Is killing One to Save Ten Wrong?

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Bowser, Jun 15, 2016.

  1. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,755
    And if your wife were to someday give birth to the next Hitler's grandfather - would you kill her?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,755
    There was an armed guard outside.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,755
    He might; most people answer "yes" to that question.

    The real question is - what is the difference between those two scenarios?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. cluelusshusbund + Public Dilemma + Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,652
    Ah... the merkyness thickins... lol.!!!
    Yes i woud kill her... but i woudnt in the case of the Orlando bar murders.!!!
     
  8. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    34,667
    Moralist Occult

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    It was kind of over before it started.

    This thread comes about because of a different discussion; see "Mass Casualty Attack on Orlando Gay Bar"↗. A distillation of this issue within that thread:

    Bowser (#37)↗: A Christian might refuse to bake your wedding cake, but a Muslim, well...

    Iceaura (#39)↗: A Christian might shoot you with a high powered rifle as you stood at your kitchen sink for performing abortions ....

    Bowser (#51)↗: Question: If killing the Orlando shooter could have saved 50 lives and prevented the injury to many more, would you have taken him down?

    Billvon (#53)↗: If he was in the process of shooting other people? Yes. If he was just thinking about it? No.

    Tiassa (#54)↗: [to Bowser] Your sympathy for terrorism is noted.

    Bowser (55)↗: You ignored the question. If killing one could save many, would you?

    Tiassa (#56)↗: I contest the question in the context of its application. Billvon offers the approximate sketch of the appropriate answer. Applied to an absolute generalization in the question, it is exactly the appropriate answer. Attending the context of your application, however, I would note that I refuse to concede the linchpin ontological sleight.​

    Fourteen minutes later, this thread opened.

    That would likely explain the apparent suspicion about the latest reiteration of one of the most simplistic and overused internet discussions of basic moral principle. Take Billvon's↗ straightforward response to the inquiry only minutes into the disussion; I would posit that the boundaries he establishes ("emergent situations", "narrow definition", "murkier") reflect the context of the querient's remarks in the Orlando discussion.

    The underlying conflict, as I noted in #3386920/56↗ is a matter of belief, not objective fact. The context of his inquiry in the Orlando thread necessarily redefines existential ontology in order to justify the murder of Dr. George Tiller, among others. The circumstances, juxtaposed:

    • A gunman in a crowd, shooting people.

    • A doctor who performs procedures I have decided to assert are murder according to my own personal definitions not reflected in law or history unless asserted a priori.​

    In other words, the question presupposes no differneces between the actions of a gunman killing forty-nine people and injuring more than fifty others, to the one, and, say, Dr. Warren Hern↱.

    And that presupposition seems to be the driver of contention. It's the reason we find ourselves once again revisiting the trolley problem.
    ____________________

    Notes:

    Tolentino, Jia. "Interview With a Woman Who Recently Had an Abortion at 32 Weeks". Jezebel. 15 June 2016. Jezebel.com. 16 June 2016. http://bit.ly/1ZSM9J8
     
  9. cluelusshusbund + Public Dilemma + Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,652
    A note in general:::

    If you cant answr hypothitical questions an then discuss... mayb its time to reconsider you'r beliefs.!!!

    Or hell... just get a bigger soapbox... lol.!!!
     
  10. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,755
    Hmm, and I feel just the opposite. Interesting.
     
  11. cluelusshusbund + Public Dilemma + Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,652
    Im not surprized sinse we all have diferent reasons... morals.!!!
     
  12. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    34,667
    Stirring the Whatnow?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Click ♥ Babylon.​

    I remember one time when I was quite young, had to be about three or four, and my grandfather and parents were painting my bedroom in a house we had moved into. My grandfather was a professional housepainter. I remember watching him mixing colors, and then of course I was taught how to put that little stick in the paint and stir it all together. And they even taught me how to scrape off and clean the stirring stick when I was finished.

    I'm not certain why they taught me that last. I've never seen anyone do it.

    Colloquially speaking, "Nobody does that, not even the guy who taught me to do it."

    I don't know, maybe you do.

    Then again, I only mention this because it seems even more important to clean a stick used to stir excrement; it really stinks when you don't.

    We should also consider a particular beeblebrox: You probably aren't intending to look like all you're doing is stirring shit. For instance, of course you'd kill the woman. You do claim, after all, to be a clueless husband.

    Still, though: Why? You'd kill an innocent woman for fantasy, but not a man actually killing people or preparing to do so imminently? I mean, I get the bit about not killing someone until they actually commit to the evil acts, but why the hell would you kill a pregnant woman for the sake of some fatalistic fantasy? And since it is, hypothetically speaking, your wife, would you also kill yourself for having created the evil?

    These are all fascinating aspects, but unfortunately you can rarely be bothered to actually explain the―seemingly deliberate―counterintuitive things you say. So, since you're not simply stirring shit, is it possible you could trouble yourself to actually explain how your logic works in some manner that actually makes sense?
     
    Last edited: Jun 17, 2016
  13. cluelusshusbund + Public Dilemma + Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,652
    Heres a hypothetical:::

    Assumin ther was a Holey Bible-God an you had the opportunity to advise him whether or not to put his creation plan into action... a plan which made it inevitable that lots of children woud be raped/tortured... woud you want him to put his plan into action or not.???

    Me... if it was inevitible that even one child woud be raped/tortured id rather that "creation" not have occured.!!!
     
  14. ajanta Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    605
    Guns made to kill also, so I think that killing a bad one to save ten good people and killing ten bad people to save a good one is not wrong.
     
