Total Posts:51|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

When is it justifiable to...?

FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2010 3:02:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/24/2010 2:55:59 PM, Koopin wrote:
When you get pregnant...according to Abortionists.

Yep, I see no problem with that.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2010 3:04:12 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/24/2010 3:02:23 PM, theLwerd wrote:
Abortionists don't kill people; they kill fetuses.

Some one fetus.

Some many fetus.

)

It is justifiable to kill someone when they initiate force or fraud against your life, liberty, or property.
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.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2010 3:08:33 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/24/2010 3:04:12 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 1/24/2010 3:02:23 PM, theLwerd wrote:
Abortionists don't kill people; they kill fetuses.

Some one fetus.

Some many fetus.

)

It is justifiable to kill someone when they initiate force or fraud against your life, liberty, or property.

What about in the instances where you would need to kill someone to stay alive even though the didn't initiate any force against or one in which you need to kill one person in order to save more than one?
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2010 3:10:49 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/24/2010 2:52:50 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Kill someone?

In your opinion.

When that someone is trying to kill/harm someone else, and killing that someone is the only real way to stop that someone.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2010 5:56:46 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
It is never truly justifiable to kill someone, at least on a personal level. Though no one will blame you if you kill someone out of self-defense, or because it was the only way to stop something really bad from happening, a lot of the time people still can't find it justifiable, because to kill another person generally has a large and negative impact. Death isn't something that is considered a true positive, despite the excuses given.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2010 6:13:02 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/24/2010 5:56:46 PM, Volkov wrote:
It is never truly justifiable to kill someone, at least on a personal level. Though no one will blame you if you kill someone out of self-defense, or because it was the only way to stop something really bad from happening, a lot of the time people still can't find it justifiable, because to kill another person generally has a large and negative impact. Death isn't something that is considered a true positive, despite the excuses given.

If the person killed is an a-moral D-bag, and would probably do heinous violence to lots of people, I don't see their death as a negative. Rather, I see it as a positive, and something that ought be done.

For, in my opinion, someone who is a-moral is, themself, not thought of as being one that it is morally important to respect as we generally respect ppl. They are inhumane, and in that sense in-human.

I consider them like animals, and if they're proven to be dangerous, like man-eating tigers, they ought to be put down.
"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."
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2010 6:20:11 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/24/2010 6:13:02 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
If the person killed is an a-moral D-bag, and would probably do heinous violence to lots of people, I don't see their death as a negative. Rather, I see it as a positive, and something that ought be done.

So you would see this person's death as an absolute, 100%, completely and utterly positive event - do I have that right?

For, in my opinion, someone who is a-moral is, themself, not thought of as being one that it is morally important to respect as we generally respect ppl. They are inhumane, and in that sense in-human.

Ignoring the subjective nature of what you're saying, this is seems like a pretty dangerous path to go down. To protect yourself or others from harm is one thing - it is quite another label someone as "in-human," and deprive them of the recognition of their being. That is a rationalization that psychopaths would use.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2010 6:24:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/24/2010 3:04:12 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

It is justifiable to kill someone when they initiate force or fraud against your life, liberty, or property.

so it is justified to kill someone if they initiate fraud against your life, liverty, or property?

Note that fraud (the non-legal sense) means to lie with intent of personal gain.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Rob1Billion
Posts: 1,338
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2010 8:22:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
It is justifiable to kill someone when they initiate force or fraud against your life, liberty, or property.

Cold as ice, as usual, but at least straight forward and simple, as usual. I'd like to know just how valuable the property would have to be for you to kill someone over it...

People are the highest order in the universe. I mean order in the general sense; assuming we are nothing more than an arrangement of atoms. The only time murder is legitimate is when another person's life is dependant upon the decision to murder. Any other reason would be essentially sacrificing a higher-ordered item for a lower one (e.g. R_R kills a man over his iPod, and takes a highly-ordered item [person] and sacrifices it for a lower-ordered item [iPod]).
Master P is the end result of capitalism.
Rob1Billion
Posts: 1,338
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2010 8:23:47 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
When you get pregnant...according to Abortionists.

The morality of my argument is always up for debate, of course, but I would say that a fetuses life is not as highly ordered as a person's life and is therefore in a gray area along with R_R's iPod.
Master P is the end result of capitalism.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2010 8:25:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/24/2010 5:56:46 PM, Volkov wrote:
It is never truly justifiable to kill someone, at least on a personal level. Though no one will blame you if you kill someone out of self-defense, or because it was the only way to stop something really bad from happening, a lot of the time people still can't find it justifiable, because to kill another person generally has a large and negative impact. Death isn't something that is considered a true positive, despite the excuses given.

A negative impact, maybe, but if it prevents a greater negative impact from occuring, then the act is a net positive. And net positives are justifiable.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2010 8:25:48 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/24/2010 8:23:47 PM, Rob1Billion wrote:
When you get pregnant...according to Abortionists.

The morality of my argument is always up for debate, of course, but I would say that a fetuses life is not as highly ordered as a person's life and is therefore in a gray area along with R_R's iPod.

How does a fetus' life compare to the mother's liberty?
Personally, I think that the right to life trumps.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2010 8:28:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/24/2010 8:25:03 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 1/24/2010 5:56:46 PM, Volkov wrote:
It is never truly justifiable to kill someone, at least on a personal level. Though no one will blame you if you kill someone out of self-defense, or because it was the only way to stop something really bad from happening, a lot of the time people still can't find it justifiable, because to kill another person generally has a large and negative impact. Death isn't something that is considered a true positive, despite the excuses given.

A negative impact, maybe, but if it prevents a greater negative impact from occuring, then the act is a net positive. And net positives are justifiable.

Not really. Let's look at in monetary values.

A company has 2 options,.

A) lose $30,000
B) lose $100,000 (all else being equal)

while A is the most logical choice, it is still a loss (negative) and not a positive. So one could say that A is the justifiable option, it is still sad that there were no better options presented.

Just like if 1 man is threatening to kill 4 people, and the only way to stop him is to kill him before he kills, you take that options, though it is fine to still be sad that there was not an option for everyone to live.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2010 8:33:24 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/24/2010 3:08:33 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 1/24/2010 3:04:12 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 1/24/2010 3:02:23 PM, theLwerd wrote:
Abortionists don't kill people; they kill fetuses.

Some one fetus.

Some many fetus.

)

It is justifiable to kill someone when they initiate force or fraud against your life, liberty, or property.

What about in the instances where you would need to kill someone to stay alive even though the didn't initiate any force against
Such as?

or one in which you need to kill one person in order to save more than one?
From?

so it is justified to kill someone if they initiate fraud against your life, liverty, or property?

Note that fraud (the non-legal sense) means to lie with intent of personal gain.
Specifically, with substantial gain. Emotional issues should be excluded of course. But if you demonstrably violate a contract, it may not always be the most practical thing to kill the offender, but it's certainly justified.

People are the highest order in the universe. I mean order in the general sense; assuming we are nothing more than an arrangement of atoms. The only time murder is legitimate is when another person's life is dependant upon the decision to murder. Any other reason would be essentially sacrificing a higher-ordered item for a lower one (e.g. R_R kills a man over his iPod, and takes a highly-ordered item [person] and sacrifices it for a lower-ordered item [iPod]).

Order "in the general sense?" What sense is that?

If by "order" you mean "value," this is false-- I have far more value for an iPod than a thief. Indeed, a thief is a negative value, as if he survives he will continue to steal.

If by order you mean order of "magnitude" so to speak, a hurricane is a higher order of magnitude than a birthday party, yet this would not justify cancelling the birthday party in order to ensure the hurricane occurs-- indeed, the hurricane too is a negative.
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.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2010 8:35:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
And missed the "non" part of legal. I am speaking of fraud roughly as a judge would.

An old fashioned impartial coldhearted judge, not Sotomayor.
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.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2010 8:43:31 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/24/2010 6:20:11 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 1/24/2010 6:13:02 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
If the person killed is an a-moral D-bag, and would probably do heinous violence to lots of people, I don't see their death as a negative. Rather, I see it as a positive, and something that ought be done.

So you would see this person's death as an absolute, 100%, completely and utterly positive event - do I have that right?

If one can show that they are a-moral, and are disposed to commit heinously violent acts on people, and being that there will always be a chance that they'll be able to commit such acts, I would say it would be good to kill them.

I don't think (actually) "a-moral" adults can change, so "re-habilitation" is IMO out of the question.

For, in my opinion, someone who is a-moral is, themself, not thought of as being one that it is morally important to respect as we generally respect ppl. They are inhumane, and in that sense in-human.

Ignoring the subjective nature of what you're saying, this is seems like a pretty dangerous path to go down. To protect yourself or others from harm is one thing - it is quite another label someone as "in-human," and deprive them of the recognition of their being. That is a rationalization that psychopaths would use.

The way I look at it, Human rights are derived from our being Humane, our being moral.

We wouldn't give the Evil but intelligent Computers "Human Rights"
We wouldn't feel Evil, calculating, Insectoid Aliens were deserving.

Why should we grant human rights to A-moral, evil, people.
"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."
PoeJoe
Posts: 3,822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2010 8:44:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/24/2010 8:25:03 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 1/24/2010 5:56:46 PM, Volkov wrote:
It is never truly justifiable to kill someone, at least on a personal level. Though no one will blame you if you kill someone out of self-defense, or because it was the only way to stop something really bad from happening, a lot of the time people still can't find it justifiable, because to kill another person generally has a large and negative impact. Death isn't something that is considered a true positive, despite the excuses given.

A negative impact, maybe, but if it prevents a greater negative impact from occuring, then the act is a net positive. And net positives are justifiable.

Problem is, the value of a person's life is subjective. It differs from person to person, and for person to person. Bob may value John's life as equal to Carl and Richard, while Marven may value John's life as slightly less than David and Bryan. And no agreement will ever be made on the value of John's life, because morality does not exist outside of human conscience, and because everyone has a different bias based on their upbringing, culture, and genetics. So, in fact, no one is objectively right, and everyone, in respect to themselves, is correct.
Television Rot: http://tvrot.com...
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2010 9:05:10 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
That's actually a question I've always had: A lot of people make the claim that rights are based upon rationality; however, at the point that someone is harming themselves, for example, are they not a) being irrational, and b) denying their own moral worth? If that's the case, I'm not sure why people that harm themselves deserve rights.
wonderwoman
Posts: 744
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2010 9:09:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/24/2010 9:05:10 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
That's actually a question I've always had: A lot of people make the claim that rights are based upon rationality; however, at the point that someone is harming themselves, for example, are they not a) being irrational, and b) denying their own moral worth? If that's the case, I'm not sure why people that harm themselves deserve rights.

What happened to not believing in rights cody?
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2010 9:24:48 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/24/2010 9:05:10 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
If that's the case, I'm not sure why people that harm themselves deserve rights.

That is a fine line to walk, Cody. No one has a proper answer for it, because it is true that those that harm themselves are usually inherently irrational, yet they still have a right to property - themselves, more or less.

Yet there is some very subjective ideas as to what constitutes "harm" - for example, does the use of drugs equal harm and irrationality, or is it a rational pursuit of the reactions? Most agree that someone cutting themselves or attempting suicide is usually irrational, yet some also make the argument that these events, the former especially, are the usual emotional reactions of humans, and are sometimes a rational way of dealing with things.

Like I said - its a very fine line.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2010 9:27:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/24/2010 9:24:48 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 1/24/2010 9:05:10 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
If that's the case, I'm not sure why people that harm themselves deserve rights.

That is a fine line to walk, Cody. No one has a proper answer for it, because it is true that those that harm themselves are usually inherently irrational, yet they still have a right to property - themselves, more or less.

Do they?

Yet there is some very subjective ideas as to what constitutes "harm" - for example, does the use of drugs equal harm and irrationality, or is it a rational pursuit of the reactions?

No, it's not rational. One's pleasure/pain mechanism isn't a cognitive tool - that's what one's mind is for. At the point they're using "what feels good" as a way to guide themselves, they're hardly rational.

Most agree that someone cutting themselves or attempting suicide is usually irrational, yet some also make the argument that these events, the former especially, are the usual emotional reactions of humans, and are sometimes a rational way of dealing with things.

Emotional =/= Rational

There's no question about that.

Like I said - its a very fine line.

Is it? Or is it just a line that people are too afraid to cross?
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2010 9:34:52 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
why is rationality the ultimate arbiter? Why not morality?

Would you feel that Giant, rational, calculating, inhumane cockroaches were deserving of rights?

Or would you feel they should be squashed; especially because they're intelligent.
"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."
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2010 9:36:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/24/2010 8:35:39 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
And missed the "non" part of legal. I am speaking of fraud roughly as a judge would.

An old fashioned impartial coldhearted judge, not Sotomayor.

okay then, even in a legal sense, do you believe that people convicted of fraud should be executed?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2010 9:39:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/24/2010 9:34:52 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
why is rationality the ultimate arbiter?

Because that's the faculty with which we perceive the universe.

Why not morality?

What standard of morality?

What makes you think that there's some kind of "rationality/morality" dichotomy? If rationality is our means of operating, that would probably lead us to our ethical principles.

Would you feel that Giant, rational, calculating, inhumane cockroaches were deserving of rights?

First of all, you're using pejorative language to deliberately stigmatize my argument - nice try, but you're still committing a fallacy.

Second of all, I don't believe in "rights" per se.

Third of all, rational, intelligent people are the only ones who really have a claim to anything, since they're the only ones capable of doing something productive.

Or would you feel they should be squashed; especially because they're intelligent.

A lot of people on this website are intelligent, too. Neither I nor they are threatened by intelligence, and I'm not sure why you appear to be.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2010 9:39:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/24/2010 8:33:24 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 1/24/2010 3:08:33 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 1/24/2010 3:04:12 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 1/24/2010 3:02:23 PM, theLwerd wrote:
Abortionists don't kill people; they kill fetuses.

Some one fetus.

Some many fetus.

)

It is justifiable to kill someone when they initiate force or fraud against your life, liberty, or property.

What about in the instances where you would need to kill someone to stay alive even though the didn't initiate any force against
Such as?

Lets say that you are in an airplane with another person and it loses control (to the point beyond recovery, regardless of your skill), there is one other person on the plane and only one parachute and the other person got it first, but you have a gun. Do you kill them to save your life?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"