The Persian War was won by a minority of Greek states who stood up to the Persian Empire not thinking they would win, but out of moral stance.
Heroic tales of defiance aside, the Greeks had plenty of reasons to think they could win. After all, they did win. And their advantage was not that their hearts were pure.
So we're going from a deontological stance. The fact that you're saying this results in better results means you're admitting the deontological stance is superior in this circumstance. And in fact it is.
Can't you see that you're conceding your position here?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
The consequentialists are all playing ball here in this thread.
Only because of a lack of information or a situation which is not clearly defined. Obviously, if the outcomes of not playing ball are more beneficial, they must not play ball to be considered one.
So we're going from a deontological stance. The fact that you're saying this results in better results means you're admitting the deontological stance is superior in this circumstance. And in fact it is.
If the outcomes that occur are more beneficial then that is the route taken by a consequentialist.
I understand you come at it from a deontological stand point, but if by the actions are more fruitful to society than a consequentialist action, then by definition the consequentialist would have the change stance.
If your criteria for judgement on assessing how moral a moral decision is solely the outcome then nothing can be "better" than the consequentialist view for his basis for moral decisions are these outcomes. Granted, you can arrive at moral outcomes from deontology, but the criteria for arriving at such a decision is not based on outcomes.
Except then you're not being consequentialist anymore, because to adhere to consequentialism is about looking at what could or would happen.
Consequentialism forces you to look at the problem and deal with the consequences, which requires you to deal with the complexity of the problem. Dismissing the complexity is dismissing the actual consequences of the action. You're going against yourself.
Clearly, the best decision that could be made is going to be off imperfect information, but the moment wrong decisions are made or new information is introduced, such that a clearer image can be made, a consequentialist can change.
I was more specifically pointing out that adding in situations with multi-variables with little information is pointless. If I am held up by the Nazi's and forced this decision, how do I know the nazi's? Do I have adequate proof that they will stick to their word? Do I have any other potential options? Such a vague situation helps no one, because all your are really asking is a simple question which can be diverted to make the agent look bad. Of course if he thought they wouldn't hold to their word, he would take no action. Of course if he had other options which outweighed the other's, he would take them.
Its like me asking:
You see a man with an arrow in his chest, dying? Do you help him?Then you say yes and I go, "but you were the one who shot him, so why would you help him?"
The consequentialist approach in the Nazi situation is to collaborate. Obviously he can see that the action of any one individual standing up and saying "THIS IS WRONG", will result in no positive benefit for anyone. You go to prison.
The deontological approach is to stick to principles and say "THIS IS WRONG", and take the consequences (up to a point. We're obviously weak).
(I'm not saying that I personally am strong enough in my faith to follow through on my deontology in that situation. Such a claim is about as self-serving as the ones made by people in this thread that they'd kill themselves to save 100 other people or that they are taking a billion dollars primarily to help OTHERS. )
did Sophie Scholl stand up in vain?
The consequentialist approach to murder hire for the man with the suitcase, is to kill because he can do a lot of good with the billion dollars.
The deontologist approach to murder for hire is that he won't play ball with the man in the suitcase.
The consequentialist approach in the Nazi situation is to collaborate. Obviously he can see that the action of any one individual standing up and saying "THIS IS WRONG", will result in no positive benefit for anyone. You go to prison.
.
If standing up and saying what is wrong can save millions by stopping the war (the justification used to argue against standing up at least one of the.) and in the long run, saves more people, the consequentialist will react as such.
The consequentialist approach to murder hire for the man with the suitcase, is to kill because he can do a lot of good with the billion dollars.
If it can be shown that the money can be more beneficial than the man by saving others, of course. Its difficult to prove that and I certainly wouldn't kill a man in that situation.
Not at all. You misunderstand half the things I say.
My point being, people die for good reasons, as judged by the beliefs of the people doing the killing.
If we didn't feel we were fighting for a good cause, I doubt we would be.
Patriotism often leads to the death of many innocent lives. The only thing keeping the ship from sinking is the belief that we're on the right side of things.
I'm almost entirely confident this has nothing to do with the point of our conversation. "People die" is and has never been a good justification to killing innocents.
Then we must agree to disagree.
I don't believe in an objective morality. If one does exist, we have not found it yet anyways. Not one person can demonstrate that they have found the ultimate moral truth in the world.
Winners usually write the history and decide the righteousness of actions.
Can you demonstrate objective morality for me?
I can only demonstrate it in theory; I have no way of knowing or verifying that my moral code is anything close to "the" morality. I can, however, provide pretty sound reasoning in favor of my morality.
All these moral truths are subject to the opinions of those who hold them. That makes them nonobjective.
Then all truths are subject to the opinions of those who hold them, i.e., science is a sham.
I am not saying it is impossible, I'd say I'm agnostic towards it's existence.
However, the existing mountain of evidence points to a subjective morality, not an objective one.
I went through this in another thread till my face was blue. I don't intend to do it again.
No, it doesn't. Otherwise it wouldn't be one of the most contested topics in philosophy. The "mountain of evidence" I assume you're referring to suggests that peoples' beliefs are subjective... which is unarguably true.
Regardless, none of this argument has anything to do with my original point (which I think you actually conceded to me somewhere around here): that killing an innocent person is inherently counter-productive in regards to human rights (or in other words, immoral). The difference between you and I is that you would accept the burden.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"If you're Havengul problems I feel bad for you son, I got 99 problems and a Lich ain't one." - FSM
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
If standing up and saying what is wrong can save millions by stopping the war (the justification used to argue against standing up at least one of the.) and in the long run, saves more people, the consequentialist will react as such.
but of course your personally standing up won't save anybody. It will result in your death or imprisonment. It's only after enough of you stand up, that maybe people will be emboldened enough to stand up with you. Maybe it will take your martyrdom to turn the tide. Maybe after the Nazis kill 50 of you, somebody will be emboldened by your martyrdom to say "this is wrong".
There is no guarantee though, and even the probabilities say that your personal sacrifice (just as your personal vote in an election) will make NO dIFFERENCE in the ultimate outcome. The consequentialist says take the course of action that produces the best foreseeable outcome.
The deontologist says "do what I believe is right"... Which CAN make the deontologists more powerful in that situation because they don't need to communicate to present a unified front. They will stick to their guns, while the consequentialists have to rely on the situational information they have. Though I guess you can argue that in situations that require compromise, the consequentialist approach is better.
Nobody is purely one or the other anyway. We almost all have principles we won't violate, and we almost all can find situations where we'll compromise some of our deeply held beliefs.
Either approach has it's merits and we all operate using a little of both, but in the situation of committing murder for hire from an unknown man with a suitcase, I have to draw the line there.
You think Rosa Parks was the first person to defy the "back of the bus" rule? Do you think she knew that she was the tipping point? How many black people do you think got beat up or arrested or intimidated when they stood up for themselves and said "this is wrong"?
but of course your personally standing up won't save anybody. It will result in your death or imprisonment. It's only after enough of you stand up, that maybe people will be emboldened enough to stand up with you. Maybe it will take your martyrdom to turn the tide. Maybe after the Nazis kill 50 of you, somebody will be emboldened by your martyrdom to say "this is wrong".
But if you know that it takes a majority of people to stand up and change things for the better, and it is a better action to take, you will take it. The fact is, if there is an action that results in a better outcome from any moral standpoint, it will be considered by a consequentialist. It doesn't necessarily only concern itself with the short-term or direct outcomes.
But if you know that it takes a majority of people to stand up and change things for the better, and it is a better action to take, you will take it.
again you keep missing the point. If eveybody is a consequentialist and refuses to stand up for what's right until the majority clearly have your back, then NOBODY will ever stand up.
by your reasoning, no black man should ever have been defiant or anything other than compliant until a MAJORITY of people stood up and defied the racist status quo.
The fact is, if there is an action that results in a better outcome from any moral standpoint, it will be considered by a consequentialist. It doesn't necessarily only concern itself with the short-term or direct outcomes.
The FACT is that we can't know all outcomes. And the principle matters more than the outcome.
I hesitated to bring the word up because somebody will inevitably muddle it up and confuse it with religion... But sometimes it takes FAITH that doing the right thing is the only course. Even if you know you're probably going to get a beat down along with the little guy getting bullied by the football players, you have to step up and say "This is wrong. Leave him alone." Even if you don't think the rest of the "majority" will have your back.
Within reason of course. Again, we all draw a line somewhere. And I don't want to argue that deontology=hero, and consequentialism=coward. I'm saying that under most circumstances, the way that consequentialism has been applied in this thread to say that killing an innocent for money is OK, doesn't cover all important aspects of the choices we make.
To me, it's the idea that who YOU were raised to be is your personal responsibility.
I'm almost entirely confident this has nothing to do with the point of our conversation. "People die" is and has never been a good justification to killing innocents.
And my point has always been that we have always been willing to sacrifice innocent lives in the pursuit of good causes.
This is no different.
You THINK it's different because instead of "accidently" killing some innocents with a moab, I am personally taking the responsibility of it.
Answer me this.
If the duty was to drop a moab on a city block in another country housing a violent terrorist cell, knowing full well that innocent noncombatants live there and might possibly die (not just one either, but maybe a dozen or more) in order to grant the wish. Would I be "more evil" or "less evil" if I tried really really hard to reduce how many innocents died, And only 6 innocents bit the dust?
This IS what we do everyday. We do this for reasons that are much more nuanced and less directly beneficial. "Freedom" "Democracy" etc.
The principle is worth lives.
You think I'm not standing up for my principles by killing the stranger.
Maybe I'm not adhereing to my morals. But I am killing him for a principle.
I can only demonstrate it in theory; I have no way of knowing or verifying that my moral code is anything close to "the" morality. I can, however, provide pretty sound reasoning in favor of my morality.
Not one person on this forum has come remotely close to demonstrating the existence of a morality code that is objective.
All they do is vehemently disagree with me, then haand wave everything claiming I haven't supported my case reasonably, which is both untrue, and just poor debate behavior. Especially when I posted pages upon pages of links.
I showed its subjectivity by the very definition of the word subjective (both the dictionary definition, and the philosophical definition), and backed it up with scientific evidence relating to how the brain works, the roots of moral thought, and how morality can be altered and changed almost as easily as Pavlovs dog.
The fact that millions or even billions of people who share similar (subjective) moral beliefs get together and shape a moral structure that they all agree to (social contract and all that) doesn't make what is "right" and "wrong" objective.
Its pretty much atheism in a nutshell.
If a billion atheists got together, and wrote a book on how people should act. It wouldn't make Atheism a religion. It would mean that atheists can hold other beliefs and share those beliefs with each other.
Atheism is just the absence of belief in god(s). Its the atheists other beliefs that form their moral value judgments. Like a belief in democracy, or communism, or capitalism, or other smaller subjects.
Then all truths are subject to the opinions of those who hold them, i.e., science is a sham.
Riiiight
Because that is completely analogous
Even if I felt like stooping to your otherwise strawman argument here.
Science IS subjective (a hint would be that science is a method, not an object). We change it all the time based on new evidence. What we know about the universe and how things works is subject to new information all the time. This is subjectivity. I shouldn't need to explain that to you.
What ISN'T subjective, is what we are studying with science.
