Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A dillema for the "moral" Absolutist...

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

  • #76
    Originally posted by mighty_duck View Post
    You didn't answer the question.
    If you say that one more time I am banning you from TOL.

    I answered your question DIRECTLY without equivocation.
    Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
    TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

    Comment


    • #77
      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.
      All people do have worth but that worth varies. And I think that you prove that point every day. For example, you don't wake up each morning and immediately wire all your money to a hunger relief fund. If you did you would starve. You are valuing your life over some starving stranger. This is perfectly acceptable behavior but it's relative nonetheless.

      Also, when you buy a new car I bet you wouldn't pay $100,000 just for the airbag feature, would you? But that airbag has a certain probability of saving your own life or the life of your passengers (loved ones perhaps?). Therefore a price exists at which you aren't willing to increase the chance of survivability for yourself or your loved ones.

      Everyday you are a walking billboard for moral relativism. But don't be too disturbed or get too down on yourself. The world has worked this way for a long time.
      When the facts change, I change my opinion. What do you do sir? - John Maynard Keynes

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by mighty_duck View Post
        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?
        At that point my choice would be based on all kinds of factors, i.e., which group is closer? Do I know which location my loved one is at? Which location would be easier to reach? etc. It would all boil down to strategy with my goal being to save both groups.

        Of course I would be inclined to want to go to my loved one first but not if that would make it less likely to help everyone involved.

        So.... lets say I go to my loved one first, and I can't make it to the other folks in time so they die.

        What have we proved?

        ANSWER: Nothing!
        Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
        TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by Knight View Post
          At that point my choice would be based on all kinds of factors, i.e., which group is closer? Do I know which location my loved one is at? Which location would be easier to reach? etc. It would all boil down to strategy with my goal being to save both groups.

          Of course I would be inclined to want to go to my loved one first but not if that would make it less likely to help everyone involved.

          So.... lets say I go to my loved one first, and I can't make it to the other folks in time so they die.

          What have we proved?

          ANSWER: Nothing!
          Knight, those are all relativist answers. You equated distance, ease of reach etc with the choice. In other words, you admit that outside measures of cost play into your decision. You used the words "less likely". Thus you are beginning to use probability in your decision. An absolutist would be frozen by the knowledge of probability based cost/benefit analysis. Welcome to the relativist club.
          When the facts change, I change my opinion. What do you do sir? - John Maynard Keynes

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by LosingMyReligion View Post
            Knight, those are all relativist answers. You equated distance, ease of reach etc with the choice. In other words, you admit that outside measures of cost play into your decision. You used the words "less likely". Thus you are beginning to use probability in your decision. An absolutist would be frozen by the knowledge of probability based cost/benefit analysis. Welcome to the relativist club.
            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
            Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
            TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by LosingMyReligion View Post
              Welcome to the relativist club.
              Congratulations.... I was suspicious that you were a moron, but now there is no doubt.
              Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
              TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

              Comment


              • #82
                OK, I am losing IQ points just reading this idiocy.... I think I will bow out and let you cowards battle it out trying to determine which victims you want to help murder.

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

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by Knight View Post
                  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....


                  So I don't match their firepower? I die trying.
                  That's the difference between us when confronted with this life or death scenario: I would immediately put a premium on my survival and the survival of my fiancee. No dilemma there.




                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Boy, you guys sure don't like hypothetical questions.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by SUTG View Post
                      Boy, you guys sure don't like hypothetical questions.
                      I was thinking this the entire time.

                      More than half the text here has been ad hominem.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        This is like pulling out teeth!

                        We assumed that chances are identical. The only factor you have on which to save (first) is that one choice saves your loved one, while the other saves 10 strangers. Why do you keep trying to look for outside distractions? The point of hypotheticals is to shield us from these distractions. Whatever decision you make, you have an equal (non-existent) chance of saving them both.

                        ETA- If the question wasn't clear enough: You do know the location of your loved one.

                        Originally posted by Knight View Post
                        At that point my choice would be based on all kinds of factors, i.e., which group is closer? Do I know which location my loved one is at? Which location would be easier to reach? etc. It would all boil down to strategy with my goal being to save both groups.

                        Of course I would be inclined to want to go to my loved one first but not if that would make it less likely to help everyone involved.
                        Supposing the chances are equal, saying you would still choose your single loved one over 10 strangers is still a moral decision. It says your personal interests are more important to you than the good of 10 lives.

                        Would your decision be any different if there were a million people in the group instead of just 10?
                        "What if the Hokie Pokie is really what it's all about?"

                        "The best things in life aren't things"

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by SUTG View Post
                          Boy, you guys sure don't like hypothetical questions.
                          Who is "you guys"?

                          I love hypotheticals, which is why I confronted this one head on.
                          Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
                          TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by Pekkle View Post
                            More than half the text here has been ad hominem.
                            When dealing with absolute morons sometimes that's the best option.

                            Are you are coward like they are?
                            Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
                            TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by mighty_duck View Post
                              This is like pulling out teeth!
                              Pulling teeth????

                              I answered you directly two... no wait... THREE TIMES!!!

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

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by Granite View Post
                                That's the difference between us when confronted with this life or death scenario: I would immediately put a premium on my survival and the survival of my fiancee. No dilemma there.
                                Fair enough. You have the right to take the cowardly way out and save your own skin.
                                Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
                                TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X