Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A dillema for the "moral" Absolutist...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by Knight View Post
    Who said I wouldn't act?

    I said I wouldn't help the murderers choose their victims, but I didn't say I wouldn't act.

    I will not participate in their crime, but I will most certainly act! I will go down fighting in a blaze of glory to the best of my ability. I will die trying to save all the innocent people.

    You losers take the cowardly way out, turning to crime just to save your own skin.

    Pathetic.
    And if you were incapable of this blaze of glory (tied up, injured or remotely located)? You are adding to the question by assuming that such a heroic act is an option. I could similarly avoid the dilemma by saying that no one will die because dragons will fly in and eat the gunmen. But I don't because I know that that is not the essence of the question.
    When the facts change, I change my opinion. What do you do sir? - John Maynard Keynes

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by koban View Post
      Try telling that to Liviu Librescu, Jocelyne Couture-Nowak and Kevin Granata.
      I don't see how heroism that saved lives presents a problem. Or maybe you misunderstood my point. If anything what they did is exactly at odds with the inaction suggested by others here, which results in the deaths of everyone in the scenario. (Librescu's sacrifice in particular considering his past does not strike me as a choice he saw as a dilemma to be pondered.)




      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Knight View Post
        Hey wimpy_duck, just so you know....

        It isn't morally wrong for a doctor to separate conjoined twins knowing that one twin will most likely die in the operation as long as he does everything within his power to attempt to save both twins.

        Conversely, if the doctor intentionally killed one of the twins at the order of the parents the doctor would be participating in the murder of the twin.

        No moral dilemma!
        OK, but you did not answer my question.

        I asked what you would personally do if:
        Our band of evil ethic terrorists have captured 10 men and your loved one, and poisoned them. They put the 10 and the one in two separate locations, and given you the antidote. You only have time to reach one group. It is the middle of the desert, so you won't be able to get help and save all of them. What do you do, save your loved one or save 10 people?

        How heroic is it to dodge the question? Compared to charging armed terrorists with nothing but your bare hands, this should be a walk in the park for you.
        "What if the Hokie Pokie is really what it's all about?"

        "The best things in life aren't things"

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by cattyfan View Post
          This is an idiotic scenario. The gunmen are the only ones guilty of wrong-doing. Regardless of the choice made by the person weighing the question, that person bears no guilt...no burden...they would not be held responsible by the law or, more importantly, by God.
          Ah, but is morality purely about whether or not you will get punished? Or is it absolute? To me, acting a certain way because of the potential for (or lack if) guilt or burden is a relativist stance.

          The question was never "are the gunmen wrong?" but by bringing that certainty of their sole ownership of wrong, I think you've just trapped yourself because you said "regardless of the choice". If you really feel that regardless of the choice the gunmen are the only wrong-doers, then you have nothing to fear in picking the choice with the fewest deaths - in this case your loved one.
          When the facts change, I change my opinion. What do you do sir? - John Maynard Keynes

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Punisher1984 View Post
            Because he had the option to spare at least one of them - and yet didn't take it.
            Children are starving to death in Africa at this very moment. Are you responsible for their deaths?

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by LosingMyReligion View Post
              And if you were incapable of this blaze of glory (tied up, injured or remotely located)? You are adding to the question by assuming that such a heroic act is an option. I could similarly avoid the dilemma by saying that no one will die because dragons will fly in and eat the gunmen. But I don't because I know that that is not the essence of the question.
              You really are a moron aren't you?

              There is nothing that is preventing me from fighting back.

              If however, they tie me up, and prevent me from fighting I will STILL NOT actively participate in the murder of innocent humans.

              It's really not that hard to understand.
              Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
              TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by LosingMyReligion View Post
                Ah, but is morality purely about whether or not you will get punished? Or is it absolute? To me, acting a certain way because of the potential for (or lack if) guilt or burden is a relativist stance.

                The question was never "are the gunmen wrong?" but by bringing that certainty of their sole ownership of wrong, I think you've just trapped yourself because you said "regardless of the choice". If you really feel that regardless of the choice the gunmen are the only wrong-doers, then you can nothing to fear in picking the choice with the fewest deaths - in this case your loved one.


                I've already stated, I would not make the choice. I was saying anyone who makes a choice, regardless of what it is, is not wrong and bears no guilt.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by mighty_duck View Post
                  OK, but you did not answer my question.

