Moral Question

Bird's One View · Aug 7, 2009

Originally Posted by Fuuma

No. It's a false choice anyway.
This sounds like what I was trying to say, without so many words. The one posing the question is like the schoolyard bully "punching air" as he walks through a crowd and saying it's your own fault you got in the way of his fists. You don't kill the 1000 innocents (if indeed they are killed); the bully does.

Huntsman · Aug 7, 2009

Originally Posted by MetroStyles

Any discussion on morality requires the limitation of reality and degrees of freedom. Otherwise moral rules could not be formed. Laws are a similar beast.
My daily work requires that I simplify a subset of reality by applying conditions to a hypothetical state precisely to eliminate degrees of freedom. One of the most important aspects of being good at what I do is knowing when you have reduced the problem to a technical contrivance -- a thought experiment -- where the answers have no relation to the reality you are attempting to model. You know it when you are distancing yourself from reality. The feeling you are just puttin on a show with the model. I am getting that same feeling about these sorts of questions. ~ H

odoreater · Aug 7, 2009

I voted No. Those thousand people are going to die one day one way or another anyway, and there blood will not be on my hands. The one guy's life who I take - his blood will be on my hands forever.

My system of morals does not impose upon me an obligation to save others from death, but it does impose upon me an obligation not to kill.

Btw - this doesn't mean that there aren't any circumstances under which I would off a motherfucker.

milosz · Aug 7, 2009

Originally Posted by MetroStyles

Also, please consider the logical implications of saying you would kill 1 to save 1,000. This implies it is alright to do so because you are saving more than you are killing. Would it follow that you would kill 2 for 1,000? 5 for 1,000? 999 for 1,000? Where does it stop being morally correct and start becoming something of a Communist dictator style genocide? At 435?
It's a fundamentally dishonest question, as infinite hypotheticals tend to be. It can also be turned around - if you have the opportunity to save 1000 people by killing one, and you choose not to, do you not bear responsibility for their deaths? What makes that one man and your moral code more valuable?

emptym · Aug 7, 2009

I don't know. I think it would depend on the situation and how I thought/felt in that moment.

I lean toward not killing the person, since I'd be hoping the others wouldn't really have to die.

In many cases, I'd think there'd be the option of sacrificing oneself. And this would almost certainly be the best option.

Liam · Aug 7, 2009

Yes, if the one man was me. Otherwise, no.

scarphe · Aug 7, 2009

if i was on of the 1000 to die yes, other wise who cares.

Huntsman · Aug 7, 2009

Originally Posted by emptym

I In many cases, I'd think there'd be the option of sacrificing oneself. And this would almost certainly be the best option.
If you mean "in the pursuit of saving the 1,000 and the 1" then I say we have a winner.... ~ H

odoreater · Aug 7, 2009

You guys are so full of ****. There are probably a million situations in the world right now where you might be able to save the lives of 1000 people doing less than sacrificing your own life or killing someone, yet you don't do that. The cost of one pair of Edward Greens can probably save the lives of 1000 people in Africa, yet I don't see you shipping the $1400 (or whatever EGs cost) to Africa for food and medicine.

Dakota rube · Aug 7, 2009

Is the "save 1000" a guarantee, or merely a projection?
'cause if it is a guarantee, yes, I'd off the 1.

Mark from Plano · Aug 7, 2009

Originally Posted by Dakota rube

Is the "save 1000" a guarantee, or merely a projection?
'cause if it is a guarantee, yes, I'd off the 1.

Well, that's easy. But what if you had to waterboard him? Could you do that?

Ataturk · Aug 7, 2009

I guess the question is whether you're more concerned with the morality of your actions or the utility of them. I fall on the "morality" side, so, no, I wouldn't murder an innocent to save a thousand lives.

scarphe · Aug 7, 2009

Originally Posted by odoreater

You guys are so full of ****. There are probably a million situations in the world right now where you might be able to save the lives of 1000 people doing less than sacrificing your own life or killing someone, yet you don't do that. The cost of one pair of Edward Greens can probably save the lives of 1000 people in Africa, yet I don't see you shipping the $1400 (or whatever EGs cost) to Africa for food and medicine.
this is hypothetical. and you know lives of people from first world nations are worht alot more than other lives.

Dakota rube · Aug 7, 2009

Originally Posted by Mark from Plano

Well, that's easy. But what if you had to waterboard him? Could you do that?

I actually tried to waterboard myself. That is a creepy sensation.

I'd sing like a fuckin' canary were it done to me.

Bird's One View · Aug 7, 2009

Originally Posted by Dakota rube

I actually tried to waterboard myself. That is a creepy sensation.

I'd sing like a fuckin' canary were it done to me.

Is it more dangerous to do it alone? Like autoerotic asphyxiation?

Moral Question

Distinguished Member

Distinguished Member

Distinguished Member

Distinguished Member

Moderator

Senior Member

Distinguished Member

Distinguished Member

Distinguished Member

Stylish Dinosaur

Stylish Dinosaur

Stylish Dinosaur

Distinguished Member

Stylish Dinosaur

Distinguished Member

FEATURED PRODUCTS

Similar threads

Featured Sponsor

Definitely full canvas only

Half canvas is fine

Really don't care

Depends on fabric

Depends on price

Forum Sponsors

Forum statistics

FOLLOW STYLEFORUM ON: