Happy Tiananmen Square Massacre Day

[Arrian]

So I assume that you believe that nations that have food surplusses and do not donate the entirety of those surplusses to starving people around the world are guilty of murder?

Personally, I think that's a steaming pile of horse****. They might be guilty of callous indifference, but not murder. Murder is an overt, deliberate act of violence. Failure to prevent it is not the same as doing it.

-Arrian

[David Floyd]

As a bystander with full knowledge and power to change the situation, you are also a murderer.

Wrong. You are never a murderer unless you commit murder. This is very simple. Now, if you have a MORAL (ie, non-murderous in this example) means to prevent murder, you should of course take that action.

What about a case when the 100 people are about to die of pneumonia - or kill each other?

This is incoherent - what are you arguing here?

In this specific case you do. That's why there's the word "prevent" in there.

But your basic premise - that murdering an innocent prevents 100 other innocents from being murdered - is illogical. Murder is caused by individual decisions, not thte actions of other individuals.

[David Floyd]

In other words, if one child is about to pour sulphuric acid over another child (both are too young to understand), you should simply stand aside because you aren't making the decision, even though you can easily prevent it?

1)Two children have nothing to do with your example.

2)You have an easily moral means of preventing this tragedy.

3)You are not guilty of murder, even if you do nothing.

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by Arrian
So I assume that you believe that nations that have food surplusses and do not donate the entirety of those surplusses to starving people around the world are guilty of murder?

Personally, I think that's a steaming pile of horse****. They might be guilty of callous indifference, but not murder. Murder is an overt, deliberate act of violence. Failure to prevent it is not the same as doing it.

-Arrian

So you agree with David Floyd that it's better to let 100 people die than the murder 1?

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by David Floyd


1)Two children have nothing to do with your example.

2)You have an easily moral means of preventing this tragedy.

3)You are not guilty of murder, even if you do nothing.

Let's see.

If someone decides to murder 100 people, that decision can't be attributed to you in any way whatsoever, only to the immorality of that one person.

So by your logic, we should of course let that one child pour acid over another. After all, this can't be attributed to you.

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Wrong. You are never a murderer unless you commit murder. This is very simple. Now, if you have a MORAL (ie, non-murderous in this example) means to prevent murder, you should of course take that action.

How about preventing the murder of 100 - by taking an action that involves the killing of 1?

[David Floyd]

So by your logic, we should of course let that one child pour acid over another. After all, this can't be attributed to you.

I never said this. In your example with the children, there is a moral way to prevent them from hurting each other. You are trying to tie two situations together, but the situations have nothing to do with each other.

In one scenario, you are committing murder, and in another scenario, you are preventing a child from dying. The actions of other are irrelevant - all that matters is the morality of your own actions, or at least, all that matters as it relates to you.

[Arrian]

Give me one concrete example of a situation were you KNOW FOR SURE that killing 1 person will definitely save the lives of 100 others (who would absolutely die but for the death of the 1).

You can't. Because such an example doesn't exist. You can argue probabilities, but there is no certainty. And in any case, killing one to "save 100" is still murder. Misguided, well-intentioned murder, but murder nonetheless.

Furthermore, I believe that there MUST be another way to save the 100, other than killing the 1. In this specific case, there certainly seemed to be (how about talking to them, instead of running them over with Tanks, eh?).

-Arrian

[David Floyd]

How about preventing the murder of 100 - by taking an action that involves the killing of 1?

If the 1 person is the killer of the 100, then yes, I would say that it's moral to kill him. If it is ANYONE ELSE AT ALL, then killing him is immoral.

Remember, murder is the unjustified killing of an innocent - and there is no way that you can possibly justify it, with any logical coherence.

But let me ask you a question: Is there a right to life?

[ranskaldan]

Let's start from the beginning. Murder is wrong because it results in the death of an innocent, and the death of innocents is wrong.

Hence, if 100 people die, that is very very wrong.

But if those 100 people can be saved by killing 1 person, this is now less wrong, because those 100 people will get to live.

Hence you should take the less wrong choice - because it is relatively right.

[Arrian]

If the 1 person is the killer of the 100, then yes, I would say that it's moral to kill him. If it is ANYONE ELSE AT ALL, then killing him is immoral.

Bingo, I agree.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Rans,

Murder is not just wrong because it results in the death of innocent people. Innocent people die every day of natural causes. Murder is wrong because one human being is taking the life of another. It's a deliberate act of violence against another person - infringing on their right to life.

-Arrian

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by David Floyd


If the 1 person is the killer of the 100, then yes, I would say that it's moral to kill him. If it is ANYONE ELSE AT ALL, then killing him is immoral.

Remember, murder is the unjustified killing of an innocent - and there is no way that you can possibly justify it, with any logical coherence.

That was the logical justification in the first place - so that one hundred people can now live.

If 100 people are dying of a rare plague and the only way to cure them is to kill the one person who holds in his body the secret of immunity, would you do it?

But let me ask you a question: Is there a right to life?

Of course. 1 person has the right to life, and 100 people have the rights to all of their own.

[David Floyd]

Let's start from the beginning. Murder is wrong because it results in the death of an innocent, and the death of innocents is wrong.

Hence, if 100 people die, that is very very wrong.

But if those 100 people can be saved by killing 1 person, this is now less wrong, because those 100 people will get to live.

Hence you should take the less wrong choice - because it is relatively right.

There is no such thing as "net morality". Morality results from the actions of individuals. Therefore, in order to encourage moral behavior, I must not act immorally. If someone else chooses to act immorally, that is their decision, but if I commit an immoral act to "stop" them (which I can't do anyway, as it is always up to them, not me, whether to act immorally), then I have acted immorally.

Morality is not a math problem.

[Arrian]

By the way, Rans, if you accept killing 1 person for the good of 100, you will forever be condoning massacres. Because there are soooooo many ways to come up with a "we had to do this, for the good of THE PEOPLE" justifications.

Plus, let's take your plague example. If you find someone whose genetics hold the key to curing the disease, and at the time it appears that killing that person (murder) is the only way, AND YOU ACCEPT THAT, you will stop trying to find another way. You'll just kill the poor sap and call yourself a hero. But a society that refuses to do that may continue to work the problem and come up with another way - a way which doesn't involve murdering an innocent person.

A society which thinks as you do will often pick a violent solution precisely because that type of solution is accepted and often the easy way out.

-Arrian