This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please
enable JavaScript
in your browser.
Live
PTR
Beta
Classic
Classic Theme
Thottbot Theme
Morality
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
So, if somebody had to kill a kid, some 5 year old girl, so he could stop Osama bin Laden, you think he shouldn't be judged for it? Because he was forced to do it?
That's not the same, I wasn't talking about that at all. Go back to my previous scenario with the cult.
Nope, it's exactly the same; but thanks for trying to play.
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
Same reason he avoids all of the other question that may poke a hole in his little bubble universe: He can't think of a real response, so he'll come up with yet another completely off the wall example, that will be ripped apart, and then do it again and again, with throwing in of memes as he goes.
Post by
OverZealous
Ok, let's say you'll be killed if you don't kill the girl and stop Osama.
Now what?
So like, a little girl is acting as osama's personal bodyguard?
Something like that.
But that's besides the question.
Why is a little girl acting as a bodyguard? And how would she physically stop me? How would a 5 year old girl be able to kill me? Is she somehow articulate enough to wield a firearm?
For the sake of the scenario, let's pretend she is capable of killing you. What'd you do?
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
If she was capable of killing you....why the hell would you make the stupid move of touching the child? /shake head
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
asakawa
I've been away a while and haven't read the full discussion that I've missed but everyone is happy that it's an unambiguously moral act to shoot another human in the face? Even when that person is the leader of a terror network, I might feel it was something that needed to be done but I wouldn't call murder, even in those circumstances, morally
good
. I very much doubt I could live with myself if I were to do it.
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Azazel
This is pointless if you are not gonna answer the questions you don't like.
Post by
Adamsm
Which is why the rest of us realize that morals are subjective to the situation; that's the entire point here.
Actions can be defined as good or evil, but the reasoning behind them are usually where the gray seeps in, since one can see it as the only just choice, while the other finds it horrifically and morally wrong.
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Azazel
This is pointless if you are not gonna answer the questions you don't like.
It's pointless because you can't make a moral judgement in
a situation where there is no good option
, and I'm forced to make a choice.
That's the point! What would you choose?
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
fenomas
Soldrethar is making a valid point here, if not making it explicitly. It is perfectly reasonable to reply to the trolley scenario by saying "I would shout at the people to get out of the way, because trying to stop a runaway trolley by dropping a fat person on it is absurd." More broadly, it is reasonable to point out that the scenario assumes impossible preconditions - that only two actions are possible to take and that you magically know what the outcome of both actions will be. It is hence arguable that the scenario is so contrived as to have no value.
Consider the analogous case of what happens in discussions of the death penalty. The "pro-" party typically claims that, at least, the penalty is justified in cases where "we absolutely know without a doubt" that the criminal is guilty (and sane and remorseless, etc.). In response, the "anti-" party (if they are sensible) points out that one main argument against the death penalty is that we can never know those things beyond all doubt. The same point can be made here - if a moral argument (here, that the end justifies the means) only holds in scenarios which are so contrived as to be impossible, then it follows that the argument has little value in scenarios that actually occur.
To make the same point more briefly but more obliquely:
This is pointless if you are not gonna answer the questions you don't like.
It's pointless because you can't make a moral judgement in
a situation where there is no good option
, and I'm forced to make a choice.
That's the point! What would you choose?
Azazel, have you stopped beating your wife? Remember, no avoiding the question.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.
© 2021 Fanbyte