Particles are objective, what we know about them isn't.
Gravity is objective, what we know about it isn't.
Energy is objective, what we know about it isn't.
No, it doesn't. Otherwise it wouldn't be one of the most contested topics in philosophy. The "mountain of evidence" I assume you're referring to suggests that peoples' beliefs are subjective... which is unarguably true.
Morality is rooted in brain functions.
The brain functions are changeable by external pressures, life experiences, environment, upbringing, training, indoctrination, etc.
History shows that massive cultural and social changes in these patterns have occured repeatedly, and it takes individuals brains collected in large groups to do this.
If only ONE person ever thought slavery was wrong, then it wouldn't have been changed, especially after that ONE jerk in town passed away.
But one, finds another one who agrees, and so on and on, until its a movement, and that movement converts or changes the minds of others until their effect is stronger than the opposition.
Regardless, none of this argument has anything to do with my original point (which I think you actually conceded to me somewhere around here): that killing an innocent person is inherently counter-productive in regards to human rights (or in other words, immoral). The difference between you and I is that you would accept the burden.
I am not 100% sure it IS inherent. Part of me believes human rights are not inalienable. But thats a whole other debate and I have had it here before and I'd rather not do it again.
I agree with you, don't get me wrong. Please understand that I agree with most of what you are saying.
I believe in human rights, and I believe in the constitution and what it stood for.
Like I said before. Just because I think morality is nonobjective, doesn't mean I don't have one.
I have chosen which moral structure I believe in and will follow.
I have never broken the law. I don't steal, I don't kill.
You are correct. I would just accept the burden.
I believe I am worm food someday, why not give up my moral high ground to do a huge favor for the world.
Dcartist
The FACT is that we can't know all outcomes. And the principle matters more than the outcome.
This is where we disagree.
I think at some point, given some circumstance, you will have to choose an outcome over your principles.
I won't draw the line for you. You will do that yourself. I'm just saying, we all have a line.
You're right that we can't know all outccomes.
I'm kinda tired of people coming in this thread and saying things like:
Belgareth
What if that person you killed was Edward Jenner just before he went on to create the vaccination for smallpox a disease that destroyed the lives of millions. Or what if the person played a pivotal role in some future diplomatic issue that prevented world war 3, or who knows the person who does create a cure for all cancers.
We CANNOT know that.
You ACT based on the information you have. Which may be imperfect, but none of us are omniscient.
I could answer back with "what if the guy is the next Ted Bundy, or Adolf Hitler"
But that is flawed reasoning. You are trying to argue with me using flawed reasoning.
As a pessimist, maybe I should go out and kill as many people as possible...because you know, they could all be "the next Ted Bundy":rolleyes:
Belgareth
@Icecreamman: Firstly it's all well and good for you to say you don't care if it's yourself that is the stranger killed, but what of your wife/child ? What if Highroller took option 3 (Which he wouldn't) and killed one of those 2 people directly in front of you , how do you feel then ? Pat him on the back and tell him he made a wise choice ?
Everytime I answer one of these questions, truthfully, and from the bottom of my heart...people give me and say that its easy to talk big **** on an internet forum where I'll never have to back it up.
My kid is just kid #45870031097 in the big picture, my wife is woman #90112478304, and I am #80532700241
Look, some guy comes into my house and kills my wife and kid, I would be furious. I'd want to kill that person, and maybe I'd get to at some point. I'd be sad and hurt, and after the dust settles lonely. Did I get the chance to offer myself in their place? Did I get the chance to jump in front of a bullet?
Do I know that he is making a wish to cure cancer, or to eliminate all war? Do I know he is spending 100billion on water purification plants, recycling, medical breakthroughs, and treatment for impoverished youths?
If I did know...maybe I'd forgive him someday, or maybe I'd still stick him with a knife.
What is the point?
I never once said I expected a pat on the back for this.
I said it'd be nice, if I went from a hated cold blooded murder to someone who could be forgiven based on their actions afterwards...but who knows.
Maybe I rot in the ground spit on and peed on by the world.
What do I care, I'm dead.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
No your the one with flawed thinking (infact it mirrors the flaw that occurs in sociopaths but thats an aside).
You say your willing to kill that one person in order to make the world a better place, but like you said you have zero future knowledge so could infact be making it much worse.
Your only evidence into believing the world will be better is based upon your own arrogance.
Making the world a better place isn't as mysterious a task as you think.
People out there right now are making it a better place...one person or one town at a time.
I'd probably have more understanding for a person who just did it for greed and selfish reasons (not I mean I'd understand why they did it not agree with it or in anyway support it).
I'd undertsand completely selfish reasons too.
It's not hard to understand someone who is selfish, nor is it hard to understand someone who would do it for altruistic reasons.
You are making something simple into something complicated in order to make it easier for you to pass judgment.
Kill 1 for a ton of money and be rich - Selfish
Kill 1 in order to cure cancer, or improve lives - Altruistic
See, I understood both of those things in just one sentence.
Both do something immoral. One continues to be selfish afterwards, the other tries to be a benefit to humanity afterwards.
What your effectively doing is playing russian roulette with the outcome of the world, odds are the stranger means nothing to the world, theres also the possibility that they are some future tyrant/saviour.
Lets see, there are a million possibilities that await the future of the man.
He could be Edward Jenner, he could be Hitler, or he could just be a pizza delivery guy, or a telemarketer.
No one KNOWS, and so you play astronomical odds here.
I can change the world for the better, and because I KNOW that is what my plan would be, I reduce the effect of odds.
Its actually playing less odds to take initiative.
At the end of the day Dcartist hit the nail on the head in that you think you have the right to play God and control the fate of an innocent based on your misguided belief that your being altruistic.
I'm not playing god. I don't believe in gods.
I am playing myself, doing something.
What I am doing you may hate or disagree with...but then what do I care.
Someone testing a new and risky surgery upon a cancer patient, with the knowledge that it could go wrong isn't "playing god" either.
They are playing a doctor with a new and risky surgery.
It is not a misguided belief that I am being altruistic.
If I work to improve humanity for the sake of humanity, I am being altruistic.
How I got the resources TO be altruistic is what you have a problem with.
Someone giving their time to volunteer work cleaning up the beach, is being altruistic. If they stole a car to drive there, it doesn't make the act of cleaning up the beach nonaltruistic.
You make say stealing the car to drive to the beach was immoral, and you'd be right. But the beach cleaning is still a good deed.
I really HATE this "playing god" crap.
We are 100% responsible for everything we do. We aren't "acting" like anything else but ourselves.
When a guy runs into a burning building to save someone, he isnt "playing fireman" he is just trying to save a life.
When a woman gives cpr to a kid at the lake, she isn't "playing lifeguard" she is just trying to save a life.
"Playing god" implies that there's someone ELSE (god) whose job it is to make those kinds of decisions or perform those kinds of actions.
Thats my problem. There isn't someone else. Its OUR decisions to make. OUR actions to take. I'm not playing games, and I'm not pretending to be someone else. I am "playing human" is what I'm doing.
Save your bull**** for the weak minded.
You say I'm "playing god"
Well then why doesn't "god" start "playing god" so that I dont have to??
Oh thats right...it's a figure of speech
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
In fact, more so for the ones in which people know I did it. I would rather have the integrity to do the deed with an audience than to be sneaky about it. At least then I can say "Hey, hate me if ya want to, but with my wish (or with the billions of dollars) I will make this world a hundred times better/save thousands of lives"
We drop bombs on people simply because we don't like their Kool-Aid...whats is killing one person for a pretty good reason?
Now, if I take my wish or money and just hog it all, and be a selfish tool with it...then I would deserve to get my come-uppance.
Hundreds of millions/billions of dollars > One life.
One awesome world improving wish > One life.
In fact, I'd offer to the Gman that I kill a few more who deserve to die, after I kill this stranger.
*Note...I would gladly volunteer to BE the stranger who gets killed, if the person shooting makes a wish that betters the world, or uses the money for good things/deeds.
I'm not playing god. I don't believe in gods.
I am playing myself, doing something.
What I am doing you may hate or disagree with...but then what do I care
"Playing God" as an ethical concept exists without the need for theology.
You're "declaring yourself king". You're "taking on the role of the govt and violating the social contract.
When you assassinate a person, you are exceeding your legal, moral and ethical authority as an individual. Taking away everything that a man is from them, including their ability to enjoy a good meal, conversation with friends, or a debate on MtG. To that person, you ARE God. You hold the power of life and death over them. Nobody elected you leader of the world. Nobody sanctioned you to make the life and death decisions of the world.
You have no right. Any more than I have the right to kill you because it will bump me up into the top 8 of a PTQ.
The fact that you can talk about casually snuffing a man's life, a man who would beg and plead, and fight to his dying breath to stay alive... a man with loved ones... while you tell them in clinical tones about how the billions of dollars you get will do a lot of good. It's monstrous.
I would kill the stranger, for a wish, or $100,000,000,000 either way. I'd do it in secret, in public, in front of their family whatever.
So if Bill Gates kills a person, should the state offer him amnesty as long as he agrees to give a billion dollars to charity?
There's a reason that saving lives doesn't give you the right to take more.
Also, you're making the erroneous argument that not being a nazi was objectively right.
I agree 100% that the Nazi's were wrong. But the Nazi's thought they were doing the right thing. Everyone is led to believe what they believe.
100 > 1
Fine... you are a consequentialist. You believe what you believe:
(1) You would murder an innocent person for $100,000,000,000 out of consequentialism. Logically then, you would be willing to rape a preteen girl for $100,000,000,000 to save lives, etc. right?
(2) Did you ever consider the fact that if EVERYBODY violated the MOST IMPORTANT LAWS OF OUR NATION: MURDER, RAPE, etc. based on CONSEQUENTIALISM, making their own "judgment calls"... ( "oh the world would definitely be better off without... <fillin the blank>" ). You're quoting the rulebook for political assassination.
(3) Actually you're quoting the rulebook for TERRORISM. The world will clearly be better off without... < name your politician>.
What is a terrorist? A consequentialist who believes that he can accomplish some 'greater goal' by killing innocent people. Yeah, that cafe was full of innocent countrymen... but if it gets the Americans out of the country, then the ends justify the means. Would you blow up a planeful of innocent people if the end result is that the Russians will lose political resolve, and thus end a bloody ground conflict in Afghanistan? What does that make you? A terrorist.
"Playing God" as an ethical concept exists without the need for theology.
I agree.
It still implies that its "someone elses job" to make these decisions, or perform these actions.
You support my point here.
When you assassinate a person, you are exceeding your legal, moral and ethical authority as an individual. Taking away everything that a man is from them, including their ability to enjoy a good meal, conversation with friends, or a debate on MtG.
So only cops, or soldiers, or the guy who operates the lethal injection machine have this authority you speak of?
I see. And who gives them THEIR authority? We do. We hire them, we elect them, we put them into place.
We are all our own gods.
You have no right. Any more than I have the right to kill you because it will bump me up into the top 8 of a PTQ.
I don't have the RIGHT to. I never said I did.
Not having the right =/= not having the ability
The fact that you can talk about casually snuffing a man's life, a man who would beg and plead, and fight to his dying breath to stay alive... a man with loved ones... while you tell them in clinical tones about how the billions of dollars you get will do a lot of good. It's monstrous.
There is NOTHING casual about it.
If you think its casual, that's your problem.
Also, who ever said I would tell him why he is dying?
Do you think I should? Would that be good?
Every sane person pleads for their life, even the murderer in the noose.
So if Bill Gates kills a person, should the state offer him amnesty as long as he agrees to give a billion dollars to charity?
I'd find a way to forgive Bill Gates.
We lock people (murders or whatever) in prison, or put them to death, to eliminate them as a threat to society. Heck, we even lock up pot smokers right.
Bill Gates would be a strong candidate for reform, rehab, release, and an insanely LARGE fine
There's a reason that saving lives doesn't give you the right to take more.
Thats just flat out wrong.
Wrong, naive, and inaccurate.
Every war ever fought has required that we TAKE lives in order to SAVE lives. Justice gives us the right to take lives.
Or at least thats the case for the "good guys" in war, or law enforcement, or pretty much anything else for that matter.
We have made the decision COUNTLESS times to take some lives in order to save many more.
What planet do you live on???
Sometimes I feel like delusional moral dreamers populate the forum.
The real world awaits, its out there. Maybe you should take a look.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
And my point has always been that we have always been willing to sacrifice innocent lives in the pursuit of good causes.
We don't sacrifice lives; they are not ours to sacrifice. We kill them.
This is no different.
You THINK it's different because instead of "accidently" killing some innocents with a moab, I am personally taking the responsibility of it.
I'm sure responsibility is almost never an issue when it comes to these incidents.
Answer me this.
If the duty was to drop a moab on a city block in another country housing a violent terrorist cell, knowing full well that innocent noncombatants live there and might possibly die (not just one either, but maybe a dozen or more) in order to grant the wish. Would I be "more evil" or "less evil" if I tried really really hard to reduce how many innocents died, And only 6 innocents bit the dust?
If you want to use those terms, yes, you would. Your goal is to avoid innocent casualties.
Not one person on this forum has come remotely close to demonstrating the existence of a morality code that is objective.
All they do is vehemently disagree with me, then haand wave everything claiming I haven't supported my case reasonably, which is both untrue, and just poor debate behavior. Especially when I posted pages upon pages of links.
I don't care, nor do I see this as relevant, not to mention I wasn't there.
I showed its subjectivity by the very definition of the word subjective (both the dictionary definition, and the philosophical definition), and backed it up with scientific evidence relating to how the brain works, the roots of moral thought, and how morality can be altered and changed almost as easily as Pavlovs dog.
The fact that millions or even billions of people who share similar (subjective) moral beliefs get together and shape a moral structure that they all agree to (social contract and all that) doesn't make what is "right" and "wrong" objective.
I do remember briefly skimming this, but I never remember any proof that morality was subjective.
Even if I felt like stooping to your otherwise strawman argument here.
Science IS subjective (a hint would be that science is a method, not an object). We change it all the time based on new evidence. What we know about the universe and how things works is subject to new information all the time. This is subjectivity. I shouldn't need to explain that to you.
What ISN'T subjective, is what we are studying with science.
Particles are objective, what we know about them isn't.
Gravity is objective, what we know about it isn't.
Energy is objective, what we know about it isn't.
Er, then if you want to word it like that: Morality is subjective, what it studies isn't.
Morality is rooted in brain functions.
The brain functions are changeable by external pressures, life experiences, environment, upbringing, training, indoctrination, etc.
History shows that massive cultural and social changes in these patterns have occured repeatedly, and it takes individuals brains collected in large groups to do this.
If only ONE person ever thought slavery was wrong, then it wouldn't have been changed, especially after that ONE jerk in town passed away.
But one, finds another one who agrees, and so on and on, until its a movement, and that movement converts or changes the minds of others until their effect is stronger than the opposition.
Then there really is no such thing as an objective concept; they're all rooted in our brains, right?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"If you're Havengul problems I feel bad for you son, I got 99 problems and a Lich ain't one." - FSM
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
I see. And who gives them THEIR authority? We do. We hire them, we elect them, we put them into place. We are all our own gods.
Yes. *WE* voted them into place.
Not IceCreamman80 by himself.
I missed the part where we all voted and decided that that person should die so you could get a $100 billion dollars.
Hey, do you think that if the nation voted on whether to kill that innocent man in order for YOU to get $100 billion dollars (to spend as you like), that we'd VOTE for you to let you take the money.
Sometimes I feel like delusional moral dreamers populate the forum.
The real world awaits, its out there. Maybe you should take a look.
I live in a world in which I don't kill people whenever I think it's a big, net positive for the world.
We call those people terrorists and assassins.
And you dodged the questions, so I'll boil it down to two:
(1) We know you would murder an innocent person for $100,000,000,000 (out of consequentialism, all the good you could do). Would you be willing to rape a preteen girl for $100,000,000,000?
(2) Would you suicide bomb a cafe full of innocent people for $100,000,000,000? IF NOT, WHY NOT, given the justifications you just cited?
Situation 1: I would most likely agree, and try to flag down the man (my target) to have a conversation with him; wherein I would explain the good I could do by killing him. I feel like one of the worst parts of dying is that it just happens. It feels meaningless, empty, nullifies everything you've ever done. If I were to know that by dying, I could have more impact on the world than I could ever achieve in life- I would at least be more comfortable with the situation. Maybe this would be scarring, but I -for whatever reason- feel the need to be fair to the man I'm about to kill.
The second situation: Similar situation to the above. Raising the dead would be simply too amazing to pass up. There are so many people that are worth bringing back to change the world.
The third situation:...same as the above really.
Whole thing is a nice way to break down someone's morality and way of thinking; nice thread OP. It's exercises like this one that remind me how deep in the grey my morality is. Read too many comics methinks.
I think any further debating with icecream is pointless as he holds anyone that disagrees with his strange morality in contempt (another sign of a sociopath for those keeping score). I am curious why you think you of all people are more capable of helping the world via murder for money than any other idealist with a gun.
I'm sure the terrorists that bombed the twin towers thought they were doing good and making the world a better place.... doesn't mean they were right just because they believed it.
If someone had taken the Queen hostage and demanded a billion pounds, then shot her and spent the money on AIDS medicine for Africa, would they have been praised or arrested ? You know as well as I do they would have gone to jail (or worse) as they deserved despite using the blood money for a worthy cause.
Also for the record I come from a country without the death penalty and where police are not allowed to shoot to kill, so no cops etc do not get a free card to kill here, noone has that right in my eyes.
Your example is extremely flimsy. Of course they would be arrested, with a possibility of being killed. By the same token, One Hundred Billion is a lot of money, especially to a good cause like that. 100 Billion equates to a lot of lives saved from the most horrific disease since the Plague. That may not completely invalidate your point, but think of it this way;
You can do something good and be condemned, or do nothing and be forgotten. Your call- but sometimes History is the only judge worth answering to.
I showed its subjectivity by the very definition of the word subjective (both the dictionary definition, and the philosophical definition), and backed it up with scientific evidence relating to how the brain works, the roots of moral thought, and how morality can be altered and changed almost as easily as Pavlovs dog.
All you showed was an inability to understand the distinction between beliefs and facts.
Science IS subjective (a hint would be that science is a method, not an object). We change it all the time based on new evidence.
I change my shirt every day for no reason at all. Does that mean my shirt is subjective? Of course not. A statement is subjective if its truth value is dependent on the observer. "Blinking Spirit's shirt is green" is an objective statement, even though it's true today and may be false tomorrow. "Blinking Spirit believes his shirt is green" is also an objective statement, even though it refers to my beliefs (and, again, will not be true tomorrow). And "green is the best color" is a subjective statement, even though it's going to be just as true (from my perspective) tomorrow as today. "Gravity is the warping of spacetime" is an objective statement, and barring some serious rearranging of the fundamental functions of the universe it's probably not going to change, but what scientists believe about it might. "Scientists believe that gravity is the warping of spacetime" is also an objective statement, again despite being subject to change and about beliefs. "Einstein's general theory of relativity, which indicates that gravity is the warping of spacetime, is elegant and beautiful" is a subjective statement, even though it's going to be just as true (from my perspective) tomorrow as today.
What we know about the universe and how things works is subject to new information all the time. This is subjectivity. I shouldn't need to explain that to you.
Yeah, because it's never good to explain things completely wrong. Get your information straight before trying to lecture others.
And if you break out your dictionary again to try and show that I am wrong, the extent of my reply will be a ROFL emoticon. I am telling you how the terms you're employing are actually used in philosophical writing and discourse. Actual usage is prior to and has priority over what the lexicographers have written, just as the facts are prior to and have priority over scientific beliefs - after all, lexicography is a form of science too, is engaged in the same pursuit of seeking to capture certain truths external to it, and is just as fallible at doing so.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Since icecreamman80 refuses to provide an answer to the direct questions, maybe you have te guts to step up & give us the consequentialist position:
(1) if youre willing to murder an innocent person, would you commit forcible rape on a child for $100 billion?
(2) would you blow up 10 innocent people in a Starbucks for $100 billion?
Simple questions. Shouldn't be any harder to answer than the OP.
1.) Glady? No. In all honesty though, I doubt I could live with myself afterwards. There's not a lot of ways I can word this, and the whole thing is extremely morbid. I would pay the family of the girl for the best therapy money could buy- not to help myself feel better; but because it's the least I can do. Bottom line though; the suffering inflicted is worth the good I'd like to pretend I could do with A hundred billion, minus restitution. Murder I can almost justify. Some people need to be killed, it's over quickly, it's horrifying- but can be sometimes justified (I'm not going to dance around the Hitler example). Rape? There's a very real possibility I would do what I could with the money, then end my life.
2.) 10 lives. 100 Billion. Feels like a horror movie. Some deals must be made- even with the devil. Who knows, maybe that 100 billion could advance Stem Cell research enough to save the lives of newborns, cure paralysis, or cancer. Either way, I imagine it would haunt me for the rest of my life. Would I do it though? Yes. Some lines must be crossed.
We don't sacrifice lives; they are not ours to sacrifice. We kill them.
So I'M the silver liner here? Wow. I'm shocked.
I completely agree, we KILL them. But I would also agree with someone saying they were sacrificed at the altar of freedom, et al.
I'm sure responsibility is almost never an issue when it comes to these incidents.
Bull****.
They pass the buck so often its scary.
The finger pointing when innocent people get bombed, and the media catches wind of it is rediculous. Watch the news.
If you want to use those terms, yes, you would. Your goal is to avoid innocent casualties.
Which one, this isn't clear. "Less", or "more"?
I do remember briefly skimming this, but I never remember any proof that morality was subjective.
And I never said I proved it. I never even said my evidence proved it.
I only said it pointed in that direction, and only the most loose, and liberal of interpretations would say it points towards objectivity.
Er, then if you want to word it like that: Morality is subjective, what it studies isn't.
Morality is more analogous to Justice than it is to Gravity.
Then there really is no such thing as an objective concept; they're all rooted in our brains, right?
I'd lean that way yes.
Concepts. I wouldn't call many things concepts though.
The concepts of Freedom, or Justice for example I would say are very much subjective...even if we manifest those concepts in real practice, pushing them closer and closer to objectivity.
Belgareth
I think any further debating with icecream is pointless as he holds anyone that disagrees with his strange morality in contempt (another sign of a sociopath for those keeping score). I am curious why you think you of all people are more capable of helping the world via murder for money than any other idealist with a gun.
I think MANY other idealists, sometimes in very large groups of like-minded idealists use guns to help the world. Whats your point?
History would agree with me here.
I'm sure the terrorists that bombed the twin towers thought they were doing good and making the world a better place.... doesn't mean they were right just because they believed it.
It also doesn't mean they were OBjectively wrong just because we believe they were wrong.
Yes, they probably do think, or did think, that they were doing the right thing. And we think they were doing the wrong thing. But unless you want to argue that other people in other cultures not remotely under your control do not have the right to decide for themselves what is right and wrong, I don't see your point.
If you do want to argue that they don't have the right to decide whats moral for themselves, then argue with someone else. I don't write morality.
If someone had taken the Queen hostage and demanded a billion pounds, then shot her and spent the money on AIDS medicine for Africa, would they have been praised or arrested ? You know as well as I do they would have gone to jail (or worse) as they deserved despite using the blood money for a worthy cause.
Funny, I'd say that the Queen being killed is a horrible crime, but mitigated by the actions they took.
I do know they would likely go to jail and be hanged quickly, with probably a much more expedient trial than Saddam Hussein got in Iraq.
How they got the money to help Africa is the crime they will die for.
Helping Africa is an action that millions of people will later thank him for.
Also for the record I come from a country without the death penalty and where police are not allowed to shoot to kill, so no cops etc do not get a free card to kill here, noone has that right in my eyes.
Wonderful. Here they do.
See...different strokes for different folks yo!
Dcartist
Since icecreamman80 refuses to provide an answer to the direct questions, maybe you have te guts to step up & give us the consequentialist position:
(1) if youre willing to murder an innocent person, would you commit forcible rape on a child for $100 billion?
(2) would you blow up 10 innocent people in a Starbucks for $100 billion?
Simple questions. Shouldn't be any harder to answer than the OP.
Well PARDON ME for having stuff to do today that took me away from my desk.:rolleyes:
1) If I'd KILL a guy for it, how is this question harder?
Am I sick ****ing moster if I say yes? Damn right I am. I'd be a monster and I'd deserve to die.
What is really silly, really really silly. Is that in the real world, child rapists do 3-5 years, with registration and probation. They get released, they live next door, they live down the street. Hell, some of them live 200 yards from a school. They wait tables, do landscaping, they get hired as telemarketers, or grocery baggers. Some convicted child rapists even perform jobs where they are exposed to the personal credit and identification information of thousands of people.
They are not being lynched, or burned at the stake. They are not being killed, or castrated. They walk among us. They are watching the big game, they are ordering the pizzas, they are buying the beers.
They ****ing WRECK children, and get a ****ing slap on the wrist.
You know what else. This is happening, in rediculously voluminous numbers, but NOONE is getting to make a wish, or donating 100billion to charities. None of these rapists are treating aids in africa, none of them are caring for orphaned amputees in Cambodia or Pakistan.
Killing a guy, even though it is just as horrible, and even more final (death after all), its not something I find disgusting and repugnant.
2) It would have to be a damn miracle to find 10 people in a Starbucks all at one time who were "innocent".
That being said.
10 isn't that large a number. If you really wanted to test me. The right question would be: "Would you kill 49%, to save 51%?"
Someone DID ask me that ( i forget who)...I have not yet decided, it's a tough question.
My answer at the time was that based on pure numbers.
99% of the human race could die, and we wouldn't be in any danger of extinction. 1% (70,000,000) is plenty people to repopulate the world. In fact that is probably even 10000 times more than our species started with and look at us now.
So technically, if the situation called for it, in order to save HUMANITY, I'd be willing to part with 99% of it.
That's about the most rediculous of hypotheticals though, I mean what, a meteor is going to hit, and I only have room in my bomb shelter for 70 million people???:rolleyes:
I have a sneaking suspicion that this debate is going to start repeating things that I've already said before, maybe even more than once.:-/
All you showed was an inability to understand the distinction between beliefs and facts.
So its a fact now that morality is objective? can I do a rofl emoticon?
I'll go ahead and go with the evidence, definitions, and supporting materials I have studied over your mighty mtgsalvation opinion.
I never said you had to believe what i believe, and I also never said I could PROVE it.
But to hand wave the evidence and sources I presented is your problem, not mine.
I change my shirt every day for no reason at all. Does that mean my shirt is subjective?
Morality is not a shirt, it is not an object. It doesn't have object permanence. I did this game with you about the Moon too didn't I? You, like other people in your camp, ALWAYS try this same game using the Moon, or a Shirt, or a Cowboy Hat or a Dog.
How about you try not to strawman me.
Your argument would hold more water, in this case even a drop would count, if you compared it to say "Freedom" or "Justice" or "Capitalism" or "Oppression"
Morality is more analogous to Justice than it is to T-shirts.
Of course not. A statement is subjective if its truth value is dependent on the observer. "Blinking Spirit's shirt is green" is an objective statement, even though it's true today and may be false tomorrow. "Blinking Spirit believes his shirt is green" is also an objective statement, even though it refers to my beliefs (and, again, will not be true tomorrow). And "green is the best color" is a subjective statement, even though it's going to be just as true (from my perspective) tomorrow as today. "Gravity is the warping of spacetime" is an objective statement, and barring some serious rearranging of the fundamental functions of the universe it's probably not going to change, but what scientists believe about it might. "Scientists believe that gravity is the warping of spacetime" is also an objective statement, again despite being subject to change and about beliefs. "Einstein's general theory of relativity, which indicates that gravity is the warping of spacetime, is elegant and beautiful" is a subjective statement, even though it's going to be just as true (from my perspective) tomorrow as today.
"Blinking Spirit should give money to the poor because it is the right thing to do" =/= "Blinking Spirit is wearing a cowboy hat"
"Blinking spirit shouldn't cheat on his wife because its wrong" =/= "Blinking Spirits shirt is green"
"Icecreamman80 is wrong to kill a guy for 100billion dollars" =/= "Gravity is the term we use to explain mass attracting to mass"
not even a little bit. not even a little ****ing bitty bit.
Yeah, because it's never good to explain things completely wrong. Get your information straight before trying to lecture others.
I couldn't agree more.
And if you break out your dictionary again to try and show that I am wrong, the extent of my reply will be a ROFL emoticon. I am telling you how the terms you're employing are actually used in philosophical writing and discourse. Actual usage is prior to and has priority over what the lexicographers have written, just as the facts are prior to and have priority over scientific beliefs - after all, lexicography is a form of science too, is engaged in the same pursuit of seeking to capture certain truths external to it, and is just as fallible at doing so.
Even your precious PHILOSOPHICAL dictionary did NOT contradict my definition. It did as much to support my position as webster.
http://www.ditext.com/runes/s.html Subjectivism: a) In Epistemology: The restriction of knowledge to the knowing subject and its sensory, affective ind volitional states and to such external realities as may be inferred from the mind's subjective states. See Solipsism, Ego-centric Predicament. b) In Axiology: The doctrine that moral and aesthetic values represent the subjective feelings and reactions of individual minds and have no status independent of such reactions. Ethical subjectivism finds typical expression in Westermarck's doctrine that moral judgments have reference to our emotions of approval and disapproval. See The Origin and Development of Moral Ideas. Vol. 1, Ch. l. -- L.W.
Unless you can show morality is somehow independent of our minds, either individually, or multiplicatively. I'll just go with the evidence. You have convinced me of NOTHING, and hand wave everything.
This, and the entire extended ramble that follows it, would be a lot more relevant a response had I written a single word in that post about morality. You may be convinced that you're refighting the same battle, but that's just a self-fulfilling prophecy and one I'm not interested in fulfilling. (If I were, though, I might say that this, and the entire extended ramble that follows it, is also an crystal-clear example of special pleading.)
Something is subjective insofar as it is dependent on either a particular mind or minds in general.
Terrible vague definition that any decent philosophy student could pick apart. To give some easy counterexamples, "Blinking Spirit is bored" is an objective statement about the state of my mind, "Blinking Spirit sees a computer screen" is an objective statement about what I am perceiving in my mind, and "Blinking Spirit is typing" is an objective statement about my voluntary actions which are, of course, dependent on my mind. These are objective because any hypothetical observer with access to the relevant facts would agree on their truth values (whether true or false). Scientific claims are likewise objective, for the same reason. So when you say that science is subjective, you are wrong. And when you say that science is subjective because it has something to do with the minds of scientists, you demonstrate that you don't understand the meaning of the term.
Wait a minute. Stop composing your no-doubt-histrionic-and-unnecessarily-profane response and note the following: I have still not written a single word about morality. ... Okay. You may continue.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
(1) if youre willing to murder an innocent person, would you commit forcible rape on a child for $100 billion?
1.) ... Glady? No. In all honesty though, I doubt I could live with myself afterwards. There's not a lot of ways I can word this, and the whole thing is extremely morbid. I would pay the family of the girl for the best therapy money could buy- not to help myself feel better; but because it's the least I can do. Bottom line though; the suffering inflicted is worth the good I'd like to pretend I could do with A hundred billion, minus restitution. Murder I can almost justify. Some people need to be killed, it's over quickly, it's horrifying- but can be sometimes justified (I'm not going to dance around the Hitler example). Rape? There's a very real possibility I would do what I could with the money,
then end my life.
so your answer is "yes", with a side order of suicide.
Quote from Zelderex »
Quote from dcartist »
(2) would you blow up 10 innocent people in a Starbucks for $100 billion?
2.) 10 lives. 100 Billion. Feels like a horror movie. Some deals must be made- even with the devil. Who knows, maybe that 100 billion could advance Stem Cell research enough to save the lives of newborns, cure paralysis, or cancer. Either way, I imagine it would haunt me for the rest of my life. Would I do it though?
Yes. Some lines must be crossed.
again, short version of your answer is "yes, some lines must be crossed".
Quote from IceCreamMan80 »
Quote from dcartist »
(1) if youre willing to murder an innocent person, would you commit forcible rape on a child for $100 billion?
1) If I'd KILL a guy for it, how is this question harder?
Am I sick ****ing moster if I say yes? Damn right I am. I'd be a monster and I'd deserve to die.
What is really silly, really really silly. Is that in the real world, child rapists do 3-5 years, with registration and probation. They get released, they live next door, they live down the street. Hell, some of them live 200 yards from a school. They wait tables, do landscaping, they get hired as telemarketers, or grocery baggers. Some convicted child rapists even perform jobs where they are exposed to the personal credit and identification information of thousands of people.
They are not being lynched, or burned at the stake. They are not being killed, or castrated. They walk among us. They are watching the big game, they are ordering the pizzas, they are buying the beers.
They ****ing WRECK children, and get a ****ing slap on the wrist.
You know what else. This is happening, in rediculously voluminous numbers, but NOONE is getting to make a wish, or donating 100billion to charities. None of these rapists are treating aids in africa, none of them are caring for orphaned amputees in Cambodia or Pakistan.
Killing a guy, even though it is just as horrible, and even more final (death after all), its not something I find disgusting and repugnant.
I'd be a monster and I'd deserve to die.
so your answer is "yes", but hold the suicide (though you do feel you would deserve to die...)
Quote from IcecreamMan80 »
Quote from dcartist »
(2) would you blow up 10 innocent people in a Starbucks for $100 billion?
2) It would have to be a damn miracle to find 10 people in a Starbucks all at one time who were "innocent".
That being said.
10 isn't that large a number. If you really wanted to test me. The right question would be:
"Would you kill 49%, to save 51%?"
Someone DID ask me that ( i forget who)...I have not yet decided, it's a tough question.
My answer at the time was that based on pure numbers.
99% of the human race could die, and we wouldn't be in any danger of extinction. 1% (70,000,000) is plenty people to repopulate the world. In fact that is probably even 10000 times more than our species started with and look at us now.
So technically, if the situation called for it, in order to save HUMANITY, I'd be willing to part with 99% of it.
That's about the most rediculous of hypotheticals though, I mean what, a meteor is going to hit, and I only have room in my bomb shelter for 70 million people???
10 isn't that large a number.
again, short version of your answer is "yes", and it's not even a tough call.
Well, to question (1), just... Wow. Sticking to your guns. I used it as a better version of the OP question because it forces you to actually face the ugliness of the violation (whereas some people can easily perform the mental exercise of snuffing a person without "getting their hands dirty", and rationalize it away as almost nothing). I guess you're both "all in" on your conviction that the world will be that much better off if you personally had $100 billion in your hands, and that you have the will, the right, and the duty to commit ANY crime if it clearly results in what you perceive to be a big net gain for the world from a consequentialist standpoint.
On question (2), again, Wow. I chose this question because its straight up terrorism for hire, and now I dont have to say "its like terrorism"... It IS terrorism.
That you would be willing to accept a suitcase with $100 billion in it (presumably from an Arab in a nice suit or his white lawyer in a nice suit), and in exchange, blow up 10 civilians enjoying coffee at Starbucks. It means you're OK with terrorism as a means of achieving societal improvement. Are you Anders Behring Breivik, just waiting to happen, if you find the right opportunity?
Not only did IceCreamMan80 say "yes", he also implied it was an easy call.
So my follow up questions:
(a) what is the minimum amount of money you would accept to blow up 10 people in a Starbucks or commit that rape?
(b) getting back to the govt and "we" deciding who lives and who dies, do you believe that the majority of humans (or Americans or whatever country you live in) would vote "yes" on a referendum authorizing *YOU* to receive $100 billion to rape a child or commit terrorism on 10 people at Starbucks?
so your answer is "yes", but hold the suicide (though you do feel you would deserve to die...)
I thought I also said I'd kill myself, I might have made a cut/paste error, I do alot of cut/paste when I respon usually because I'm using word to type everything out before posting it.
again, short version of your answer is "yes", and it's not even a tough call.
I'm pretty sure, that when I said, in order to save MANKIND, 99% are potentially expendable. There really isn't a tougher call. Is there?
Well, to question (1), just... Wow. Sticking to your guns. I used it as a better version of the OP question because it forces you to actually face the ugliness of the violation (whereas some people can easily perform the mental exercise of snuffing a person without "getting their hands dirty", and rationalize it away as almost nothing). I guess you're both "all in" on your conviction that the world will be that much better off if you personally had $100 billion in your hands, and that you have the will, the right, and the duty to commit ANY crime if it clearly results in what you perceive to be a big net gain for the world from a consequentialist standpoint.
Never said I had the RIGHT to do it.
You people...sheesh
The will, yes. The ability, yes.
The duty? Thats a subjective question, some would say I do have a duty, others would disagree.
The right. Ha, no, and I never said so.
On question (2), again, Wow. I chose this question because its straight up terrorism for hire, and now I dont have to say "its like terrorism"... It IS terrorism.
That you would be willing to accept a suitcase with $100 billion in it (presumably from an Arab in a nice suit or his white lawyer in a nice suit), and in exchange, blow up 10 civilians enjoying coffee at Starbucks. It means you're OK with terrorism as a means of achieving societal improvement. Are you Anders Behring Breivik, just waiting to happen, if you find the right opportunity?
Yes, its terroism in practice (blowing up a café), but not in purpose (fighting the evil western infidels).
Terrorism is used to cause "Terror".
It's used to cause fear, so that the "terror"ized public will be mentally effected. The goal being that we change our behavior in response to the act of terrorism. Guess what, they win almost all the time.
After all, we did start full body scans, invasive searches, more cameras, more calltaps. We passed the Patriot Act. etc. The terrorists won, even if it looks they they are losing. We, in fear, sacrificed our liberties, to feel safer. Benjamin Franklin would be sad.
Hyjackers flew planes into the WTC not to "kill 3,000" people", in fact, the buildings FALLING DOWN was something they likely didn't expect. They did it to "strike fear in the infidels" or "destroy a valuable symbol of the evil western devils power". They expected casualties sure, they flew planes into buildings, but the actual number of deaths was not the goal of the act. The fear and terror was the goal.
Not only did IceCreamMan80 say "yes", he also implied it was an easy call.
Its certainly not greater than 99%, its not even greater than 0.0000000007%
So my follow up questions:
(a) what is the minimum amount of money you would accept to blow up 10 people in a Starbucks or commit that rape?
I really don't know.
I'm pretty sure though, that whatever it is, these deeper questions are your attempt to further villainize me on the forum.
So how bout we just say "Icecreamman80 is a cold blooded monster"
and move past the multitude of rediculous hypotheticals that have next to zero chance of presenting themselves in reality.
(b) getting back to the govt and "we" deciding who lives and who dies, do you believe that the majority of humans (or Americans or whatever country you live in) would vote "yes" on a referendum authorizing *YOU* to receive $100 billion to rape a child or commit terrorism on 10 people at Starbucks?
Nope.
I'm pretty sure I'd get a minority % of votes though.
Presidents win the white house with 51%. I'd get between 2%-21% (wild guess) because I'm sure I am not the most hardcore "consequentialist" around.
Also, you're leaving out the very important part where we tell them what is being done with the $$$.
Without that information, it'd be close to 100% No. With the "greater good" information on the table however...
But I assume you're leaving that part out on purpose, because it helps you argue your point, even if it isn't accurate within this hypothetical.
This, and the entire extended ramble that follows it, would be a lot more relevant a response had I written a single word in that post about morality. You may be convinced that you're refighting the same battle, but that's just a self-fulfilling prophecy and one I'm not interested in fulfilling. (If I were, though, I might say that this, and the entire extended ramble that follows it, is also an crystal-clear example of special pleading.)
But we were TALKING about morality, I was in CONTEXT. Grow up child.
Terrible vague definition that any decent philosophy student could pick apart.
But it is the definition, even in philosophy, if you don't like it, rewrite philosophy. The student picking it apart, would also be wrong. Just like you are wrong. By definition. And he'd probably give me the same erroneous word games you give me. Maybe he'd give me better ones, you don't seem to be that good at it.
To give some easy counterexamples, "Blinking Spirit is bored" is an objective statement about the state of my mind, "Blinking Spirit sees a computer screen" is an objective statement about what I am perceiving in my mind, and "Blinking Spirit is typing" is an objective statement about my voluntary actions which are, of course, dependent on my mind.
"Blinkin Spirit is bored" is an objective statement about your state of mind, this is true. BOREDOM is subjective. Some people loooove golf or nascar.
"Blinking Spirit sees a computer screen" is an objective statement about what you are perceiving, true. Useful to the coversation? Not at all. I could go into how "seeing" is subjective. But I assume that you'd just say something like "any decent optometrist would pick you apart" or something along those lines.
"Blinking Spirit is Typing" is not even remotely analogous to the coversation we were having about morality. It wouldn't even be analogous to the conversation you were having with yourself about green t-shirts.
"Blinkin Spirit shouldn't drown kittens in a bucket because it is wrong" =/= "Blinkin Spirit is Running" or "typing" or "cooking" or "sitting in a chair" or "wearing a green shirt"
This really isn't that difficult to understand.
These are objective because any hypothetical observer with access to the relevant facts would agree on their truth values (whether true or false).
And "any hypothetical observer" is not going to come to the SAME exact conclusion, in a moral situation, even given all the same information.
Their minds have different moral constructs that they base their moral decision making process on.
Sure, many will make the same decision. Amazing! Some people think alike, caall the papers!:rolleyes:
Some will kill the guy for 100billion, others wont. given the exact same hypothetical.
Scientific claims are likewise objective, for the same reason. So when you say that science is subjective, you are wrong. And when you say that science is subjective because it has something to do with the minds of scientists, you demonstrate that you don't understand the meaning of the term.
How is a scientific claim objective?????????:o
So the scientific claim that the earth was the center of the universe was objective?!?! That we came from monkeys?!?!
Don't worry, I forgive you, I know that is not what you meant.:rolleyes:
This is a GROSS misunderstanding of what I said.
Science is a very broad term. The word may mean "study of" in one sentence, and "discoveries" in another, or even "physical truth" in another.
"science" is subjective as we understand it.
Science (The study of things) is objective. Insomuch as what other word would you use to describe a bunch of labcoats developing hypothesis, performing tests, observing results, repeating? http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science
1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2 a: a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study <the science of theology> b: something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge <have it down to a science>
3 a: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific methodb: such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : natural science
4
: a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws <cooking is both a science and an art>
What we understand about <insert phenomenon here> is subjective, the <phenomenon> is objective.
Mass attracts to mass.
How we understand it can change with new information.
The Scientific METHOD is pretty close to objective. It's a tried and true process we use to understand why the <phenomenon> is doing what it does.
Changing the process is less likely to happen than changing the information we receive from the process. I highly doubt we will stop "performing experiments" within the scientific process.
*Believe me, it is not I who has a misunderstanding of these TERMS.
Wait a minute. Stop composing your no-doubt-histrionic-and-unnecessarily-profane response and note the following: I have still not written a single word about morality. ... Okay. You may continue.
Heroic tales of defiance aside, the Greeks had plenty of reasons to think they could win. After all, they did win. And their advantage was not that their hearts were pure.
This sort of hyperbole only serves to close your mind and choke off real debate.
The website doesn't check your spelling. Your browser does.
Can't you see that you're conceding your position here?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Only because of a lack of information or a situation which is not clearly defined. Obviously, if the outcomes of not playing ball are more beneficial, they must not play ball to be considered one.
All the more reason to be disappointed in Firefox.
Elaborate?
I understand you come at it from a deontological stand point, but if by the actions are more fruitful to society than a consequentialist action, then by definition the consequentialist would have the change stance.
If your criteria for judgement on assessing how moral a moral decision is solely the outcome then nothing can be "better" than the consequentialist view for his basis for moral decisions are these outcomes. Granted, you can arrive at moral outcomes from deontology, but the criteria for arriving at such a decision is not based on outcomes.
Clearly, the best decision that could be made is going to be off imperfect information, but the moment wrong decisions are made or new information is introduced, such that a clearer image can be made, a consequentialist can change.
