Total Posts:120|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Ends justify the means

Hematite12
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2014 11:53:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
This phrase is BS.

How wouldn't the ends justify the means? If they don't, what does?

The only alternative seems to be that the "means" are justified by their adherence to a set of rules, but upon what are the rules based?

The only completely non-consequentalist system that is consistent seems to be religious ethics; the rules that one follows have their basis in god.
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2014 12:57:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
You have theories that assert that the ends are not justified by the means. Many rights-based theories hold to this logic, asserting that rights are trumps against utilitarian concerns.

You also have deontological theorists, like Kant and his Duty Theory, who claim that universizeable moral laws also function as moral absolutes.

I am just giving a very brief accounting of some of these theories. I am, personally, more ends-based in my thinking, but there are interesting and well-rounded theories on the other side of the proverbial aisle.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
MyDinosaurHands
Posts: 203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2014 3:37:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The ends don't justify the means if there are multiple options to take as a means, and one is better than the others, and one chooses a worse mean.

For instance, to save 3 people, you must kill one person. You have an option between a corrupt politician or a human rights advocate who is involved in important work. Saving 3 people doesn't justify your means if your means is killing the human rights advocate, because there was a lesser evil available to use as a means.

Now of course you can inject moral subjectivity into this, but most people come to the subjective conclusion that it good to kill one to save three if that's what's required, and that a human rights advocate has a better impact than a corrupt politician.
Guess what I used to type this..

Careful! Don't laugh too hard.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2014 6:35:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/14/2014 3:37:54 PM, MyDinosaurHands wrote:

Now of course you can inject moral subjectivity into this, but most people come to the subjective conclusion that it good to kill one to save three if that's what's required, and that a human rights advocate has a better impact than a corrupt politician.

That is heavily debatable. If I were to say that, by killing you and harvesting your organs, I could save 7 or more people you'd disagree with the morality of the act.

You are never justified in intentionally killing the innocent.
MyDinosaurHands
Posts: 203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2014 6:40:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
That is heavily debatable. If I were to say that, by killing you and harvesting your organs, I could save 7 or more people you'd disagree with the morality of the act.

Assuming I'm the only option for whatever reason, I do not at all disagree with the morality of the act. Being somewhat cowardly though, I might disagree just from a self-centered position.

You are never justified in intentionally killing the innocent.
I don't see how not. If killing an innocent (as the only option) saves even more innocents, you have created an overall favorable outcome. If you do not kill that one innocent, you indirectly have killed even more innocents.
Guess what I used to type this..

Careful! Don't laugh too hard.
MyDinosaurHands
Posts: 203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2014 6:47:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/14/2014 6:41:19 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Indeed. But since means often affect ends in unpredictable ways, this principle is not always so easily applied.

If I understand what you're saying, I disagree.

My understanding is that you're saying if someone takes actions that may or may not have a particular outcome, and the unwanted outcome occurs, the means aren't justified.

For instance, someone tells me that if I don't kill my mom, he will kill 20 people. But if I do kill my mom, he will flip a coin, heads he doesn't kill 20 people, and tails he does. Morally speaking, even if he flips tails, I am justified, because there was a 50/50 chance of stopping that from occurring, which was the best I could do.
Guess what I used to type this..

Careful! Don't laugh too hard.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2014 7:19:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/14/2014 6:47:49 PM, MyDinosaurHands wrote:
At 5/14/2014 6:41:19 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Indeed. But since means often affect ends in unpredictable ways, this principle is not always so easily applied.

If I understand what you're saying, I disagree.

My understanding is that you're saying if someone takes actions that may or may not have a particular outcome, and the unwanted outcome occurs, the means aren't justified.

For instance, someone tells me that if I don't kill my mom, he will kill 20 people. But if I do kill my mom, he will flip a coin, heads he doesn't kill 20 people, and tails he does. Morally speaking, even if he flips tails, I am justified, because there was a 50/50 chance of stopping that from occurring, which was the best I could do.

That's not what I meant. My point was that in pursuit of "noble" ends, sometimes the means of those ends have unintended consequences. For instance: communism.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2014 10:14:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/14/2014 6:40:20 PM, MyDinosaurHands wrote:
That is heavily debatable. If I were to say that, by killing you and harvesting your organs, I could save 7 or more people you'd disagree with the morality of the act.

Assuming I'm the only option for whatever reason, I do not at all disagree with the morality of the act. Being somewhat cowardly though, I might disagree just from a self-centered position.

You cannot do good by doing evil. You've justified murder in your mind. Once you've justified murder you can justify any evil.

You are never justified in intentionally killing the innocent.
I don't see how not. If killing an innocent (as the only option) saves even more innocents, you have created an overall favorable outcome. If you do not kill that one innocent, you indirectly have killed even more innocents.

Letting nature take its course is drastically different than killing someone. Once you turn people into an equation you've taken the humanity out of humans, you've removed meaning from life, you've disregarded rights and you've made people nothing more than animals.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2014 5:22:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
If I must kill 1 of 7 innocents in order to save 6, I would try and save all 7 REGARDLESS of the possible outcome. Just like Kirk, I don't believe in no win situations!
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2014 5:33:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/15/2014 5:22:17 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
If I must kill 1 of 7 innocents in order to save 6, I would try and save all 7 REGARDLESS of the possible outcome. Just like Kirk, I don't believe in no win situations!

You go girl.
Bannanawamajama
Posts: 125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2014 11:47:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/15/2014 5:22:17 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
If I must kill 1 of 7 innocents in order to save 6, I would try and save all 7 REGARDLESS of the possible outcome. Just like Kirk, I don't believe in no win situations!

I wonder then, what you think of a situation where someone tries to be a Kirk, but it doesn't work out. Like you have the option of letting one innocent person die to save the others, but you choose to try to save that guy too, and as a result all 7 end up dead. Do you think you have any moral culpability for making that decision?
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2014 8:31:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/18/2014 11:47:36 AM, Bannanawamajama wrote:
At 5/15/2014 5:22:17 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
If I must kill 1 of 7 innocents in order to save 6, I would try and save all 7 REGARDLESS of the possible outcome. Just like Kirk, I don't believe in no win situations!

I wonder then, what you think of a situation where someone tries to be a Kirk, but it doesn't work out. Like you have the option of letting one innocent person die to save the others, but you choose to try to save that guy too, and as a result all 7 end up dead. Do you think you have any moral culpability for making that decision?

That would depend on the situation, the moral obligations and the motivation behind your actions.

Let's say you're an army unit and you rescue several men and it is agreed that you will not leave another of your team behind it is one thing. If your reason for attempting to save the last one is vain glory then then it is something completely different.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2014 11:31:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/14/2014 6:40:20 PM, MyDinosaurHands wrote:
That is heavily debatable. If I were to say that, by killing you and harvesting your organs, I could save 7 or more people you'd disagree with the morality of the act.

Assuming I'm the only option for whatever reason, I do not at all disagree with the morality of the act. Being somewhat cowardly though, I might disagree just from a self-centered position.

You are never justified in intentionally killing the innocent.
I don't see how not. If killing an innocent (as the only option) saves even more innocents, you have created an overall favorable outcome. If you do not kill that one innocent, you indirectly have killed even more innocents.

You are looking at it from the standpoint that physical life if more important than moral integrity. If the only point of life is existence itself then life is pretty pointless, since we are all going to die. The right thing to do would be to explain the situation to the innocent person whose death is required to save the other lives and let that person decide whether or not they wish to make the sacrifice.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2014 11:36:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/14/2014 10:14:54 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/14/2014 6:40:20 PM, MyDinosaurHands wrote:
That is heavily debatable. If I were to say that, by killing you and harvesting your organs, I could save 7 or more people you'd disagree with the morality of the act.

Assuming I'm the only option for whatever reason, I do not at all disagree with the morality of the act. Being somewhat cowardly though, I might disagree just from a self-centered position.

You cannot do good by doing evil. You've justified murder in your mind. Once you've justified murder you can justify any evil.

You are never justified in intentionally killing the innocent.
I don't see how not. If killing an innocent (as the only option) saves even more innocents, you have created an overall favorable outcome. If you do not kill that one innocent, you indirectly have killed even more innocents.

Letting nature take its course is drastically different than killing someone. Once you turn people into an equation you've taken the humanity out of humans, you've removed meaning from life, you've disregarded rights and you've made people nothing more than animals.

This is very much the way that I see it.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2014 4:54:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I'm glad to see DDO, in this era, is not dominated by utilitarians. There was a time when it certainly was...

The ends never justify the means. The ends are nothing but a perception of ours. Those who tell you what the ends could be are almost always putting their ideological slant on them. One who follows the diligence associated with moral action is never going to do wrong.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2014 1:14:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/18/2014 11:47:36 AM, Bannanawamajama wrote:
At 5/15/2014 5:22:17 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
If I must kill 1 of 7 innocents in order to save 6, I would try and save all 7 REGARDLESS of the possible outcome. Just like Kirk, I don't believe in no win situations!
I wonder then, what you think of a situation where someone tries to be a Kirk, but it doesn't work out.
At least he tried!

Like you have the option of letting one innocent person die to save the others, but you choose to try to save that guy too, and as a result all 7 end up dead. Do you think you have any moral culpability for making that decision?
You certainly are responsible for any deaths that occur under your command.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2014 1:51:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/14/2014 3:37:54 PM, MyDinosaurHands wrote:
The ends don't justify the means if there are multiple options to take as a means, and one is better than the others, and one chooses a worse mean.

For instance, to save 3 people, you must kill one person. You have an option between a corrupt politician or a human rights advocate who is involved in important work. Saving 3 people doesn't justify your means if your means is killing the human rights advocate, because there was a lesser evil available to use as a means.


I would call that reasoning corrupt. Standing in as judge and jury on a corrupt politician. I think when you try weigh life it is one for one. And to take into account such things as wealth, or altruism, or anything else is a slippery road.

Now of course you can inject moral subjectivity into this, but most people come to the subjective conclusion that it good to kill one to save three if that's what's required, and that a human rights advocate has a better impact than a corrupt politician.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2014 1:55:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/14/2014 3:37:54 PM, MyDinosaurHands wrote:
The ends don't justify the means if there are multiple options to take as a means, and one is better than the others, and one chooses a worse mean.

For instance, to save 3 people, you must kill one person. You have an option between a corrupt politician or a human rights advocate who is involved in important work. Saving 3 people doesn't justify your means if your means is killing the human rights advocate, because there was a lesser evil available to use as a means.

Now of course you can inject moral subjectivity into this, but most people come to the subjective conclusion that it good to kill one to save three if that's what's required, and that a human rights advocate has a better impact than a corrupt politician.

This is just another case, though, of the ends justifying the means - or, rather, the ends not justifying the means. If I save the lives of ten people by killing one person, that is just, but if I save the money of ten people - say, a fiver each - by killing one person, then it is clearly not just, even the most ardent capitalist must agree!

You are right in making this distinction, however, as it is not always the case that saving three people justifies killing one.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Such
Posts: 1,110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2014 1:59:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/11/2014 11:53:56 PM, Hematite12 wrote:
This phrase is BS.

How wouldn't the ends justify the means? If they don't, what does?

The only alternative seems to be that the "means" are justified by their adherence to a set of rules, but upon what are the rules based?

The only completely non-consequentalist system that is consistent seems to be religious ethics; the rules that one follows have their basis in god.

"The ends justify the means" is the most exaggerated manifestation of consequentialism.

It is an inherently flawed system, because humans are naturally selfish. Therefore, "the ends justify the means" almost invariably results in corruption.

Even capitalism, which is predicated on the ends framing your entire life, has rules to limit accessible means (which are not always enforced, but hey -- nothing's perfect).
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2014 2:03:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/18/2014 11:31:28 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 5/14/2014 6:40:20 PM, MyDinosaurHands wrote:
That is heavily debatable. If I were to say that, by killing you and harvesting your organs, I could save 7 or more people you'd disagree with the morality of the act.

Assuming I'm the only option for whatever reason, I do not at all disagree with the morality of the act. Being somewhat cowardly though, I might disagree just from a self-centered position.

You are never justified in intentionally killing the innocent.
I don't see how not. If killing an innocent (as the only option) saves even more innocents, you have created an overall favorable outcome. If you do not kill that one innocent, you indirectly have killed even more innocents.

You are looking at it from the standpoint that physical life if more important than moral integrity. If the only point of life is existence itself then life is pretty pointless, since we are all going to die. The right thing to do would be to explain the situation to the innocent person whose death is required to save the other lives and let that person decide whether or not they wish to make the sacrifice.

