Total Posts:11|Showing Posts:1-11
Jump to topic:

Is it ethical to intentionally harm someone

Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2011 3:59:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
It's not coherent, dream objects can't be harmed.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2011 4:01:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/9/2011 3:59:59 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
It's not coherent, dream objects can't be harmed.

you completely dodged the point of his whole thread.....as if we don't know that dream objects cannot be harmed,...the question at hand is the concept of intentionally harming someone if given the opportunity to do so without consequence (as is provided in a dream).
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2011 4:04:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
"You shoot me in a dream you better wake up and apologize."
-Harvey Keitel as Mr. White in Reservoir Dogs
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2011 4:06:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/9/2011 3:59:59 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
It's not coherent, dream objects can't be harmed.

I think he means when you're dreaming.. and believe it's real.. to Attempt to harm someone (who you think is real).

Now I wouldn't attempt to harm people unless it served a 'greater good' (according to my values of course) And I would see those who harm people for the hell of it Prevented from doing so.

Now... according to MY morality your harming Actual people for fun would be out of sync/ Not what I would have... and I would work to prevent it..

And, if you told me you go about harming people for fun in your dreams I might become more wary of you.. and Possibly take action to prevent you from being able to do such things in Reality.

I'm a consequentialist.. and if there were actions to be taken based upon your Dream-actions which seemed best.. I'd take them.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2011 4:09:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/9/2011 4:06:43 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
I think he means when you're dreaming.. and believe it's real.. to Attempt to harm someone (who you think is real).

Now I wouldn't attempt to harm people unless it served a 'greater good' (according to my values of course) And I would see those who harm people for the hell of it Prevented from doing so.

Now... according to MY morality your harming Actual people for fun would be out of sync/ Not what I would have... and I would work to prevent it..

And, if you told me you go about harming people for fun in your dreams I might become more wary of you.. and Possibly take action to prevent you from being able to do such things in Reality.

I'm a consequentialist.. and if there were actions to be taken based upon your Dream-actions which seemed best.. I'd take them.

I'm not so much about the universal-ish terms of "right" and "wrong"..

but Given that you went about doing such things in your dreams.. You would have me ready to Oppose You in Reality b/c of what I would have (My rights and wrongs)
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2011 4:09:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Also, how do you know that all entities in your dreams aren't real? The dream world could be more than you perceive it to be. You might be the entity who is hurting someone else in their dream, causing emotional harm.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2011 4:11:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/9/2011 4:09:50 PM, Tiel wrote:
Also, how do you know that all entities in your dreams aren't real? The dream world could be more than you perceive it to be. You might be the entity who is hurting someone else in their dream, causing emotional harm.

or, Everytime you decide to be benevolent.. the Dream-god Tortures some little girl in an alternate reality somewhere o.O
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2011 4:11:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/9/2011 1:53:47 PM, Jon1 wrote:
In a dream. Why or why not?

I would say no more so than it would be to contemplate intentionally harming someone, yet refrain from doing so. Perhaps a little more immoral, because you didn't exercise restraint in the dream, but I think most people are willing to say that actions matter more than dreams.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2011 4:14:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/9/2011 4:01:57 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/9/2011 3:59:59 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
It's not coherent, dream objects can't be harmed.

you completely dodged the point of his whole thread.....as if we don't know that dream objects cannot be harmed,...the question at hand is the concept of intentionally harming someone if given the opportunity to do so without consequence (as is provided in a dream).

The question athand is incoherent. There is no "someone" in a dream who can be harmed. That is WHY there are no consequences-- the lack of someones. Is it ethical to carve your rock into a statue?

I think he means when you're dreaming.. and believe it's real
It is of course unethical to harm an innocent who you believe to be real. However, the thread seems to imply a lucid dream, as whether you are dreaming has no impact on your ethical calculations if you are not aware of it.

Also, how do you know that all entities in your dreams aren't real? The dream world could be more than you perceive it to be.
The only reality which I can consider is the one subject to my mind. As Matt points out with his little girl being tortured, unlikely absurd hypothetical matrices cancel out, all being equal in their lack of evidence and infinite in both directions in degree of harm to someone-- furthermore, no one has any reason to care if someone in some "alternate reality" (to the extent such a thing is coherent) is harmed anyway.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.