I was more specifically pointing out that adding in situations with multi-variables with little information is pointless. If I am held up by the Nazi's and forced this decision, how do I know the nazi's? Do I have adequate proof that they will stick to their word? Do I have any other potential options? Such a vague situation helps no one, because all your are really asking is a simple question which can be diverted to make the agent look bad. Of course if he thought they wouldn't hold to their word, he would take no action. Of course if he had other options which outweighed the other's, he would take them.
Its like me asking:
You see a man with an arrow in his chest, dying? Do you help him?Then you say yes and I go, "but you were the one who shot him, so why would you help him?"
The deontological approach is to stick to principles and say "THIS IS WRONG", and take the consequences (up to a point. We're obviously weak).
(I'm not saying that I personally am strong enough in my faith to follow through on my deontology in that situation. Such a claim is about as self-serving as the ones made by people in this thread that they'd kill themselves to save 100 other people or that they are taking a billion dollars primarily to help OTHERS. )
did Sophie Scholl stand up in vain?
The consequentialist approach to murder hire for the man with the suitcase, is to kill because he can do a lot of good with the billion dollars.
The deontologist approach to murder for hire is that he won't play ball with the man in the suitcase.
If standing up and saying what is wrong can save millions by stopping the war (the justification used to argue against standing up at least one of the.) and in the long run, saves more people, the consequentialist will react as such.
If it can be shown that the money can be more beneficial than the man by saving others, of course. Its difficult to prove that and I certainly wouldn't kill a man in that situation.
I'm almost entirely confident this has nothing to do with the point of our conversation. "People die" is and has never been a good justification to killing innocents.
I can only demonstrate it in theory; I have no way of knowing or verifying that my moral code is anything close to "the" morality. I can, however, provide pretty sound reasoning in favor of my morality.
Then all truths are subject to the opinions of those who hold them, i.e., science is a sham.
No, it doesn't. Otherwise it wouldn't be one of the most contested topics in philosophy. The "mountain of evidence" I assume you're referring to suggests that peoples' beliefs are subjective... which is unarguably true.
Regardless, none of this argument has anything to do with my original point (which I think you actually conceded to me somewhere around here): that killing an innocent person is inherently counter-productive in regards to human rights (or in other words, immoral). The difference between you and I is that you would accept the burden.
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
Ashcoat Bear of Limited
There is no guarantee though, and even the probabilities say that your personal sacrifice (just as your personal vote in an election) will make NO dIFFERENCE in the ultimate outcome. The consequentialist says take the course of action that produces the best foreseeable outcome.
The deontologist says "do what I believe is right"... Which CAN make the deontologists more powerful in that situation because they don't need to communicate to present a unified front. They will stick to their guns, while the consequentialists have to rely on the situational information they have. Though I guess you can argue that in situations that require compromise, the consequentialist approach is better.
Nobody is purely one or the other anyway. We almost all have principles we won't violate, and we almost all can find situations where we'll compromise some of our deeply held beliefs.
Either approach has it's merits and we all operate using a little of both, but in the situation of committing murder for hire from an unknown man with a suitcase, I have to draw the line there.
You think Rosa Parks was the first person to defy the "back of the bus" rule? Do you think she knew that she was the tipping point? How many black people do you think got beat up or arrested or intimidated when they stood up for themselves and said "this is wrong"?
But if you know that it takes a majority of people to stand up and change things for the better, and it is a better action to take, you will take it. The fact is, if there is an action that results in a better outcome from any moral standpoint, it will be considered by a consequentialist. It doesn't necessarily only concern itself with the short-term or direct outcomes.
by your reasoning, no black man should ever have been defiant or anything other than compliant until a MAJORITY of people stood up and defied the racist status quo.
The FACT is that we can't know all outcomes. And the principle matters more than the outcome.
I hesitated to bring the word up because somebody will inevitably muddle it up and confuse it with religion... But sometimes it takes FAITH that doing the right thing is the only course. Even if you know you're probably going to get a beat down along with the little guy getting bullied by the football players, you have to step up and say "This is wrong. Leave him alone." Even if you don't think the rest of the "majority" will have your back.
Within reason of course. Again, we all draw a line somewhere. And I don't want to argue that deontology=hero, and consequentialism=coward. I'm saying that under most circumstances, the way that consequentialism has been applied in this thread to say that killing an innocent for money is OK, doesn't cover all important aspects of the choices we make.
To me, it's the idea that who YOU were raised to be is your personal responsibility.
And my point has always been that we have always been willing to sacrifice innocent lives in the pursuit of good causes.
This is no different.
You THINK it's different because instead of "accidently" killing some innocents with a moab, I am personally taking the responsibility of it.
Answer me this.
If the duty was to drop a moab on a city block in another country housing a violent terrorist cell, knowing full well that innocent noncombatants live there and might possibly die (not just one either, but maybe a dozen or more) in order to grant the wish. Would I be "more evil" or "less evil" if I tried really really hard to reduce how many innocents died, And only 6 innocents bit the dust?
This IS what we do everyday. We do this for reasons that are much more nuanced and less directly beneficial. "Freedom" "Democracy" etc.
The principle is worth lives.
You think I'm not standing up for my principles by killing the stranger.
Maybe I'm not adhereing to my morals. But I am killing him for a principle.
Not one person on this forum has come remotely close to demonstrating the existence of a morality code that is objective.
All they do is vehemently disagree with me, then haand wave everything claiming I haven't supported my case reasonably, which is both untrue, and just poor debate behavior. Especially when I posted pages upon pages of links.
I showed its subjectivity by the very definition of the word subjective (both the dictionary definition, and the philosophical definition), and backed it up with scientific evidence relating to how the brain works, the roots of moral thought, and how morality can be altered and changed almost as easily as Pavlovs dog.
The fact that millions or even billions of people who share similar (subjective) moral beliefs get together and shape a moral structure that they all agree to (social contract and all that) doesn't make what is "right" and "wrong" objective.
Its pretty much atheism in a nutshell.
If a billion atheists got together, and wrote a book on how people should act. It wouldn't make Atheism a religion. It would mean that atheists can hold other beliefs and share those beliefs with each other.
Atheism is just the absence of belief in god(s). Its the atheists other beliefs that form their moral value judgments. Like a belief in democracy, or communism, or capitalism, or other smaller subjects.
Riiiight
Because that is completely analogous
Even if I felt like stooping to your otherwise strawman argument here.
Science IS subjective (a hint would be that science is a method, not an object). We change it all the time based on new evidence. What we know about the universe and how things works is subject to new information all the time. This is subjectivity. I shouldn't need to explain that to you.
What ISN'T subjective, is what we are studying with science.
Particles are objective, what we know about them isn't.
Gravity is objective, what we know about it isn't.
Energy is objective, what we know about it isn't.
Morality is rooted in brain functions.
The brain functions are changeable by external pressures, life experiences, environment, upbringing, training, indoctrination, etc.
History shows that massive cultural and social changes in these patterns have occured repeatedly, and it takes individuals brains collected in large groups to do this.
If only ONE person ever thought slavery was wrong, then it wouldn't have been changed, especially after that ONE jerk in town passed away.
But one, finds another one who agrees, and so on and on, until its a movement, and that movement converts or changes the minds of others until their effect is stronger than the opposition.
I am not 100% sure it IS inherent. Part of me believes human rights are not inalienable. But thats a whole other debate and I have had it here before and I'd rather not do it again.
I agree with you, don't get me wrong. Please understand that I agree with most of what you are saying.
I believe in human rights, and I believe in the constitution and what it stood for.
Like I said before. Just because I think morality is nonobjective, doesn't mean I don't have one.
I have chosen which moral structure I believe in and will follow.
I have never broken the law. I don't steal, I don't kill.
You are correct. I would just accept the burden.
I believe I am worm food someday, why not give up my moral high ground to do a huge favor for the world.
This is where we disagree.
I think at some point, given some circumstance, you will have to choose an outcome over your principles.
I won't draw the line for you. You will do that yourself. I'm just saying, we all have a line.
You're right that we can't know all outccomes.
I'm kinda tired of people coming in this thread and saying things like:
We CANNOT know that.
You ACT based on the information you have. Which may be imperfect, but none of us are omniscient.
I could answer back with "what if the guy is the next Ted Bundy, or Adolf Hitler"
But that is flawed reasoning. You are trying to argue with me using flawed reasoning.
As a pessimist, maybe I should go out and kill as many people as possible...because you know, they could all be "the next Ted Bundy":rolleyes:
Everytime I answer one of these questions, truthfully, and from the bottom of my heart...people give me and say that its easy to talk big **** on an internet forum where I'll never have to back it up.
My kid is just kid #45870031097 in the big picture, my wife is woman #90112478304, and I am #80532700241
Look, some guy comes into my house and kills my wife and kid, I would be furious. I'd want to kill that person, and maybe I'd get to at some point. I'd be sad and hurt, and after the dust settles lonely. Did I get the chance to offer myself in their place? Did I get the chance to jump in front of a bullet?
Do I know that he is making a wish to cure cancer, or to eliminate all war? Do I know he is spending 100billion on water purification plants, recycling, medical breakthroughs, and treatment for impoverished youths?
If I did know...maybe I'd forgive him someday, or maybe I'd still stick him with a knife.
What is the point?
I never once said I expected a pat on the back for this.
I said it'd be nice, if I went from a hated cold blooded murder to someone who could be forgiven based on their actions afterwards...but who knows.
Maybe I rot in the ground spit on and peed on by the world.
What do I care, I'm dead.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
Making the world a better place isn't as mysterious a task as you think.
People out there right now are making it a better place...one person or one town at a time.
I'd undertsand completely selfish reasons too.
It's not hard to understand someone who is selfish, nor is it hard to understand someone who would do it for altruistic reasons.
You are making something simple into something complicated in order to make it easier for you to pass judgment.
Kill 1 for a ton of money and be rich - Selfish
Kill 1 in order to cure cancer, or improve lives - Altruistic
See, I understood both of those things in just one sentence.
Both do something immoral. One continues to be selfish afterwards, the other tries to be a benefit to humanity afterwards.
Lets see, there are a million possibilities that await the future of the man.
He could be Edward Jenner, he could be Hitler, or he could just be a pizza delivery guy, or a telemarketer.
No one KNOWS, and so you play astronomical odds here.
I can change the world for the better, and because I KNOW that is what my plan would be, I reduce the effect of odds.
Its actually playing less odds to take initiative.
I'm not playing god. I don't believe in gods.
I am playing myself, doing something.
What I am doing you may hate or disagree with...but then what do I care.
Someone testing a new and risky surgery upon a cancer patient, with the knowledge that it could go wrong isn't "playing god" either.
They are playing a doctor with a new and risky surgery.
It is not a misguided belief that I am being altruistic.
If I work to improve humanity for the sake of humanity, I am being altruistic.
How I got the resources TO be altruistic is what you have a problem with.
Someone giving their time to volunteer work cleaning up the beach, is being altruistic. If they stole a car to drive there, it doesn't make the act of cleaning up the beach nonaltruistic.
You make say stealing the car to drive to the beach was immoral, and you'd be right. But the beach cleaning is still a good deed.
I really HATE this "playing god" crap.
We are 100% responsible for everything we do. We aren't "acting" like anything else but ourselves.
When a guy runs into a burning building to save someone, he isnt "playing fireman" he is just trying to save a life.
