Hey retard... I already answered. Are you going to prove to be as big a moron as Punisher?
A dillema for the "moral" Absolutist...
- Thread starter Punisher1984
- Start date
Punisher1984
New member
So, you are admitting that you find some lives to have more worth than others - the 2 old men being worth less than that of the children? If that's so, you are heading in a direction similar to the one I took pondering this dillema.
So it appears, but I'll allow a little more time for an answer.
Punisher1984
New member
Are the ad homs really necissary? Your answer could possibly be interpreted as an attempt to dodge the question as you implied that you would do nothing - that's not what I read into it, but can see how one can come to that conclusion.
mighty_duck
New member
This is your "answer":
Which is a non-answer.
You could choose the ten, choose the one, or choose not to cooperate, in which case everyone dies, and so the greatest evil is achieved by your actions.
You are put in a situation where no matter what you do, evil is done (including inaction). You refuse to accept that, and attack the question and anyone who asks it (very mature
).
And therefore what????
I have proved that this is no moral dilemma for me or for any other moral absolutist. Everyone is going to die sooner or later and I am not going to participate in the murder of any innocent human. So I let the killers be killers and I die an innocent man with no blood on my hands.
You simply do not do evil so that good may come of it.
Your "moral dilemma" has proved to be a dilemma made for morons.
Rav Qalevra
New member
If said person doesn't answer, and the gunmen shoot everyone, who is doing the evil?
You are wrong and you are a fool.
You are like a junior high school kid who hasn't really thought this through.
The greater evil would be for me to actively participate in the crime, which would make me a criminal and add to the tragedy for the victims.
I like to sing a little Tom Petty sing when I think about morons like you guys....
Well I won't back down
No I won't back down
You can stand me up at the gates of hell
But I won't back down
No I'll stand my ground, won't be turned around
And I'll keep this world from draggin me down
gonna stand my ground
... and I won't back down
Chorus:
(I won't back down...)
Hey baby, there ain't no easy way out
(and I won't back down...)
hey I will stand my ground
and I won't back down
Well I know what's right, I got just one life
in a world that keeps on pushin me around
but I'll stand my ground
...and I won't back down
(I won't back down...)
Hey baby, there ain't no easy way out
(and I won't back down...)
hey I will stand my ground
(I won't back down)
and I won't back down...
(I won't back down...)
Hey baby, there ain't no easy way out
(I won't back down)
hey I won't back down
(and I won't back down)
hey baby, there ain't no easy way out
(and I won't back down)
hey I will stand my ground
(and I won't back down)
and I won't back down
(I won't back down)
No I won't back down...
Punisher1984
New member
And thus your inaction cost everyone involved their lives - like I said before, the gunmen are just a plot device to make the abstract concept more concrete
And sooner or later the sun is going to grow into a red giant and fry all life on earth - but that doesn't imply that we should all commit suicide right now, does it? You only have one life (no one-ups, save points, respawns or continues) and bringing it to a premature end to make a mere statement when you have the power to prevent it accomplishes nothing.
Except the blood of the person/persons that could have been set free had you not been stubborn...
I'm sure that in some "perfect" world this may be the case - but we dont live there now, do we?
And since you were unable to give a half-decent answer to the dillema, what does that make you?
mighty_duck
New member
I view morality, and all judgments for that matter, to be on a weighted scale. If we are absolutely forced to make a decision, then of course every life has a weight.
I've tried it before, and got only these types of dodges.
You may have more success with a similar scenario, where one is forced to do the greater good instead of choose the lesser evil (which amounts to the same thing).
Consider this:
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?
[absolutist]
Dodge the question! (And you're an idiot!)
[/absolutists]
My answer would remain exactly the same.
Punisher1984
New member
You do know that this would ring hollow in the ears of the deceased's loved ones, do you?
Only if they were immoral fools.
What ever happened to heroes?
We are raising a generation of cowards and fools.
We are raising a generation of cowards and fools.
mighty_duck
New member
In this situation, inaction has a higher price than choosing the lesser evil. Inaction is a cause of evil in the same way that any one action is, except it leads to a greater evil.
Do you think the families of the ten victims would be comforted by your decision to do nothing more than they would be comforted by having their loved ones kept alive?
mighty_duck
New member
Why not?
And keep in mind that it is not your survival at question here, but that of either one loved one, or ten strangers.
Saving the life of the woman I love is not, in my mind, a dilemma. I would do whatever possible to see to it.
I would like to think that I would do the same, in one sense any responsibility for the lives of these people is absolved because those with their fingers on the trigger are ultimately responsible for such a crime regardless of any decision I might make, but as pragmatic as could be possible in such a situation I would theoretically have to go with numbers in terms of answering the OP, in real life and in that situation I couldn't in all honesty know for sure what I would do however....
ironically though it would have been a much harder question in terms of morality were it one stranger v a loved one, I've no doubt I would pick my loved one although the strangers life is of equal value.....
Punisher1984
New member
I see... Since the absolutists here are being uncooperative I'll show my hand now.
Since I see the individual as the one who ultimately ascribes value to anything (or anyone), I will select the person/persons I ascribe more value to. In my case, I prize my loved ones over any stranger and so will save the one I value instead of the ones I don't.
But it doesn't stop there - for even though the one I value is out of immediate danger there's no guarantee that the danger won't rear its head later and undo what my decision had salvaged from difficult circumstances: thus I need take measures to ensure that the danger is neutralized. At the beginning of the scenario, I stated that fighting back wasn't an option but if you let the ten die you and the loved one in question would be free - and with freedom comes a brand new list of options, including returning home to arm myself (and I have an armory in my basement) and turning the tables on the deranged gunmen.
Now, like I said before, the gunmen are just a plot device: substitute "gunmen" with anything else that has the potential to harm that which you value and the priciple remains the same - I sacrifice those I don't value to save myself and mine, and in the process I attain the power to ensure that the danger can be eliminated to further protect those I value.
Punisher1984
New member
You do know that most people don't share your version of "morality," right?
mighty_duck
New member
Then you have solved the dilemma in a very certain way, using a certain moral framework.
How do you think your woman would take it, knowing her life cost ten others their life (or a hundred, or a million)?