ClumsyMonkey.net

narbus does not understand the kill one to save millions scenario

in fact, in 2 out of 3 of his scenarios, the person he has to kill is infact, violating the rights of others and therefore voiding his own rights.

the diseased man/volcano scenario is accurate.

You have changed the scenario so much that it no longer relates to the original set up in any way that Matt intended. You have totally removed the point of matt's arguement, and then said, "well, look. If your arguement has no point, it has no point."

Well no shit.

Matt's been saying that you can't just blanket all situations with one big judgement. Take situations as they come, weigh the individual situation, and make a decision.

In the first case, a single individual's death would save the lives of millions of individuals. Are those millions not just as worthy of life as the single person?
A group (or collective, if you will) is composed of many individuals. You are saying that a single individual has greater rights to life than a group of individuals. You are saying that the whole is less than the sum of its parts.

Since the action [strangling the baby] is the same regardless of the scenario, then it does not matter what the circumstances surrounding that action are! circumstance does not dictate the moral value of an undertaking! If you claim to be a rational, reasonable, logical person, then you must acknowledge that MORAL REALITY IS NOT REALITIVE TO CIRCUMSTANCE! I'm using CAPS for emphasis now!

Matt's choice to weigh taking action agains the circumstances surroudning them is irrational! rational thinkers realize that there are no contradictions. saying "murdering the baby in situation one is alright but not in situation two" is a contradiction. it is irrational, irrational, irrational!

it's the same with a persons rights. how can a persons rights [ie his right to life] be sacrificed to benefit another person. how can stealing to feed one be evil but stealing to feed ten be right?

how can the IRS coming to take my taxes be moral but a mugger taking my watch be immoral?

they're the same action.

Emily wrote:what would your advantage be being small metal and blue? and yes, you would have to kill the person in all those situations.

You've obviously never played MegaMan.

wait.. isn't Dr. Wily the one with the reddish brown mustache and glasses? its all coming back to me now.

Narbus, in examples one and three the man in question is not INNOCENT.

in example two, you have no right to kill the guy. why don't you work on a human solution, like trying to cure his disease.

murder. is never. alright.

how can reality be realitive? your perception of reality can be realitve, and it may shape you how think and act in the world, but it does not change what IS.

so far in this debate i've been the one doing all the proving. You say reality is realitive, i want to see you make some logical connections backing that up.

whenyoukissedme wrote:but by allowing these single individuals to live, there is no 100% guarantee others will die.

example: man with hand on button could get light headed and pass out. police would then apprehend him. he did not have to die and he did not die.

You are really trying too hard, here. A 100% chance that the world doesn't get nuclear death, or about a .01% chance the guy "passes out." Really too hard.

Emily wrote:what would your advantage be being small metal and blue? and yes, you would have to kill the person in all those situations.

Dr. Wily and Megaman. I was aiming for a cheap gag.

xchrisx wrote:i am ending this. i repeat: you are arguing that people have different beliefs on morality. fine. i am NOT arguing that people don't. how a person chooses to live his or her life is up to them.

No. I am arguing that people believe different things to be moral, and that morality is reliant on perspective, so different people really do have different morals. There is no absolute. It is relative.

xchrisx wrote:the termination of any innocent person's life without their consent is wrong. period.

Alright. The child dies a slow, painful death from starvation. Did you know that you can survive over a week without eating anything? That's a very, very long week.

xchrisx wrote:sure, whatever. the point here is that you have just agreed with me that morality is not relative. between the owners of black slaves and you, one of the two of you HAS to be right. which is it?

either it was ok for them to own slaves and you're wrong, or it's not ok and you're right. to believe otherwise would be a CONTRADICTION.

CONTRADICTIONS ARE NOT LOGICAL.

Wow. I bet you think you're all clever. Too bad I already answered this in another post. We both are. To me, it's wrong. To him, it's not. Yipty shit. I just said the same thing I've been saying for the past several posts. Way to go. You sure got me.

xchrisx wrote:i have trapped you. either you will now admit that either you or the slave owners are 100% wrong, regardless of your belief on the subject, or you will admit to being illogical and irrational, as well as unreasonable, and i will end the discussion as i do not waste time with those who refuse to be reasonable.

This is what's called a "logical fallacy." You are assuming there are only two options here for me to choose from. There are more. For example, there is the choice that we both are right, since morality is relative. Just because I have certain feelings on an issue doesn't mean the whole world has to live by those feelings. People can make their own decisions.

xchrisx wrote:ps. and for the love of god, man, rationality is not "different to different people". do you even know what the word means? christ. is the color blue "different to different people"? do you nihilists really believe EVERYTHING is relative?

I'm color blind. The color green isn't the same to me as it is to other people. Eat it.
And if you'd mind pointing out where I said I was a nihilist, I'd appreciate it, because I didn't.

xchrisx wrote:in fact, in 2 out of 3 of his scenarios, the person he has to kill is infact, violating the rights of others and therefore voiding his own rights.

Oh. OH OH OH. So, given a certain scenario, all people don't have the same rights. Look at that! Morality is dependant upon the situation, or as some would call it, relative. Go figure.

YourJesus wrote:Since the action [strangling the baby] is the same regardless of the scenario, then it does not matter what the circumstances surrounding that action are! circumstance does not dictate the moral value of an undertaking!

No. The action that I care about in the scenario is stopping the death of millions. The death of the baby is an unfortunate product of that action, in the exact same way as the death of millions is an unfortunate product of letting the child live. You are focusing on the death of the child, I am focusing on the death of the individuals within the masses.

I have to go to work now, but in the meantime, go watch a movie called "Memento." It's a great example of how perception influences your reality.

I'll be back later to discuss the rest.

well. he could just be bluffing. that's what i'm getting at. you don't KNOW he's going to push that button.

and about a starving child, chris is right. he said WITHOUT CONSENT. if someone wants to live an extra week before dying, then they can. if you kill them to end their suffering, you have murdered them in cold blood.

To clarify the apparent miscommunication of what reality and existence really are:

"Existence exists - and the act of grasping that statement implies two corollary axioms: that something exists which one perceives and that one exists posessing consciousness, consciousness being the faculty of perceiving that which exists. If nothing exists, there can be no consciouness: a consciousness conscious of nothing but itself is a contradiction in terms. A consciousness conscious of nothing but itself is a contradiction in terms: before it could identify itself as consciouness, it had to be conscious of something. If that which you claim to perceive does not exist, what you posess is not consciousness." -Ayn Rand.

Here, she follows the precept that Aristotle formed thousands of years ago: that A is A. It is still a basic concept today in every form of logic. An apple cannot be an orange, nor anything but what it is - an apple. She also urges us to look at any contradiction that we may find ourselves facing, and check our premises. One thing cannot be one and another at the same time. A hand cannot be a foot at the same time, and a band of a rainbow cannot be blue and red at the same time.Two different things can be two different things, but they cannot be one in the same. Such is her argument of reason. Man has the ability to think. Reason is that faculty that we can choose to exercise, but it must be by choice. One always has the right to choose, however in choosing not to choose, he relinquishes his "self-control" to anyone who wants to take it. These are the people who seek scapegoats, and who refuse responsibility for their actions. And these are the people who expect to be carried through life, blaming others when it drops them. This is a contradiction. If A is the man with a thinking mind, then A cannot also be B: the man with the non-thinking mind. To think is to think, to not think it not to think, but don't expect them to cross over.

I'll end with another quotation:
"These two - reason and freedom - are corollaries, and their relationship is reciprocal: when men are rational, freedom wins; when men are free, reason wins." -Ayn Rand

NikitaTheIrishesqueSpy wrote:Here, she follows the precept that Aristotle formed thousands of years ago: that A is A. It is still a basic concept today in every form of logic.

And another basic concept is the careful choosing of our variables. If you make the mistake of picking the wrong ones, or define the ones you pick improperly, your entire train of logic that follows is going to be erroneous.

An apple cannot be an orange, nor anything but what it is - an apple. She also urges us to look at any contradiction that we may find ourselves facing, and check our premises. One thing cannot be one and another at the same time. A hand cannot be a foot at the same time, and a band of a rainbow cannot be blue and red at the same time.

Ah, but are not apples and oranges both fruits? So if we define A to be "fruits," than Apple = A and Orange = A. So Apple = Orange, given that we are talking about fruits. It all depends on perspective, and how you define that variable.

Two different things can be two different things, but they cannot be one in the same. Such is her argument of reason. Man has the ability to think. Reason is that faculty that we can choose to exercise, but it must be by choice. One always has the right to choose, however in choosing not to choose, he relinquishes his "self-control" to anyone who wants to take it. These are the people who seek scapegoats, and who refuse responsibility for their actions. And these are the people who expect to be carried through life, blaming others when it drops them. This is a contradiction. If A is the man with a thinking mind, then A cannot also be B: the man with the non-thinking mind. To think is to think, to not think it not to think, but don't expect them to cross over.

Not true. Man can be thinking in some cases, and not thinking in others. Just because we choose once in our lives to think does not mean that we always do.

I'll end with another quotation:
"These two - reason and freedom - are corollaries, and their relationship is reciprocal: when men are rational, freedom wins; when men are free, reason wins." -Ayn Rand

Define rational. It was already tried, and didn't work.

Jeff: Given the level of security guarding the red button, and the gravity of the situation that goes along with standing above it ready to push, it's a pretty safe assumption that he's going to push the button.
Also: you're picking apart semantics, now. You aren't really proving anything.
Also, it's a child. The child doesn't know what's about the happen, he doesn't have all the facts, and he's simply too young to understand the repurcussions. He can't make the "objective" judgement the situation calls for.

and you can? what age child are you talking about? i don't think you have to be very old to understand that you might be starving. and what if aid suddenly comes to a country? he might not be starving anymore. you just can't kill people because there's a chance they might suffer when they die. there's a chance i might be buried alive someday, but i don't kill myself to prevent that from happening.

and about the guy with the disease that you push into a volcano, NO. it's not his fault he has a disease. what if you had that disease. do you think you should be killed to stop the chance of the disease spreading?

My point exactly. Situations are rarely so easy they can be reduced to the arithmetic equations that people are trying to.
If I had the prospect of a long, slow, painful death vs. a quick and painless one, then which do you pick? It's not an easy choice, and there are rationales that fit both sides.
Same with the disease. If I had some terrible disease that would kill millions, then yes, I would probably volunteer for the incineration.

xchrisx wrote:
i. a man murders someone
ii. the man believes it to be right
iii. therefore, morality is relative.[/b]

Well, at least you got the point

i'm afraid it doesn't work that way. the KKK thinks that black people are inferior to white people, they BELIEVE this. does this mean that it is true, at least to the KKK? just so we're clear, i'm not asking if the KKK believes that it is true, or if it's "true to them", i mean is it true? are members of the KKK really superior to black people?

What other "true" is there other than "true to me", true to you? True to god? Aliens?

objectively, the answer is no. their beliefs may be relative, but they are still incorrect.

And I respond "Says who?"

furthermore, there is no objective difference between the terrorist attacks on the US and their subsequent response. innocent people, thousands of them, lost their lives in both actions. how, therefore, can the killing of innocent people in one country be right, and the killing of innocent people in another be wrong?

Because you're on one side or the other. If you're in the US or Afghanistan, one side it right, the other is wrong.

no, it wouldn't be right. you would BELIEVE that it is right, but it would still be wrong.

I ask again, where are you getting this list of whats right and whats wrong? Are you basing it on your own values?

are blacks inferior? are they subhuman?

your answer is going to be "depends on who you are".

ok, i'll bite. let's assume that you are a southern slave owner.

so now you're going to say "in that case, yes. southern slave owners believed that blacks were subhuman"

but i'm not asking if they BELIEVED that, i'm asking if it is TRUE. so, tell me, are blacks inferior to southern slave owners, or was the belief of the southern slave owners wrong?

Yes they are, TO THEM! How many times can I say this? If you are a southern slave owner, blacks are like farm animals, if you're someone like me, they are equals.

so you're saying that if hitler had won the war, he would've been morally in the right? that if hitler had won, the morally correct thing to do would be kill jews?

Are you saying if Hitler had won, he'd be walking around talking about how wrong he was?

so if hitler rules the world today, would you be pushing jews into the incinerator? after all, according to you it's the right thing to do. and why would you do this? because society told you to.

No, because as I said, I make my own moral decisions. Society simple enforces the majority rule. And the majority is right by default

or, alternately, you could dissent against the majority and try to save the jews. but why would you do this? would that be your natural human instinct kicking in?

No, that would be my own moral judgement kicking in. You're asking me to react to a situation in a completely different world, since I'm not in Nazi Germany, I cannot give a truthful answer. For all I know, I may have different views.

no, i'm not. in fact, i never said anything even remotely resembling that. society does 1000 things a day that are morally impermissible.

According to you, right? You're telling me things are wrong with no "proof" to back them up, simply that you believe they are, or the majority does.

no, you haven't. you haven't challenged my argument. all you've said is that certain people BELIEVE their actions to be right.

*rolls his eyes*

That IS the argument. Everyone believes their actions are right, no one does something thinking "This is wrong, but I'm doing it anyway, just cause" They say "This is wrong, but it's for a better good" or "This is right"

what i want to know is this: if morality is really relative, then not only does a murder BELIEVE that he is right, [ ie, murder is right TO HIM ] but he IS right. so, tell me

He is right, but everyone else believes he is wrong, it's simple numbers that dictate the outcome.

[b]do you believe murder is right?

It all depends on the situation and such.

narbus:

yeah. situations are never that easy. therefor you have to give the benefit of the doubt to the person and should not be allowed to take their life.

xchrisx wrote:no, you are wrong.

society [ read: the majority ] does not define right and wrong. society defines what they believe to be right and wrong.[/b]

Then I'll ask you again "Who does determine right and wrong?" Where is this list?

point in case: southern america prior to the civil war believed slavery was right. therefore, society made up a bunch of laws permitting it.

society was wrong.

Because we won the war, not because their "wrongs" caused them to lose

so your argument is that "society" makes morality, so in a society where murder was permitted, murder would be right "in that society"

but do YOU think murder is right? why?

If I was in that society, I would have a different set of values, hence a different answer.

my philosophy is called objectivism. my morality stems from an objective observation of the real world around me. i do not concern myself with petty pondering of useless things or respecting the opinions and beliefs of others. i only look at what is real, that is, what can be seen and heard and felt etc. and what can be PROVED.

Ok, prove murder is wrong

Has anyone seen Donnie Darko??

Remember the Love and Hate line..............that reminds me of Chris's arguement how it is summed up into just two blobs. We are simply stating that other cultures have different morals

By strangling the baby take another's rights and void your own........I guess so. if a million other people survive by us doing that, it is totally beside the point?? What if you let the million die? Are you thereby totally moral. At least recognize that there are multiple points of view here. Not just one moral centre.........."the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one." hehe, I like using Spock quotes.

Is commiting suicide murdering yourself???

If it is, when Spock saved the ship by contaminating himself with lethal radiation, which in turned killed him............but saved the ship and its crew......is that immoral. I guess it would be immoral to kill someone, but it is MORE immoral in my belief to let millions die because one was let survived. Why value that one life more than any others. It just seems like you have placed more value on your own guilt then the actual objectivity that you claim to have. Would you murder yourself to let millions live??

I agree that strangling a dying person without consent is murder........but consented euthanasia is far different. Is it moral to let someone suffer terribly before death. If they want to keep living, by all means. But letting someone who simply cannot bear the pain............??