I imagine most situations that would require this choice, don't have time or opportunity to talk it out. Say a plane hijacked being shot down, a town with rapid viral outbreak, etc.. This is why I think if you kill an innocent to save 5 others you are still guilty of killing. Maybe not in the legal sense to face a jury but still responsible.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2014 4:01:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/14/2014 10:14:54 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/14/2014 6:40:20 PM, MyDinosaurHands wrote:
That is heavily debatable. If I were to say that, by killing you and harvesting your organs, I could save 7 or more people you'd disagree with the morality of the act.

Assuming I'm the only option for whatever reason, I do not at all disagree with the morality of the act. Being somewhat cowardly though, I might disagree just from a self-centered position.

You cannot do good by doing evil. You've justified murder in your mind. Once you've justified murder you can justify any evil.

Most people equate such an act with monetary compensation and organ markets.

Take all of that out and ask the same question. I think that would come very close to justifying the morality of the act to many people.

You are never justified in intentionally killing the innocent.
I don't see how not. If killing an innocent (as the only option) saves even more innocents, you have created an overall favorable outcome. If you do not kill that one innocent, you indirectly have killed even more innocents.

Letting nature take its course is drastically different than killing someone. Once you turn people into an equation you've taken the humanity out of humans, you've removed meaning from life, you've disregarded rights and you've made people nothing more than animals.

The difference between people and animals is far more complicated than simply whether or not one has negative rights.

In a debate I had recently, a scenario I concocted was to imagine an underground lab that had its air supply cut off. The researchers had 100 man-hours of air to share between 10 people, meaning 10 hours of air per person...but it took 20 hours to restore access to air. If you don't "kill innocents" in that situation, all 10 people will die. If you kill at least half the people there, then up to 5 people will live.

The ends clearly justify the means in that situation.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2014 8:09:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/20/2014 2:03:03 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/18/2014 11:31:28 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 5/14/2014 6:40:20 PM, MyDinosaurHands wrote:
That is heavily debatable. If I were to say that, by killing you and harvesting your organs, I could save 7 or more people you'd disagree with the morality of the act.

Assuming I'm the only option for whatever reason, I do not at all disagree with the morality of the act. Being somewhat cowardly though, I might disagree just from a self-centered position.

You are never justified in intentionally killing the innocent.
I don't see how not. If killing an innocent (as the only option) saves even more innocents, you have created an overall favorable outcome. If you do not kill that one innocent, you indirectly have killed even more innocents.

You are looking at it from the standpoint that physical life if more important than moral integrity. If the only point of life is existence itself then life is pretty pointless, since we are all going to die. The right thing to do would be to explain the situation to the innocent person whose death is required to save the other lives and let that person decide whether or not they wish to make the sacrifice.

I imagine most situations that would require this choice, don't have time or opportunity to talk it out. Say a plane hijacked being shot down, a town with rapid viral outbreak, etc.. This is why I think if you kill an innocent to save 5 others you are still guilty of killing. Maybe not in the legal sense to face a jury but still responsible.

Oh, I totally agree with you. That was the point I was trying to make. The only one who has the right to decide the fate of a life is the one who owns that life.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2014 12:49:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/20/2014 1:55:03 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:

This is just another case, though, of the ends justifying the means - or, rather, the ends not justifying the means. If I save the lives of ten people by killing one person, that is just,

That comment doesn't make much sense... one does not logically save lives by killing. Only situations of self-defense give someone any logically just basis to kill, and that doesn't really matter what the numbers involved are.

but if I save the money of ten people - say, a fiver each - by killing one person, then it is clearly not just, even the most ardent capitalist must agree!

I think that goes without saying...

You are right in making this distinction, however, as it is not always the case that saving three people justifies killing one.

Not always? That's disturbing to me.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2014 12:56:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/20/2014 1:59:23 PM, Such wrote:

It is an inherently flawed system, because humans are naturally selfish. Therefore, "the ends justify the means" almost invariably results in corruption.

Justification is the process of imposing a perception upon something which is found to be morally inconsistent. There's no surer way towards manipulation of both the self and others.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2014 3:49:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/18/2014 8:31:19 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/18/2014 11:47:36 AM, Bannanawamajama wrote:
At 5/15/2014 5:22:17 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
If I must kill 1 of 7 innocents in order to save 6, I would try and save all 7 REGARDLESS of the possible outcome. Just like Kirk, I don't believe in no win situations!

