|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
posted July 06, 2008 02:58 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I don't understand, do you mean they give me the option to choose between 1 or 100 people for what? To get their hands on my discovery?
The question is: WHAT GROUP WOULD GET KILLED? It is your choice.
You are forced to pick, if you pick option C they are all going to die.
So after your morals, you would not pick C.
Here is the options:
A: kill the 100
B: kill the 1
What situation? ANY?!?!?!??! This is hypotetical situation, we only want you to awser it dam it.
How you got into it? In a completely random way, what matters is that YOU is the one forced to take the choice.
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 06, 2008 03:01 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 15:01, 06 Jul 2008.
|
If I don't choose, they won't die by my hands will 
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted July 06, 2008 03:08 PM |
|
|
Quote:
If I don't choose, they won't die by my hands will
Yes, that is the n3utral approach 
____________
"These friends probably started using condoms after having produced the most optimum amount of offsprings. Kudos to them for showing at least some restraint" - Tsar-ivor
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 06, 2008 03:12 PM |
|
|
Perhaps, but if you believe in karma (not only that, but it's an example), then the dead person might be very angry at you (because it died, you chose to) and blame you, thus influencing you negatively for something you have chosen.
But what if you choose, and later they still kill 100, they wanted you to choose first and then they tell the 1 person that you choose for him/her to die (or maybe they don't kill at all)?
Maybe I would choose the 100, but that will haunt me for the rest of my days. Yeah I know, tell me "It was the right thing to do" or "It's not your fault, they were going to kill anyway", etc... but frankly, it was my choice, my fault, my will 
I don't think I would be able to forgive myself or talk to the 1 person (if i would ever do) again.
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted July 06, 2008 04:36 PM |
|
|
Ok, Death, how about this:
Some terrorists placed two nuclear bombs in two towns (far away from each other). One town has only 1 person, while the other 100. You know how to disarm the bombs, but it is not enough time to go to both towns. You have three options:
1) Go to town A and save 1 person
2) Go to town B and save 100 people
3) Don't do anything - I guess this is the neutral approach, right?
Or even better: let's suppose YOU created those two nuclear bombs (not for killing - let's say to stop some giant meteor that would destroy Earth) and the terrorists stole them from you. In this case, I don't think number (3) is neutral any more (I think it's evil), since it's your fault those bombs exist. You can try to "repair" your mistakes by saving one town, but which one do you choose?
Answer both examples please
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 06, 2008 05:14 PM |
|
|
Even in the second example, it wouldn't be my fault at all since I didn't designed them for that purpose -- any wacko can use something to a bad purpose. Like I always said, the purpose of an object matters a lot. If I built the nuclear bombs specifically for harming that 1 guy, then it would be more appropiate for our discussion because I intentionally kill him to save others (let's say). And in THAT case, I can be "blamed" and it would be my "fault" -- in your example, not really directly. And it wasn't an accident either!
Anyway, I think you're expecting me to say the 100 people, because if I say otherwise, you'll say "OMG you're weird, no point in discussing anymore" but more formal obviously
But let me say first that this is not relevant to the topic at all. In this scenario, I do not "pick" which people to sacrifice for others, because I, directly, am not involved in any killing. Thus, for our Stem Cell Research analogy, this is hardly relevant. Simply put, I don't directly kill anyone in your example, even if I stand still, the terrorists who stole it do. Thus, by saving the 100 people, I don't kill the 1 other people, the terrorists do
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 06, 2008 06:15 PM |
|
|
Quote:
(that is, the purpose of a 'mistake' fetus is to be aborted!)
You talk of life having a purpose. Why should you say that it is so? You can talk about guns and keys having sharply defined purposes, but not life.
Quote:
That is, not any key in the world will help him! Not all keys are the same, and saying that is pointless, unless you know what you're talking about.
But opening individual locks is the function of individual keys. But life is not quite so sharply different.