I know we aren't going to agree on the same moral outlook..........but you are indeed wrong saying there is just one way of morality. The term itself is about assessing value to certain things. Me and Narbus simply wanted you to understand that it is possible to have different moral outlooks, and that outlook of your own may in fact be falliable. If you can't recognize this then you seriously are not being objective, but rather subjective to your own needs and cultural orientation.



Narbus: Do you study Anthropology??

xchrisx: I'm still intersted in your way of thinking......obviously because I can't see how it makes any sense. I would sacrifice myself for others......but you apparently would not. Another life is just a bridge between the two when morality is concerned. I would not like myself for killing another......and indeed, it is something of a moral paradox in that there is no"truly right way".......its about more or less. I give more value to the greater number of people, as much as I hate myself for killing someone, that morality is real for me........therefore that choice whether making me "moral" or "immoral" is irrelevant to the fact that another morality does exist...........and that is as simple as it gets. I'm not sure how to debate any further when it comes down to our moral disagreements.

maybe we should go back to Christina and keep it to that.

whenyoukissedme wrote:narbus:

yeah. situations are never that easy. therefor you have to give the benefit of the doubt to the person and should not be allowed to take their life.

I'll refer you back to the big red button scenario. You are gambling the lives of millions here. I, personally, would not take that gamble. As xchrisx said, that man is trying to take the lives of millions, which makes him immoral, which could be seen, rationally, as placing him outside of the realm of my morality, meaning he is not subject to the same rights I give to others. You would take that gamble. To you even taking one life makes you just as immoral as the man trying to take a million.
Which is more moral? Trying to save millions with the unfortunate side effect of killing one, or trying to save one with the unfortunate side effect of killing millions? It's not an easy question, and it's not meant to be.

Also, this is a strange game; the "whatif" game. What if aid arrives an hour after you kill the child? But what if an army arrives and burns the village? Or wild beasts attack in the night? I'd argue that since we can never know "what if," and therefore have to focus on "what's happening now."
Matt: I've take a few anthro courses as electives, yes. I've also taken a psychology course that featured a focus on cultural differences. Why do you ask?

And, at the risk of no longer having you as a sidekick, I believe that xchrisx mentioned somewhere that it's an individual's personal right to life. So if you take your own life, than you have made the decision, and consented to the decision. Since you have willingly, and knowingly chosen to end your own life, it's not immoral. You made a decision that ends the life of no one but yourself. I would, however, note that this decision (just suicide, not a gallant sacrifice akin to Spock's) does leave many other people around you in emotional pain. So, if you approached it from that angle, then there might be something there.

Or I'm totally wrong, and misinterpreted what he said. Whichever.
PS: No, this is more interesting than Christina.

I guess I have no substantial reason for asking. You just pointed out something I just learned in Anthropology (damn only being in first year) and it caught my attention. I am taking SOCIETY AND THE ENVIRONMENT. A multidisciplined program that is pretty cool because it combines sociology, anthro, geography, Env. Science. It gives a pretty broad outlook on the world..........it helps in arguements like this. Maybe some political Science and the dreaded philosphy major would make the difference.

At least with Christina I can imagine getting "dirrty" when talking about her.

Regarding the suicide, ala Spock comment, it is true that it would cause emotional pain......but its better than a million other families feeling that same pain for their loved ones. They would know I did a noble deed......and they don't really like me anyways.........
Suicide is pretty stinky however. Not something I think about doing just for myself. I would factor in the emotional repercussions.......and knowing that my death would hurt them makes it unbearable for me to actually do......not that I want to. Enough of this!! Its making me sad

CoreyRIT wrote:

Emily wrote:what would your advantage be being small metal and blue? and yes, you would have to kill the person in all those situations.

You've obviously never played MegaMan.

i know i could spend the rest of my life playing Mega Man

Matt wrote:If it is, when Spock saved the ship by contaminating himself with lethal radiation, which in turned killed him............but saved the ship and its crew......is that immoral.

good thing Kirk was able to save him