When a woman gives cpr to a kid at the lake, she isn't "playing lifeguard" she is just trying to save a life.
"Playing god" implies that there's someone ELSE (god) whose job it is to make those kinds of decisions or perform those kinds of actions.
Thats my problem. There isn't someone else. Its OUR decisions to make. OUR actions to take. I'm not playing games, and I'm not pretending to be someone else. I am "playing human" is what I'm doing.
Save your bull**** for the weak minded.
You say I'm "playing god"
Well then why doesn't "god" start "playing god" so that I dont have to??
Oh thats right...it's a figure of speech
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
You're "declaring yourself king". You're "taking on the role of the govt and violating the social contract.
When you assassinate a person, you are exceeding your legal, moral and ethical authority as an individual. Taking away everything that a man is from them, including their ability to enjoy a good meal, conversation with friends, or a debate on MtG. To that person, you ARE God. You hold the power of life and death over them. Nobody elected you leader of the world. Nobody sanctioned you to make the life and death decisions of the world.
You have no right. Any more than I have the right to kill you because it will bump me up into the top 8 of a PTQ.
The fact that you can talk about casually snuffing a man's life, a man who would beg and plead, and fight to his dying breath to stay alive... a man with loved ones... while you tell them in clinical tones about how the billions of dollars you get will do a lot of good. It's monstrous.
So if Bill Gates kills a person, should the state offer him amnesty as long as he agrees to give a billion dollars to charity?
There's a reason that saving lives doesn't give you the right to take more.
Fine... you are a consequentialist. You believe what you believe:
(1) You would murder an innocent person for $100,000,000,000 out of consequentialism. Logically then, you would be willing to rape a preteen girl for $100,000,000,000 to save lives, etc. right?
(2) Did you ever consider the fact that if EVERYBODY violated the MOST IMPORTANT LAWS OF OUR NATION: MURDER, RAPE, etc. based on CONSEQUENTIALISM, making their own "judgment calls"... ( "oh the world would definitely be better off without... <fillin the blank>" ). You're quoting the rulebook for political assassination.
(3) Actually you're quoting the rulebook for TERRORISM. The world will clearly be better off without... < name your politician>.
What is a terrorist? A consequentialist who believes that he can accomplish some 'greater goal' by killing innocent people. Yeah, that cafe was full of innocent countrymen... but if it gets the Americans out of the country, then the ends justify the means. Would you blow up a planeful of innocent people if the end result is that the Russians will lose political resolve, and thus end a bloody ground conflict in Afghanistan? What does that make you? A terrorist.
I agree.
It still implies that its "someone elses job" to make these decisions, or perform these actions.
You support my point here.
So only cops, or soldiers, or the guy who operates the lethal injection machine have this authority you speak of?
I see. And who gives them THEIR authority? We do. We hire them, we elect them, we put them into place.
We are all our own gods.
I don't have the RIGHT to. I never said I did.
Not having the right =/= not having the ability
There is NOTHING casual about it.
If you think its casual, that's your problem.
Also, who ever said I would tell him why he is dying?
Do you think I should? Would that be good?
Every sane person pleads for their life, even the murderer in the noose.
Around the rosie we go. We already went here. IN THIS VERY THREAD!
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=6735791&postcount=41
I'd find a way to forgive Bill Gates.
We lock people (murders or whatever) in prison, or put them to death, to eliminate them as a threat to society. Heck, we even lock up pot smokers right.
Bill Gates would be a strong candidate for reform, rehab, release, and an insanely LARGE fine
Thats just flat out wrong.
Wrong, naive, and inaccurate.
Every war ever fought has required that we TAKE lives in order to SAVE lives. Justice gives us the right to take lives.
Or at least thats the case for the "good guys" in war, or law enforcement, or pretty much anything else for that matter.
We have made the decision COUNTLESS times to take some lives in order to save many more.
What planet do you live on???
Sometimes I feel like delusional moral dreamers populate the forum.
The real world awaits, its out there. Maybe you should take a look.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
We don't sacrifice lives; they are not ours to sacrifice. We kill them.
I'm sure responsibility is almost never an issue when it comes to these incidents.
If you want to use those terms, yes, you would. Your goal is to avoid innocent casualties.
I don't care, nor do I see this as relevant, not to mention I wasn't there.
I do remember briefly skimming this, but I never remember any proof that morality was subjective.
Er, then if you want to word it like that: Morality is subjective, what it studies isn't.
Then there really is no such thing as an objective concept; they're all rooted in our brains, right?
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
Ashcoat Bear of Limited
Not IceCreamman80 by himself.
I missed the part where we all voted and decided that that person should die so you could get a $100 billion dollars.
Hey, do you think that if the nation voted on whether to kill that innocent man in order for YOU to get $100 billion dollars (to spend as you like), that we'd VOTE for you to let you take the money.
I live in a world in which I don't kill people whenever I think it's a big, net positive for the world.
We call those people terrorists and assassins.
And you dodged the questions, so I'll boil it down to two:
(1) We know you would murder an innocent person for $100,000,000,000 (out of consequentialism, all the good you could do). Would you be willing to rape a preteen girl for $100,000,000,000?
(2) Would you suicide bomb a cafe full of innocent people for $100,000,000,000? IF NOT, WHY NOT, given the justifications you just cited?
The second situation: Similar situation to the above. Raising the dead would be simply too amazing to pass up. There are so many people that are worth bringing back to change the world.
The third situation:...same as the above really.
Whole thing is a nice way to break down someone's morality and way of thinking; nice thread OP. It's exercises like this one that remind me how deep in the grey my morality is. Read too many comics methinks.
Join the Poetry Running Contest!
Your example is extremely flimsy. Of course they would be arrested, with a possibility of being killed. By the same token, One Hundred Billion is a lot of money, especially to a good cause like that. 100 Billion equates to a lot of lives saved from the most horrific disease since the Plague. That may not completely invalidate your point, but think of it this way;
You can do something good and be condemned, or do nothing and be forgotten. Your call- but sometimes History is the only judge worth answering to.
Join the Poetry Running Contest!
Since icecreamman80 refuses to provide an answer to the direct questions, maybe you have te guts to step up & give us the consequentialist position:
(1) if youre willing to murder an innocent person, would you commit forcible rape on a child for $100 billion?
(2) would you blow up 10 innocent people in a Starbucks for $100 billion?
Simple questions. Shouldn't be any harder to answer than the OP.
All you showed was an inability to understand the distinction between beliefs and facts.
I change my shirt every day for no reason at all. Does that mean my shirt is subjective? Of course not. A statement is subjective if its truth value is dependent on the observer. "Blinking Spirit's shirt is green" is an objective statement, even though it's true today and may be false tomorrow. "Blinking Spirit believes his shirt is green" is also an objective statement, even though it refers to my beliefs (and, again, will not be true tomorrow). And "green is the best color" is a subjective statement, even though it's going to be just as true (from my perspective) tomorrow as today. "Gravity is the warping of spacetime" is an objective statement, and barring some serious rearranging of the fundamental functions of the universe it's probably not going to change, but what scientists believe about it might. "Scientists believe that gravity is the warping of spacetime" is also an objective statement, again despite being subject to change and about beliefs. "Einstein's general theory of relativity, which indicates that gravity is the warping of spacetime, is elegant and beautiful" is a subjective statement, even though it's going to be just as true (from my perspective) tomorrow as today.
Yeah, because it's never good to explain things completely wrong. Get your information straight before trying to lecture others.
And if you break out your dictionary again to try and show that I am wrong, the extent of my reply will be a ROFL emoticon. I am telling you how the terms you're employing are actually used in philosophical writing and discourse. Actual usage is prior to and has priority over what the lexicographers have written, just as the facts are prior to and have priority over scientific beliefs - after all, lexicography is a form of science too, is engaged in the same pursuit of seeking to capture certain truths external to it, and is just as fallible at doing so.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
1.) Glady? No. In all honesty though, I doubt I could live with myself afterwards. There's not a lot of ways I can word this, and the whole thing is extremely morbid. I would pay the family of the girl for the best therapy money could buy- not to help myself feel better; but because it's the least I can do. Bottom line though; the suffering inflicted is worth the good I'd like to pretend I could do with A hundred billion, minus restitution. Murder I can almost justify. Some people need to be killed, it's over quickly, it's horrifying- but can be sometimes justified (I'm not going to dance around the Hitler example). Rape? There's a very real possibility I would do what I could with the money, then end my life.
2.) 10 lives. 100 Billion. Feels like a horror movie. Some deals must be made- even with the devil. Who knows, maybe that 100 billion could advance Stem Cell research enough to save the lives of newborns, cure paralysis, or cancer. Either way, I imagine it would haunt me for the rest of my life. Would I do it though? Yes. Some lines must be crossed.
Join the Poetry Running Contest!
So I'M the silver liner here? Wow. I'm shocked.
I completely agree, we KILL them. But I would also agree with someone saying they were sacrificed at the altar of freedom, et al.
Bull****.
They pass the buck so often its scary.
The finger pointing when innocent people get bombed, and the media catches wind of it is rediculous. Watch the news.
Which one, this isn't clear. "Less", or "more"?
And I never said I proved it. I never even said my evidence proved it.
I only said it pointed in that direction, and only the most loose, and liberal of interpretations would say it points towards objectivity.
Morality is more analogous to Justice than it is to Gravity.
I'd lean that way yes.
Concepts. I wouldn't call many things concepts though.
The concepts of Freedom, or Justice for example I would say are very much subjective...even if we manifest those concepts in real practice, pushing them closer and closer to objectivity.
I think MANY other idealists, sometimes in very large groups of like-minded idealists use guns to help the world. Whats your point?
History would agree with me here.
It also doesn't mean they were OBjectively wrong just because we believe they were wrong.
Yes, they probably do think, or did think, that they were doing the right thing. And we think they were doing the wrong thing. But unless you want to argue that other people in other cultures not remotely under your control do not have the right to decide for themselves what is right and wrong, I don't see your point.
If you do want to argue that they don't have the right to decide whats moral for themselves, then argue with someone else. I don't write morality.
Funny, I'd say that the Queen being killed is a horrible crime, but mitigated by the actions they took.
I do know they would likely go to jail and be hanged quickly, with probably a much more expedient trial than Saddam Hussein got in Iraq.
How they got the money to help Africa is the crime they will die for.
Helping Africa is an action that millions of people will later thank him for.
Wonderful. Here they do.
See...different strokes for different folks yo!
Well PARDON ME for having stuff to do today that took me away from my desk.:rolleyes:
1) If I'd KILL a guy for it, how is this question harder?
Am I sick ****ing moster if I say yes? Damn right I am. I'd be a monster and I'd deserve to die.
What is really silly, really really silly. Is that in the real world, child rapists do 3-5 years, with registration and probation. They get released, they live next door, they live down the street. Hell, some of them live 200 yards from a school. They wait tables, do landscaping, they get hired as telemarketers, or grocery baggers. Some convicted child rapists even perform jobs where they are exposed to the personal credit and identification information of thousands of people.
They are not being lynched, or burned at the stake. They are not being killed, or castrated. They walk among us. They are watching the big game, they are ordering the pizzas, they are buying the beers.
They ****ing WRECK children, and get a ****ing slap on the wrist.