Quote:
it starves because of you
It starves because of everybody who doesn't give it food. I am not unique in this respect.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 06, 2008 06:21 PM |
|
|
Quote:
It starves because of everybody who doesn't give it food. I am not unique in this respect.
Ok so to comment only on this one, I think I found a way to better explain it.
The question, here, is something like this: Who brought the fetus into that situation?
That is, did you bring a stranger into the beggar status? (directly, not through 'business' which involves someone else!) No, so you are not responsible for him.
Did you bring the fetus into the 'starving' status? Hell yeah, thus you are responsible for taking care of him.
You don't like it? Then don't conceive it. It's simple
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 06, 2008 06:42 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I meant, that they are terrorists or criminals, but have not violated any rights yet, but you somehow know they will (for example, the terrorists are preparing for something).
Until one commits a crime, one is not a criminal. You can't punish people for their thoughts.
Quote:
Maybe I would choose the 100, but that will haunt me for the rest of my days. Yeah I know, tell me "It was the right thing to do"
But if you chose none of them, then it should haunt you even more.
Quote:
it wouldn't be my fault at all since I didn't designed them for that purpose
And the pregnant woman wasn't having sex to conceive a fetus. Still, there is a risk of conception, just like there's a risk of having your nuclear bombs stolen.
Quote:
Who brought the fetus into that situation?
You are combining the situation of living and the situation of starving into one situation; that is a mistake. Let's look at the independently.
The situation of living: you give life to the fetus, but it could not ask for it nor refuse it because it has no will (or life) prior to conception. Thus, you do not violate its rights at conception, because you are not acting upon anything living.
Then it begins to starve. The situation of starvation: the fetus is already alive. You are not violating its rights by not feeding it, because it has no right to be fed. If it is fed, it is a privilige, not a right.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 06, 2008 06:55 PM |
|
|
Quote:
But if you chose none of them, then it should haunt you even more.
Not necessarily, unless you will say "I didn't do anything when I could", but at least you did not choose which to sacrifice (in which case he/she will blame you).
Quote:
And the pregnant woman wasn't having sex to conceive a fetus. Still, there is a risk of conception, just like there's a risk of having your nuclear bombs stolen.
Stealing the nuclear bombs, firstly, is a risk that you do not know about (i.e you are NOT pretty sure there is a chance). Besides, it involves someone else's will (the thief/terrorists).
Quote:
You are combining the situation of living and the situation of starving into one situation; that is a mistake. Let's look at the independently.
The situation of living: you give life to the fetus, but it could not ask for it nor refuse it because it has no will (or life) prior to conception. Thus, you do not violate its rights at conception, because you are not acting upon anything living.
Then it begins to starve. The situation of starvation: the fetus is already alive. You are not violating its rights by not feeding it, because it has no right to be fed. If it is fed, it is a privilige, not a right.
The problem is that you look at the situation from your view of 'rights' which is bad because it does not take into account the 'influence' factor and can be abused (as in the 'virus' example I set some pages back).
Life is not a "thing" that is given -- in fact, you can't give something to someone who doesn't even have a will, thus life is not "given" in the normal sense in this system. You can't 'give' something to a computer, for it to be given needs to be acknowledged with its will, and since the fetus doesn't have one prior to conception, life is not a "given" thing.
Life, plain and simple (like I discussed above with even animal life) has special 'rights' assigned, and one of them is that if you directly (please read that term!) influence someone, then you have certain responsibilities for what you have done.
Thus, if you take the fetus example, the mother does not want to be obligated to feed the fetus -- but if she wanted that, she would not conceived it. Thus, by conceiving it, she loses her own rights, which is not a violation. Why should this be? Because, like i said, we can't play with life.
If you see an egg in the wild (supposing that life doesn't exist yet), and take it to your home, you are obligated to feed the animal that will get out. If you don't like the idea, then don't take the damn egg.
You can't just give life to someone and then expect to have full rights and no responsibilities as before -- that is not only lame, but shows a lack of maturity and the system, I think, is based on maturity not on children that play with everything.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 06, 2008 07:04 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Not necessarily, unless you will say "I didn't do anything when I could", but at least you did not choose which to sacrifice (in which case he/she will blame you).
But you could've saved 100 people, but your inaction only saved 1 person. Wouldn't that haunt you?
Quote:
Stealing the nuclear bombs, firstly, is a risk that you do not know about (i.e you are NOT pretty sure there is a chance).
Come on, don't you think that a nuclear bomb is a pretty tempting thing to steal?
Quote:
The problem is that you look at the situation from your view of 'rights' which is bad because it does not take into account the 'influence' factor and can be abused (as in the 'virus' example I set some pages back).
Which virus example?
Quote:
you can't give something to someone who doesn't even have a will
But life is what creates that will in the first place.
Quote:
Life... has special 'rights' assigned, and one of them is that if you directly (please read that term!) influence someone
What does directly influencing people entail? Does shooting someone count as direct influence? How about giving them a gun, and then they shoot themselves? How about if you give them a gun, then tell them to shoot themselves?
Quote:
If you see an egg in the wild (supposing that life doesn't exist yet), and take it to your home, you are obligated to feed the animal that will get out. If you don't like the idea, then don't take the damn egg.
But laws are subjective, and vary from country to country.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 06, 2008 07:11 PM |
|
|
Quote:
But you could've saved 100 people, but your inaction only saved 1 person. Wouldn't that haunt you?
Maybe but not in the other sense I used -- because an inaction is not something to be "blamed" for (you can't be 'blamed' for something you have not done).
Quote:
Come on, don't you think that a nuclear bomb is a pretty tempting thing to steal?
Probably but I don't make it for fun
Quote:
Which virus example?
Ok let me repeat it again.
Someone unleashes a virus that affects only new-born people. Does that guy have the right to unleash the virus because it doesn't violate any rights -- since they aren't born yet when he unleashed the virus. Thus, those people can't sue them after they're born (he made them a miserable life).
Quote:
But life is what creates that will in the first place.
Exactly, you can't say that you give life because life creates will, thus the effect is afterwards.
Quote:
What does directly influencing people entail? Does shooting someone count as direct influence? How about giving them a gun, and then they shoot themselves? How about if you give them a gun, then tell them to shoot themselves?
If you casted "Puppet Master" on them then yes, it's a direct influence if you tell them to shoot themselves. Shooting them is also a direct influence.
What I meant was that giving a miserable life 'influences' the fetus in a not-pleasant way. You are saying that it is better than not existing at all?? Then why do people suicide if they are going to be tortured?
As for laws being subjective, I try to use common sense here. Simple: you take the egg, you can be blamed -- even if the law does not say anything about it. Because it was you who took the egg, thus you can be blamed. It's simple to get it.
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted July 06, 2008 07:15 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Then why do people suicide if they are going to be tortured?
I thought that the Bible teaches you that suicide = bad, since you have to accept everything life throws at you
And I know you're the religious guy around here
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 06, 2008 07:19 PM |
|
|
|
It's bad for a different reason, not because you will suffer more after you die! I'm not turning this into a religious debate, but it has a completely different reason than 'suffering'
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 06, 2008 07:22 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Maybe but not in the other sense I used -- because an inaction is not something to be "blamed" for (you can't be 'blamed' for something you have not done).
Granted that the law (which varies) can't blame you for it, but you could blame yourself.
Quote:
Probably but I don't make it for fun
It could be interpreted that way - if the meteors crashed into the Earth, no one would have any fun for quite a while.
Quote:
Someone unleashes a virus that affects only new-born people. Does that guy have the right to unleash the virus because it doesn't violate any rights -- since they aren't born yet when he unleashed the virus.
Does it affect the born or the unborn? Which? If it affects the born, then it violates their rights, since that is the virus's only purpose - to get people sick. If it affects the unborn, then regardless of whether you consider them to have rights or not, the disease (and therefore the guy who made it) is violating the rights of the mother, so she can sue him.
Quote:
Exactly, you can't say that you give life because life creates will, thus the effect is afterwards.
