Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A dillema for the "moral" Absolutist...

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

  • #91
    Originally posted by Knight View Post
    Fair enough. You have the right to take the cowardly way out and save your own skin.
    ...and the love of my life. Ummm...

    If you think survival and living is inherently cowardly, go ahead, but I don't see any percentage in getting my sweetheart's brains blown out if I can help it.




    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by Granite View Post
      ...and the love of my life. Ummm...

      If you think survival and living is inherently cowardly, go ahead, but I don't see any percentage in getting my sweetheart's brains blown out if I can help it.
      So you will actively participate in murder to save your loved one and yourself???? That's cowardly.

      I would rather go down fighting and I know my wife would feel the same way. Neither one of us would find value in becoming criminals just to save our own skin.
      Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
      TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by Knight View Post
        That's because their isn't anything morally wrong with trying to save people.

        Let me say this slowly so you can understand.....

        Trying to save people is different than actively helping murderers choose their victims.

        Let me say that again.....

        Trying to save people is different than actively helping murderers choose their victims.


        Let me say that again.....

        Trying to save people is different than actively helping murderers choose their victims.


        Do ya get it????

        Even the mighty_moron agreed his new scenario posed no moral dilemma....

        "I agree that you are not guilty of any crime whichever way you choose." - might_duck
        You are just repeating what duck already said. That was the point of his example. duck said clearly that his example was meant to demonstrate that you can phrase the question in terms of positives and still show that you can't be absolute in your judgement call without damning yourself. Someone will die and you determine who. If you believe in absolutes then you are doomed as a killer. It merely shows that relativism, far from being simply an excuse to do what you want, is a solution to the inevitable. Under relativism you saved the most savable. Under absolutism, you killed, period. It shows the intractability of absolutism.
        When the facts change, I change my opinion. What do you do sir? - John Maynard Keynes

        Comment


        • #94
          I say..... Lets Roll!
          Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
          TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by Knight View Post
            So you will actively participate in murder to save your loved one and yourself???? That's cowardly.

            I would rather go down fighting and I know my wife would feel the same way. Neither one of us would find value in becoming criminals just to save our own skin.
            I provided my answer to this hypothetical a while ago, earlier on the thread. Saving my life and the life of the most important person to me trumps the lives of any stranger.




            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by Granite View Post
              I provided my answer to this hypothetical a while ago, earlier on the thread. Saving my life and the life of the most important person to me trumps the lives of any stranger.
              Which is as it should be.

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by LosingMyReligion View Post
                You are just repeating what duck already said. That was the point of his example. duck said clearly that his example was meant to demonstrate that you can phrase the question in terms of positives and still show that you can't be absolute in your judgement call without damning yourself. Someone will die and you determine who. If you believe in absolutes then you are doomed as a killer. It merely shows that relativism, far from being simply an excuse to do what you want, is a solution to the inevitable. Under relativism you saved the most savable. Under absolutism, you killed, period. It shows the intractability of absolutism.
                mighty_ducks alternate scenario isn't a absolute moral dilemma.

                Attempting to save lives, knowing that you can't save them all isn't a crime.

                There is simply so other way to say that. If you can't comprehend that, I guess I can't help you.
                Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
                TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by Granite View Post
                  I provided my answer to this hypothetical a while ago, earlier on the thread. Saving my life and the life of the most important person to me trumps the lives of any stranger.
                  Yet in this scenario you need to participate in murder to save yourself and your loved one. That makes you a coward.
                  Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
                  TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by Gerald View Post
                    Which is as it should be.
                    Coward.
                    Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
                    TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Knight View Post
                      That's because their isn't anything morally wrong with trying to save people.
                      I agree - because of relativism. In a relativist view, there isn't anything wrong with saving people even if others can't be saved. But in an absolutist view there is because there is absolutely no room for one death being less bad than another. You are left with no possible way out, no reason for one choice over the other. That's why the philosophy breaks down. That's the whole point we are trying to demonstrate. It seems that each argument you raise is in support of a relativist view.
                      When the facts change, I change my opinion. What do you do sir? - John Maynard Keynes

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Knight View Post
                        Attempting to save lives, knowing that you can't save them all isn't a crime.
                        And attempting to save lives, knowing that you can't save any is getting yourself killed for nothing.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by LosingMyReligion View Post
                          But in an absolutist view there is because there is absolutely no room for one death being less bad than another.
                          That might be one of the most asinine things ever typed on this forum.

                          You are an unadulterated moron.
                          Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
                          TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Knight View Post
                            Yet in this scenario you need to participate in murder to save yourself and your loved one. That makes you a coward.
                            It's easy to make judgments like this but a quick dismissal often belies reality. I don't consider the sonderkommandos "cowards"; I consider them people who did what they had to do. Dipping into fiction, I don't see the tragic character of Sophie Zawistowski as a "coward" based on the hideous "choice" she had to make. What you do to survive in such a nightmarish situation is beyond what we'd retrospectively call cowardice.




                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Gerald View Post
                              And attempting to save lives, knowing that you can't save any is getting yourself killed for nothing.
                              You are wrong.

                              I would spit in the face of the killers and go down fighting. I am not going to join up with evil and help some retards murder people.

                              I will not do evil so that good may come of it. I will stand with all the other men and women who willing give their lives for the cause of what is right.

                              I will let you losers take the sissy's way out.
                              Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
                              TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Knight View Post
                                Coward.
                                If I'm faced with a situation in which the choices are for me and mine to live OR everybody dies including me and mine, then I'm going to save me and mine.

                                Like I said, trying to save lives by fighting when anything you attempt is going to fail and get you and everybody else killed is just throwing your life away for nothing.

                                All your action would accomplish is assuage your Manly Prideā„¢ right before you die.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X