I wonder then, what you think of a situation where someone tries to be a Kirk, but it doesn't work out. Like you have the option of letting one innocent person die to save the others, but you choose to try to save that guy too, and as a result all 7 end up dead. Do you think you have any moral culpability for making that decision?

That would depend on the situation, the moral obligations and the motivation behind your actions.

Let's say you're an army unit and you rescue several men and it is agreed that you will not leave another of your team behind it is one thing. If your reason for attempting to save the last one is vain glory then then it is something completely different.

IMHO this current military standard is not really a result of an enlightened sense of human worth than it is about the ridiculously one-sided advantages our military currently enjoys.

Rescuing the last man is an incredible luxury...but think of the "Saving Private Ryan" situation where a sniper purposely disables a man in order to get others to try to "rescue" him, with the intention of killing off as many soldiers in the remaining unit as possible.

In Saving Private Ryan, they did NOT practice "not leaving another of their team behind"...that man bled to death on the orders of the commanding officer on the field. They buried their dead wherever they could.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2014 3:56:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/15/2014 5:22:17 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
If I must kill 1 of 7 innocents in order to save 6, I would try and save all 7 REGARDLESS of the possible outcome. Just like Kirk, I don't believe in no win situations!

Think of a military situation where your opponent is heavily fortified defending a strategic position. You know that attacking this position would result in the death of your entire army...so instead of attacking that position, you instead feint an attack to lure the enemy away from that position.

That feint involves committing a significant portion of your forces on a suicide mission for the purpose of taking that point with as few casualties as possible. Taking that point then ends the war.

According to you, such situations do not exist.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2014 3:57:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/20/2014 1:14:47 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 5/18/2014 11:47:36 AM, Bannanawamajama wrote:
At 5/15/2014 5:22:17 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
If I must kill 1 of 7 innocents in order to save 6, I would try and save all 7 REGARDLESS of the possible outcome. Just like Kirk, I don't believe in no win situations!
I wonder then, what you think of a situation where someone tries to be a Kirk, but it doesn't work out.
At least he tried!

Like you have the option of letting one innocent person die to save the others, but you choose to try to save that guy too, and as a result all 7 end up dead. Do you think you have any moral culpability for making that decision?
You certainly are responsible for any deaths that occur under your command.

You are also responsible for the 6 lives you saved. It more than evens it out.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2014 3:59:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/15/2014 5:22:17 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
Just like Kirk, I don't believe in no win situations!

Explain how your impending, inevitable death is not a "no win situation".
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2014 4:02:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/20/2014 8:09:12 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 5/20/2014 2:03:03 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/18/2014 11:31:28 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 5/14/2014 6:40:20 PM, MyDinosaurHands wrote:
That is heavily debatable. If I were to say that, by killing you and harvesting your organs, I could save 7 or more people you'd disagree with the morality of the act.

Assuming I'm the only option for whatever reason, I do not at all disagree with the morality of the act. Being somewhat cowardly though, I might disagree just from a self-centered position.

You are never justified in intentionally killing the innocent.
I don't see how not. If killing an innocent (as the only option) saves even more innocents, you have created an overall favorable outcome. If you do not kill that one innocent, you indirectly have killed even more innocents.

You are looking at it from the standpoint that physical life if more important than moral integrity. If the only point of life is existence itself then life is pretty pointless, since we are all going to die. The right thing to do would be to explain the situation to the innocent person whose death is required to save the other lives and let that person decide whether or not they wish to make the sacrifice.

I imagine most situations that would require this choice, don't have time or opportunity to talk it out. Say a plane hijacked being shot down, a town with rapid viral outbreak, etc.. This is why I think if you kill an innocent to save 5 others you are still guilty of killing. Maybe not in the legal sense to face a jury but still responsible.

Oh, I totally agree with you. That was the point I was trying to make. The only one who has the right to decide the fate of a life is the one who owns that life.

I understand you served in the military, and so I assume you are familiar with rules against fraternization between enlisted and commissioned, rules that stem from the fact that such fraternization may interfere with an officer's decisions when it comes to sending men to die in battle.

Do you think these officers do not have the right to decide the fate of a life that they do not own...or do you think these officers "own" the lives of those under their command?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?