Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A dillema for the "moral" Absolutist...

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

  • Originally posted by Knight View Post
    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.
    You ignored the part where I said crime and morality are not synonymous. It doesn't have to be a question of crime to be a question of morality. You are clinging to the word 'crime' because you seemingly can't articulate your argument without it.

    The point is that you can't save them all. But if you truly are an absolutist 100% you would be frozen in place unable to decide or left unable to cope with your decision. If you have determined that you can make a choice, even if random, and live with it, then you are a relativist, like it or not.
    When the facts change, I change my opinion. What do you do sir? - John Maynard Keynes

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Gerald View Post
      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.
      So what you are saying is if an evil nation was attacking America and you knew America was going to lose you would join up with the evil nation to save your own skin?

      Not me.

      I guess that's the difference between guys like you.... and guys like me.

      I would go down swinging.
      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 Gerald View Post
        And attempting to save lives, knowing that you can't save any is getting yourself killed for nothing.
        It's not standing up for the truth, even if it gets you killed, that makes you good for nothing.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Knight View Post
          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.
          Then my side will hack you to bits and exterminate the people you're trying to defend.

          You'll be dead, and your vain sacrifice utterly forgotten. You will have accomplished nothing.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by LosingMyReligion View Post
            The point is that you can't save them all. But if you truly are an absolutist 100% you would be frozen in place unable to decide or left unable to cope with your decision. If you have determined that you can make a choice, even if random, and live with it, then you are a relativist, like it or not.
            If you can't make an intelligent point please go away.

            Seriously, your point is asinine. It's a non-point.

            You keep saying the same thing over and over again and it never makes it any more true or logical than your first attempt. You are not equipped to be involved in this type of a conversation because you lack the comprehension skills necessary to understand the difference in the various hypotheticals.
            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 Door View Post
              It's not standing up for the truth, even if it gets you killed, that makes you good for nothing.
              So, you have a problem with the fact that I place no value on personal honor, and will gladly take advantage of an opponent who does.

              I prefer to win by subterfuge and betrayal (befriend your enemy, then stab him in the back when he drops his guard).

              Comment


              • I'm a bit perplexed here. Could someone explain why people seem to think that the existence of a scenario where every available course of action involves some committing some degree evil is an argument against the existence of moral absolutes?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Gerald View Post
                  So, you have a problem with the fact that I place no value on personal honor, and will gladly take advantage of an opponent who does.

                  I prefer to win by subterfuge and betrayal (befriend your enemy, then stab him in the back when he drops his guard).
                  And you will murder in the process?

                  That's cowardly.

                  Stand up for what is right!

                  Or.... as a friend of mine once said....

                  Do right and risk the consequences.
                  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
                    And you will murder in the process?
                    Killing a mortal enemy isn't murder, it's pest control. Murder is predicated on the victim being human.

                    Comment


                    • 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.

                      No...I don't determine who. The people doing the killing are making that determination. They may be looking for a scapegoat, but the deaths are on them, not me.

                      Just because you don't like the answer doesn't make it any less true.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Knight View Post
                        That might be one of the most asinine things ever typed on this forum.

                        You are an unadulterated moron.
                        Ok then. I've fully conveyed my thoughts on the question anyway. Have a nice day and see you around.
                        When the facts change, I change my opinion. What do you do sir? - John Maynard Keynes

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Knight View Post


                          Yeah... like we are on this boat and we are all gonna die unless we eat the fat guy or toss out the old lady.

                          But hey.... stupid situational ethics scenarios are the bread and butter of every "fresh out of college" high school teacher.
                          As well as Jesus.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Gerald View Post
                            Killing a mortal enemy isn't murder, it's pest control. Murder is predicated on the victim being human.
                            Huh?

                            Why is your loved one or the 10 innocent people a mortal enemy?

                            You aren't making any sense. (I guess that shouldn't shock me)
                            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 cursuswalker View Post
                              As well as Jesus.
                              Do you have a point to make? Or are you just gonna be stupid from the sidelines?
                              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
                                Huh?

                                Why is your loved one or the 10 innocent people a mortal enemy?
                                No, but those who endanger them are.
                                You aren't making any sense. (I guess that shouldn't shock me)
                                I was still responding to the "personal honor" issue.

                                The upshot is this: I'm not going to take a bullet for a stranger under any circumstances, no matter how dire.

                                There's no point in getting myself killed if it won't at the very least take my mortal enemy (see above) and all his buddies (also my mortal enemies) with me. In the scenario presented, that option is unavailable.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X