You know what else. This is happening, in rediculously voluminous numbers, but NOONE is getting to make a wish, or donating 100billion to charities. None of these rapists are treating aids in africa, none of them are caring for orphaned amputees in Cambodia or Pakistan.
Killing a guy, even though it is just as horrible, and even more final (death after all), its not something I find disgusting and repugnant.
2) It would have to be a damn miracle to find 10 people in a Starbucks all at one time who were "innocent".
That being said.
10 isn't that large a number. If you really wanted to test me. The right question would be:
"Would you kill 49%, to save 51%?"
Someone DID ask me that ( i forget who)...I have not yet decided, it's a tough question.
My answer at the time was that based on pure numbers.
99% of the human race could die, and we wouldn't be in any danger of extinction. 1% (70,000,000) is plenty people to repopulate the world. In fact that is probably even 10000 times more than our species started with and look at us now.
So technically, if the situation called for it, in order to save HUMANITY, I'd be willing to part with 99% of it.
That's about the most rediculous of hypotheticals though, I mean what, a meteor is going to hit, and I only have room in my bomb shelter for 70 million people???:rolleyes:
I have a sneaking suspicion that this debate is going to start repeating things that I've already said before, maybe even more than once.:-/
B_S proves this to be true here
So its a fact now that morality is objective? can I do a rofl emoticon?
I'll go ahead and go with the evidence, definitions, and supporting materials I have studied over your mighty mtgsalvation opinion.
I never said you had to believe what i believe, and I also never said I could PROVE it.
But to hand wave the evidence and sources I presented is your problem, not mine.
Morality is not a shirt, it is not an object. It doesn't have object permanence. I did this game with you about the Moon too didn't I? You, like other people in your camp, ALWAYS try this same game using the Moon, or a Shirt, or a Cowboy Hat or a Dog.
How about you try not to strawman me.
Your argument would hold more water, in this case even a drop would count, if you compared it to say "Freedom" or "Justice" or "Capitalism" or "Oppression"
Morality is more analogous to Justice than it is to T-shirts.
"Blinking Spirit should give money to the poor because it is the right thing to do" =/= "Blinking Spirit is wearing a cowboy hat"
"Blinking spirit shouldn't cheat on his wife because its wrong" =/= "Blinking Spirits shirt is green"
"Icecreamman80 is wrong to kill a guy for 100billion dollars" =/= "Gravity is the term we use to explain mass attracting to mass"
not even a little bit. not even a little ****ing bitty bit.
I couldn't agree more.
Even your precious PHILOSOPHICAL dictionary did NOT contradict my definition. It did as much to support my position as webster.
Take your own advice once in a while buddy.
The philosophical dictionary on subjectivity:
http://www.philosophy-dictionary.org/subjective
Something is subjective insofar as it is dependent on either a particular mind or minds in general.
http://www.philosophy-dictionary.org/objective
Something is objective insofar as it is independent of either a particular mind or minds altogether.
http://www.ditext.com/runes/s.html
Subjectivism: a) In Epistemology: The restriction of knowledge to the knowing subject and its sensory, affective ind volitional states and to such external realities as may be inferred from the mind's subjective states. See Solipsism, Ego-centric Predicament.
b) In Axiology: The doctrine that moral and aesthetic values represent the subjective feelings and reactions of individual minds and have no status independent of such reactions. Ethical subjectivism finds typical expression in Westermarck's doctrine that moral judgments have reference to our emotions of approval and disapproval. See The Origin and Development of Moral Ideas. Vol. 1, Ch. l. -- L.W.
Unless you can show morality is somehow independent of our minds, either individually, or multiplicatively. I'll just go with the evidence. You have convinced me of NOTHING, and hand wave everything.
http://history.hanover.edu/texts/voltaire/voltruth.html
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
This, and the entire extended ramble that follows it, would be a lot more relevant a response had I written a single word in that post about morality. You may be convinced that you're refighting the same battle, but that's just a self-fulfilling prophecy and one I'm not interested in fulfilling. (If I were, though, I might say that this, and the entire extended ramble that follows it, is also an crystal-clear example of special pleading.)
Terrible vague definition that any decent philosophy student could pick apart. To give some easy counterexamples, "Blinking Spirit is bored" is an objective statement about the state of my mind, "Blinking Spirit sees a computer screen" is an objective statement about what I am perceiving in my mind, and "Blinking Spirit is typing" is an objective statement about my voluntary actions which are, of course, dependent on my mind. These are objective because any hypothetical observer with access to the relevant facts would agree on their truth values (whether true or false). Scientific claims are likewise objective, for the same reason. So when you say that science is subjective, you are wrong. And when you say that science is subjective because it has something to do with the minds of scientists, you demonstrate that you don't understand the meaning of the term.
Wait a minute. Stop composing your no-doubt-histrionic-and-unnecessarily-profane response and note the following: I have still not written a single word about morality. ... Okay. You may continue.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
again, short version of your answer is "yes, some lines must be crossed".
so your answer is "yes", but hold the suicide (though you do feel you would deserve to die...)
again, short version of your answer is "yes", and it's not even a tough call.
Well, to question (1), just... Wow. Sticking to your guns. I used it as a better version of the OP question because it forces you to actually face the ugliness of the violation (whereas some people can easily perform the mental exercise of snuffing a person without "getting their hands dirty", and rationalize it away as almost nothing). I guess you're both "all in" on your conviction that the world will be that much better off if you personally had $100 billion in your hands, and that you have the will, the right, and the duty to commit ANY crime if it clearly results in what you perceive to be a big net gain for the world from a consequentialist standpoint.
On question (2), again, Wow. I chose this question because its straight up terrorism for hire, and now I dont have to say "its like terrorism"... It IS terrorism.
That you would be willing to accept a suitcase with $100 billion in it (presumably from an Arab in a nice suit or his white lawyer in a nice suit), and in exchange, blow up 10 civilians enjoying coffee at Starbucks. It means you're OK with terrorism as a means of achieving societal improvement. Are you Anders Behring Breivik, just waiting to happen, if you find the right opportunity?
Not only did IceCreamMan80 say "yes", he also implied it was an easy call.
So my follow up questions:
(a) what is the minimum amount of money you would accept to blow up 10 people in a Starbucks or commit that rape?
(b) getting back to the govt and "we" deciding who lives and who dies, do you believe that the majority of humans (or Americans or whatever country you live in) would vote "yes" on a referendum authorizing *YOU* to receive $100 billion to rape a child or commit terrorism on 10 people at Starbucks?
I thought I also said I'd kill myself, I might have made a cut/paste error, I do alot of cut/paste when I respon usually because I'm using word to type everything out before posting it.
I'm pretty sure, that when I said, in order to save MANKIND, 99% are potentially expendable. There really isn't a tougher call. Is there?
Never said I had the RIGHT to do it.
You people...sheesh
The will, yes. The ability, yes.
The duty? Thats a subjective question, some would say I do have a duty, others would disagree.
The right. Ha, no, and I never said so.
Yes, its terroism in practice (blowing up a café), but not in purpose (fighting the evil western infidels).
Terrorism is used to cause "Terror".
It's used to cause fear, so that the "terror"ized public will be mentally effected. The goal being that we change our behavior in response to the act of terrorism. Guess what, they win almost all the time.
After all, we did start full body scans, invasive searches, more cameras, more calltaps. We passed the Patriot Act. etc. The terrorists won, even if it looks they they are losing. We, in fear, sacrificed our liberties, to feel safer. Benjamin Franklin would be sad.
Hyjackers flew planes into the WTC not to "kill 3,000" people", in fact, the buildings FALLING DOWN was something they likely didn't expect. They did it to "strike fear in the infidels" or "destroy a valuable symbol of the evil western devils power". They expected casualties sure, they flew planes into buildings, but the actual number of deaths was not the goal of the act. The fear and terror was the goal.
Its certainly not greater than 99%, its not even greater than 0.0000000007%
I really don't know.
I'm pretty sure though, that whatever it is, these deeper questions are your attempt to further villainize me on the forum.
So how bout we just say "Icecreamman80 is a cold blooded monster"
and move past the multitude of rediculous hypotheticals that have next to zero chance of presenting themselves in reality.
Nope.
I'm pretty sure I'd get a minority % of votes though.
Presidents win the white house with 51%. I'd get between 2%-21% (wild guess) because I'm sure I am not the most hardcore "consequentialist" around.
Also, you're leaving out the very important part where we tell them what is being done with the $$$.
Without that information, it'd be close to 100% No. With the "greater good" information on the table however...
But I assume you're leaving that part out on purpose, because it helps you argue your point, even if it isn't accurate within this hypothetical.
But we were TALKING about morality, I was in CONTEXT. Grow up child.
But it is the definition, even in philosophy, if you don't like it, rewrite philosophy. The student picking it apart, would also be wrong. Just like you are wrong. By definition. And he'd probably give me the same erroneous word games you give me. Maybe he'd give me better ones, you don't seem to be that good at it.
"Blinkin Spirit is bored" is an objective statement about your state of mind, this is true.
BOREDOM is subjective. Some people loooove golf or nascar.
"Blinking Spirit sees a computer screen" is an objective statement about what you are perceiving, true. Useful to the coversation? Not at all. I could go into how "seeing" is subjective. But I assume that you'd just say something like "any decent optometrist would pick you apart" or something along those lines.
"Blinking Spirit is Typing" is not even remotely analogous to the coversation we were having about morality. It wouldn't even be analogous to the conversation you were having with yourself about green t-shirts.
"Blinkin Spirit shouldn't drown kittens in a bucket because it is wrong" =/= "Blinkin Spirit is Running" or "typing" or "cooking" or "sitting in a chair" or "wearing a green shirt"
This really isn't that difficult to understand.
And "any hypothetical observer" is not going to come to the SAME exact conclusion, in a moral situation, even given all the same information.
Their minds have different moral constructs that they base their moral decision making process on.
Sure, many will make the same decision. Amazing! Some people think alike, caall the papers!:rolleyes:
Some will kill the guy for 100billion, others wont. given the exact same hypothetical.
How is a scientific claim objective?????????:o
So the scientific claim that the earth was the center of the universe was objective?!?! That we came from monkeys?!?!
Don't worry, I forgive you, I know that is not what you meant.:rolleyes:
This is a GROSS misunderstanding of what I said.
Science is a very broad term. The word may mean "study of" in one sentence, and "discoveries" in another, or even "physical truth" in another.
"science" is subjective as we understand it.
Science (The study of things) is objective. Insomuch as what other word would you use to describe a bunch of labcoats developing hypothesis, performing tests, observing results, repeating?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science
2
a: a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study <the science of theology> b: something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge <have it down to a science>
3
a: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b: such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : natural science
4
: a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws <cooking is both a science and an art>
What we understand about <insert phenomenon here> is subjective, the <phenomenon> is objective.
Mass attracts to mass.
How we understand it can change with new information.
The Scientific METHOD is pretty close to objective. It's a tried and true process we use to understand why the <phenomenon> is doing what it does.
Changing the process is less likely to happen than changing the information we receive from the process. I highly doubt we will stop "performing experiments" within the scientific process.
*Believe me, it is not I who has a misunderstanding of these TERMS.
It was within context. Again, grow up.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein