

Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatver is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable - if anything is excellent or praiseworthy - think about such things.

:)
 
  • Like
Reactions: wanderingone
Upvote 0

wanderingone

I'm not lost I'm just wandering
Jul 6, 2005
11,090
932
57
New York
✟30,779.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
No fair saying neither guys.

Here's the dilemma, then, you have to choose. Either you, personally, do something bad to someone, or if you choose not to do that thing, then something even worse is done due to your own inaction.

Okay? None of this "well, I wouldn't do anything bad to someone so ha!" stuff. It isn't substantially contributing to the discussion (or whatever it says in the new guidelines).

Anyways, the worst thing I could do to someone is probably just unending physical and emotional torture. Nonspecific, but examples include dental torture, their worst fears personified, the forced murder/torture of their loved ones by their own hands, etc etc.

The worst thing I could do, given unlimited time and resources, assuming my goal is to be, oh, say, reviled as possible upon my death? Probably biological warfare. How about a virus that doesn't kill the host cell, but changes its genetic code, causing people's bodies to degenerate to nothing? You get my drift.

Why spend so much time figuring out the worst thing you could do? What is the point? To define everything else in such terms as "Well yeah... that was bad but at least I didn't....?"

But I'll defer to your rules, if one must choose to commit a negative action (or inaction) I'll bow out.
 
Upvote 0

Beanieboy

Senior Veteran
Jan 20, 2006
6,296
1,213
60
✟50,122.00
Faith
Christian
I would have to say extreme abuse of a child. I remember hearing a story where a father, who wantedt to teach her whining daughter a lesson, put her on the roof of his car, and sped down the highway. Or the kid who was in a room strapped to a toilet until the age of 12, or the man in Austria who's wife's kids have never seen sunlight.

The person's life has been severly damaged. The carry that injury with them as they grow up, and will often be unable to get close, have no idea what love or happiness is.
 
Upvote 0

Wiccan_Child

Contributor
Mar 21, 2005
19,419
673
Bristol, UK
✟31,731.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
EDIT: To grammar Nazis: I think it should have been 'Worst'... oh well.

Any action can be justified when given an either or action with a worse action. Torture is bad, but raping then killing someone is worse, so given a situation where you had to do one or the other, torture would be the better alternative. Raping someone is bad, letting them die is worse, so in a situation, rape is the better option. Or, maybe you think letting someone die is bad, and rape is worse, so letting them die is the better option. Either way, one is better than another, because the other is a worse action. So in your own mind, what is the worst possible action?
Condemning someone to an eternity of infinite suffering, each moment being jam-packed with exquisite agony. Oh, and there's no hope of reprise.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Status
Not open for further replies.