                  I asked what you would personally do if:
                  Our band of evil ethic terrorists have captured 10 men and your loved one, and poisoned them. They put the 10 and the one in two separate locations, and given you the antidote. You only have time to reach one group. It is the middle of the desert, so you won't be able to get help and save all of them. What do you do, save your loved one or save 10 people?

                  How heroic is it to dodge the question? Compared to charging armed terrorists with nothing but your bare hands, this should be a walk in the park for you.
                  Uh... I did answer, not only in that post but in the prior one.
                  Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
                  TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Likewise....

                    I will not vote for McCain.

                    And....

                    I will not vote for Osama Bin Hillary.

                    I will vote for Alan Keyes, or not vote at all but I will not do evil so that good may come of it (i.e., I will not vote for the lesser of two evils).
                    Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
                    TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      The problem here is that LosingMyReligion, Punisher1984, and the ilk are apparently too dense to see the difference between believing all people have worth and making a choice based on personal emotional and affection.

                      So my resolution is this: when the idiotic gunmen present me with my no-win choice, I will pull out my 9mm and shoot them, because I was smart enough to get my concealed-carry permit and get properly trained at gun safety.

                      There. Problem solved.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by cattyfan View Post
                        The problem here is that LosingMyReligion, Punisher1984, and the ilk are apparently too dense to see the difference between believing all people have worth and making a choice based on personal emotional and affection.

                        So my resolution is this: when the idiotic gunmen present me with my no-win choice, I will pull out my 9mm and shoot them, because I was smart enough to get my concealed-carry permit and get properly trained at gun safety.

                        There. Problem solved.


                        cowards!!
                        Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
                        TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by cattyfan View Post
                          The problem here is that LosingMyReligion, Punisher1984, and the ilk are apparently too dense to see the difference between believing all people have worth and making a choice based on personal emotional and affection.

                          So my resolution is this: when the idiotic gunmen present me with my no-win choice, I will pull out my 9mm and shoot them, because I was smart enough to get my concealed-carry permit and get properly trained at gun safety.

                          There. Problem solved.
                          Convenient--and I thought of this, since I carry--but the hypothetical didn't provide fighting back as an alternative.




                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by Knight View Post
                            I do my best to get the antidote to both groups, it isn't morally wrong for me to try to save as many people as I can even if its physically impossible for me to accomplish my goal. Regardless of which group I go to first I have not participated in their crime and therefore no moral dilemma.

                            I think it's comical that you actually view these things as a dilemma.
                            I must have missed this post. But it is still a dodge!

                            You didn't answer the question.
                            Fine, you would try to save both. You have a near 100% chance to save one group, and that would leave a near 0% percent chance to save the other. Which group would you choose to use the near fool-proof method on, the one with 10 strangers, or the one with your love one?

                            I agree that you are not guilty of any crime whichever way you choose. But you have to make a decision somehow. On what basis would you such a decision? How can it not be a decision based on your sense of morality?
                            "What if the Hokie Pokie is really what it's all about?"

                            "The best things in life aren't things"

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by Knight View Post
                              You really are a moron aren't you?

                              There is nothing that is preventing me from fighting back.

                              If however, they tie me up, and prevent me from fighting I will STILL NOT actively participate in the murder of innocent humans.

                              It's really not that hard to understand.
                              So your escape hatch is that they didn't offer your inaction as one of the options, thus by taking it you aren't doing what they say. But if they had listed 3 options: 1) your loved one, 2) the 10 or 3) everyone, now your previously rebellious action has become an official gunmen-sactioned choice. Now what do you do? By choosing 3, you have actively participated by virtue of them mentioning it has an option. Oops.
                              When the facts change, I change my opinion. What do you do sir? - John Maynard Keynes

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by Granite View Post
                                Convenient--and I thought of this, since I carry--but the hypothetical didn't provide fighting back as an alternative.
                                First off, cattyfan was making what we like to call "a joke".

                                But more importantly the original scenario didn't rue out fighting back, it only ruled out fighting back with the likelihood of being successful.

                                From the scenario....
                                Note: fighting back is out of the question as there are too many of them and you can't match their firepower.
                                So I don't match their firepower? I die trying.
                                Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
                                TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X