So you can't say that giving life violates will, then.
Quote:
If you casted "Puppet Master" on them then yes, it's a direct influence if you tell them to shoot themselves.
What if it's someone who's depressed, and you give them a gun and advise them to shoot themselves? You're not forcing them to shoot themselves, are you? So you're not violating their rights.
Quote:
You are saying that it is better than not existing at all?? Then why do people suicide if they are going to be tortured?
Because they can't bear the thought of torture, obviously. They would rather not live than to be tortured.
Quote:
you take the egg, you can be blamed
But what good is blame if it doesn't carry any punishment with it? If some kid walked up to me and said, "Mvassilev, you're a horrible fiend," do you think I'd care?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 06, 2008 07:27 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Does it affect the born or the unborn? Which? If it affects the born, then it violates their rights, since that is the virus's only purpose - to get people sick. If it affects the unborn, then regardless of whether you consider them to have rights or not, the disease (and therefore the guy who made it) is violating the rights of the mother, so she can sue him.
It doesn't affect the mother -- let's then say a radioactive example.
This radioactive material is present everywhere because you unleashed it. It has absolutely no impact on people above age 1. However, when the fetus is born, then it affects him (born not conceived). Thus, does he have the right to sue you?
Common sense, yes.
Quote:
What if it's someone who's depressed, and you give them a gun and advise them to shoot themselves? You're not forcing them to shoot themselves, are you? So you're not violating their rights.
AFAIK for mentally ill people you can be sued if you tell them some things. But that's beside the point, you are not 'advising' the fetus anything.
Quote:
Because they can't bear the thought of torture, obviously. They would rather not live than to be tortured.
So the fetus should do the same. Unfortunately, by giving life to it, you disturb his 'non-existence' and thus he suffers a bit (if he is to be aborted).
Quote:
But what good is blame if it doesn't carry any punishment with it? If some kid walked up to me and said, "Mvassilev, you're a horrible fiend," do you think I'd care?
What you are telling is an emotional impact (the kid hates you), which I intentionally left out this discussion. The life of something is not 'emotional'. And so isn't its starving
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted July 06, 2008 07:33 PM |
|
Edited by Asheera at 19:34, 06 Jul 2008.
|
Quote:
So the fetus should do the same. Unfortunately, by giving life to it, you disturb his 'non-existence' and thus he suffers a bit (if he is to be aborted).
I love it how you use 'it' and then 'he'
Sorry for the off-topic
Oh and you don't "disturb" its "non-existence" because if it doesn't exist there's nothing to disturb.
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 06, 2008 07:35 PM |
|
|
I said you disturb its "non-existence".
How can you be so sure -- if it is reincarnated (for example) your argument doesn't hold
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted July 06, 2008 07:40 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I said you disturb its "non-existence".
How can you be so sure -- if it is reincarnated (for example) your argument doesn't hold
If it is reincarnated, it will only be denyed to be born and moves on to another place to be born.
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 06, 2008 08:22 PM |
|
|
Quote:
It doesn't affect the mother -- let's then say a radioactive example.
But by affecting the fetus, it affects the state of the mother. If she wasn't pregnant, it wouldn't affect her. But if she is, it does.
Quote:
However, when the fetus is born, then it affects him (born not conceived). Thus, does he have the right to sue you?
Yes, because the radiation you released has only one purpose: to physically damage (and that is a violation of rights). It is not the radiation itself, though, that is the problem here, but its effects.
Quote:
But that's beside the point, you are not 'advising' the fetus anything.
It's not beside the point, because I'm trying to figure out what you mean by "influence".
Quote:
So the fetus should do the same.
But it can't, so we have abortions.
Quote:
What you are telling is an emotional impact (the kid hates you), which I intentionally left out this discussion.
How quickly you change the subject! I was talking about how laws are different in different countries, and you said that you'd still get blamed even if taking wild eggs wasn't illegal, and I asked you what good blame is if no punishment is attached to it.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