  15. cluelusshusbund + Public Dilemma + Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,652
    Thats the second time youv'e said that to me an my reply is the same... "Fug you to"

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  16. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,755
    I'd need a WHOLE lot more detail than that. Is the question "are you OK creating a universe in which people are free to be bad?" Answer - yes. Is the question "would you support a being with a specific plan to torture and rape specific human children when they came into existence in a few billion years?" Answer - no.

    Our society as it exists right now results in kids getting raped. It probably would even if there were only 1000 people in it. (Incidence would go way down of course.) And I would not choose to kill every person in our society to stop that.
     
  17. cluelusshusbund + Public Dilemma + Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,652
    I coud also say yes to that... which begs the queston... how bad???... an for me... an obvous example of whare to draw the line is at children bein raped/tortured.!!!

    Well i see that as a distinction wit-out a diference... especialy if i was one of the kids bein raped/tortured... ie... the proof is in the puddin that the all-knowin Gods plan included the inevitability that children woud be raped/tortured.!!!

    I agree wit that... but my queston is not about killin everbody to eliminate the inevitability of children bein raped/tortured... my queston has to do wit... woud it be more moral to not create a universe in the first place--in which it was inevitable that children woud be raped/tortured... an i thank it woud be morally surperior to advise God to not create such a universe.!!!
     
  18. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,755
    You don't see a difference between allowing free will and intentionally torturing a child? Those are pretty much the same to you?

    Again, I guess we differ.
    In general, I choose free will over being controlled. Even if the control can prevent some bad things from happening.
     
  19. cluelusshusbund + Public Dilemma + Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,652
    At least we agree about that

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  20. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    34,667
    Ego, the Living Nothing!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Click: Talk to planets, baby!

    (1) Within the context of monotheism, such as IHVH, creation is, functionally speaking, differentiation.

    ― To be an advisor not part of the actual godhead Itself―e.g., neither Father, Son, nor Holy Ghost, requires that differentiation has already occurred. To be a part of the godhead, as such, would subordinate my decision to my role as a component; what I would do would be subject to the purview of the godhead in toto. Should I dissent, is that because it is my role? Even Satan necessarily fulfills God's Will and Purpose. If I concur, is that because it is my role? If my component is an aspect of an holistic harmony, my subordinated role would determine my contribution in justifying the differentiation.​

    (2) Constriction of the monotheistic godhead is incompatible with the monotheistic principle.

    ― An important aspect of polytheism: It is inherently monotheistic. Clearly proscribed mythologies, traditions, and panthea describing diverse gods exercising particular authority over specific dominion require an Authority to empower and oblige those deities. This Authority, then, inherently represents the godhead, whether it is a fantasy character like the three-in-one IHVH or a metaphysical surrogate for ineffable reality such as an Unmoved Mover or Unnamed Namer.​

    → There exist within the historical record discussions, either more or less significant according to diverse criteria, proposing God's cruelty in Creation. That is to say: Why this way, and not another? To a certain degree it is a valid question, but the infinite potential of a monotheistic godhead eventually erodes the moral structure justifying the question. Nonetheless, accepting the more formal proposition that the only acts impossible to the monotheistic godhead are inherently paradoxical―the classic example being a square circle―we find ourselves answering the question, "Why this way and not another?" with the acknowledgment that "this way" is the only way it could be. Thus, if the question is valid, then the godhead―e.g., IHVH―is not the godhead.​

    (3) Moral juxtapositions such as good/evil or right/wrong are ultimately incompatible with context of an infinite godhead, as diversity necessarily implies finite boundaries, i.e., constriction.

    ― Beyond the implication of constriction, there is also the reality of human finity; our quasi-infinity is mere potential―temporal and measured at present in a context pertaining to species, continuity, and evolution. Nonetheless, humanity in general and human beings in particular remain finite. Our notions of good and evil, or right and wrong, are wholly invested in our finity and frailty, a need for relevant identification of differentiated components.​

    → Thus we reach as much of an answer as we might find: In a formal context, the question is moot. According to its most obvious colloquial context and implications, the answer is generally obvious: If there is a monotheistic godhead such as IHVH, then who the fuck are we to question Its Outcomes? It seems rather quite arrogant to demand the infinite justify itself to the finite. Furthermore, if the infinite godhead differentiates, then that godhead is neither infinite nor the godhead.​

    It is also worth pointing out the immediate context of the question. These days I answer suicide with Camus; it is formal and conclusive, as far as I am concerned. But before that, it was generally sentiment; among all the misery were poignant moments of happiness―nostalgia is nearly a drug to me.

    In my life, no, I can't look at the people around me and say it was all for naught. I can't look at someone I don't know and say their experiences aren't worth anything.

    Indeed, I find your answer antisocial. The only real question is why you don't offer anything substantial to explain it. Perhaps you're specifically unwilling for particular reasons others might well find valid. Maybe you're incapable. Or, you know, there's always the possibility that you're just looking to stir shit.
     
  21. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    22,101
    Do you think the off-duty police officer who was there as security outside the club should not have fired at Mateen and attempted to stop him as he entered the club with his gun raised? Because he did try to stop Mateen before the massacre started. If you were in his position, you wouldn't have shot Mateen as he was in the process of starting his massacre..?

    But you'd kill an innocent pregnant woman because her offspring would grow up to become Hitler's grandfather?

    One could try and question your twisted and frankly perverse logic, but I suspect your role here is to simply flame and troll.
     
  22. Bowser Life is Fatal. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,151
    My apologies to all who replied to my posts--so many so that I just don't have the time to go through them yet. I'm sorry. I had a sh*t day at work and am lacking the energy give thoughtful replies. If I had foreknowledge of something terrible about to take place, and it was within my ability to stop it, I might be willing to kill. I've never been in that position, so it is hard to know how one would react.
     
  23. cluelusshusbund + Public Dilemma + Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,652
    Good pont an interestin stuff to thank about... thanks

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     

Share This Page