The Problem with Libertarians...

[orange]

Calc II - that's fine...but can you give a little more explanation as to why you feel that way and what choice you feel you would make in such a situation?

[orange]

Floyd - the major schizm I find between your thoughts and mine (and perhaps the people who think like I do and the people who think like you do) is centred around the infamous 'the ends do not justify the means' debate.

I can respect that, in almost all cases I feel that the ends does not justify the means. I am, however, willing to sacrifice my own morality (to not murder) for the purpose of saving 99 lives, if choosing not to sacrifice my morality leads to the deaths of 100 (including the one that would have died anyway). I recognize that you feel the ends never justify the means. But in this case, my feelings are that the ends (99 saved lives) justifies my killing a man who would have died regardless of my actions (whether I chose to kill or not to kill)

[Graag]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Gah! That's what we've been debating for about four pages now

You think I remember that! I only respond to the posts as I see them.

Live for the moment!

[David Floyd]

orange,

Do you agree with the following statement:

"If someone is going to be murdered no matter what, it makes no difference whether I murder him or someone else does."

[Zero]

of course. If you can show me something that is universally moral perhaps I will consider it.

Also in case why people would be confused as to why I would choose 10 innocent death over 1. (people are so obsesssed with "greatest good for greatest mass") Here it goes.

Since You all know morality is not basis for my decision making, we can ditch that and go straight to logic. Here I am faced with 2 undesirable situation. (you dont have to be moral to ask you be forced to kill or rather not kill) So lets use analogy for people who cant see it my way. To me, it's like somone telling me You have to eat Pistachio or Vanilla. Now I hate both equally, but obviously The person making this threat is forcing me. The fact alone that i am confined to limited option thru force repulses me. Therefore, if two options are equally undesirable, it does not matter which you choose.

However, it is most likely the case the person demanding this situation has established "or else..." because he wants the first action to be carried. So, if two actions are equally distasteful to you, its not hard to see why you would choose to do nothing just to spite the person who is forcibly trying to make you do something you dont want to do normally.

In addition, in our society, its harder to prosecute someone for not doing anything which resulted in death of human beings rather than doing something that causes death of human beings. But this does not have to be taken into account to see why I would choose to do nothing.

[orange]

another thought regarding the 'nothing that hasn't happened is inevitable' thoughts.

If you kill a man in self defence, you have murdered him, because he may not have killed you. In this light, if David believes nothing is inevitable, he would allow himself to be killed by an attacker instead of defending himself using deadly force, given that it was his only option.

Example: If you were held at gun point and told that your attacker was going to kill you, and had no other means of attack, would you be willing to shoot to kill. If so, you either do believe in the inevitability or even the likelihood of certain situations occuring affecting your decision to kill or you believe that the ends (your survival) justifies the means (you killing your attacker).

[Zero]

im making cup o noodle and you guys are posting so fast.... my first sentence was in response to david flyod btw. I will explain myself more later but I am eating now~

[orange]

Originally posted by David Floyd
orange,

Do you agree with the following statement:

"If someone is going to be murdered no matter what, it makes no difference whether I murder him or someone else does."

It does make a difference, to me. I would not want to be the one to kill him. In this situation, however, there are no other variables.

Even in the example I gave: I would not like to be the one to kill, i would dread it, it would be a very painful thing for me to do - but I would do it if it was the only means for the survival of others.

[orange]

Originally posted by Calc II
To me, it's like somone telling me You have to eat Pistachio or Vanilla. Now I hate both equally, but obviously The person making this threat is forcing me. The fact alone that i am confined to limited option thru force repulses me. Therefore, if two options are equally undesirable, it does not matter which you choose.

In other words, the death of one person and the deaths of many people are equally undesirable to you - and faced with the spiderman scenario - you would choose randomly?

However, it is most likely the case the person demanding this situation has established "or else..." because he wants the first action to be carried. So, if two actions are equally distasteful to you, its not hard to see why you would choose to do nothing just to spite the person who is forcibly trying to make you do something you dont want to do normally.

This part makes me think that you would simply not chose either. Now, morals aside (that I don't care about for now, as they're all different) if you feel it equally undesirable for either the individual or the group to die, why wouldn't you at least act to save one of them? Or is the undesirability of the deaths infinite, so that whether you save either or neither the end result is the same? If so, wouldn't you choose randomly, but including the option not to do anything?

You see, you wouldn't simply choose to do nothing. You would choose randomly between the three options (save A, save B, save neither) since all three lead to equally undesirable results. You can't say that you would choose to save neither, because that suggests another variable. Either you feel choosing neither provides a sense of justification to your choice (I couldn't save both, so I chose neither, to not 'play God') or for some other reason.

In addition, in our society, its harder to prosecute someone for not doing anything which resulted in death of human beings rather than doing something that causes death of human beings. But this does not have to be taken into account to see why I would choose to do nothing.

laws have no bearing on this hypothetical. Irrelevant information.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Ted -

Nope.

Because you can't point out my exact post, can you?

Deny you ignored some of my posts.

You're the one that made the accusation, the burden of proof is on you! You are hilarious Berzerker, you put the burden of proof on everyone except YOURSELF.

Liar, responding with insults don't count.

Then that counts out about 90% of your posts to me. Speaking of which:

Liar, I said government intervention caused the Depression.

Ted: The Dust Bowl is a prime example of lassiez faire gone wrong, due to greedy free for all land mismangement, there was nothing to save the farmland when the drought and subsequent flooding washed it all away.

Hypzerker:We weren't under a laissez faire system. Geez, you people keep citing government induced calamities and blame the marketplace

Ted: What kind of system was the farm system then? Also tell me how government intrusion into the farm system caused the Dust Bowl.

Hypzerker: The Depression was government induced. And farming practices were tied to government regulation of the economy.

You quoted some guy who said a more recent drought (88-89?) was worse than the dust bowl.

I quoted the National Drought Mitigation Center at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. And gave examples of several droughts that had occured since the 1930s.

[Zero]

Originally posted by orange
another thought regarding the 'nothing that hasn't happened is inevitable' thoughts.

If you kill a man in self defence, you have murdered him, because he may not have killed you. In this light, if David believes nothing is inevitable, he would allow himself to be killed by an attacker instead of defending himself using deadly force, given that it was his only option.

Example: If you were held at gun point and told that your attacker was going to kill you, and had no other means of attack, would you be willing to shoot to kill. If so, you either do believe in the inevitability or even the likelihood of certain situations occuring affecting your decision to kill or you believe that the ends (your survival) justifies the means (you killing your attacker).

Without inevitablity? Can I use % chance.

Lets say situtation is assessed to be 60% likely that someone would kill me if I dont defend myself. So I shoot him. Even if Later we determine he wouldnt have killed me afterall. I would dread not choosing the optimal solution, but I would never regret my action. Its silly to take risk like that for your life.

(Million dollar on table, you have chance to double it or lose it all. Do you fold and walk away with money or risk a 40% chance?)

[David Floyd]

If you kill a man in self defence, you have murdered him, because he may not have killed you. In this light, if David believes nothing is inevitable, he would allow himself to be killed by an attacker instead of defending himself using deadly force, given that it was his only option.

That's silly. If someone is coming after me with a knife, he is violating my freedom. One does not have the freedom to violate the rights of another, and when one does, there is no moral paradox in stopping them.

True, a knife might not kill me, and a person breaking into my home at night might not even be dangerous, but I'd have no compunction over shooting either one.

I'm not shooting the person because of the inevitability of my death - that isn't the issue. The issue is that they are violating my rights, and I have the right to protect myself.

This is not an example of the ends justifying the means. That phrase implies immorality on my part. But someone else is already acting immorally, against me, so it is in no way immoral for me to protect myself. Fighting off someone who is assaulting me is not assault, and killing someone assaulting me with a knife is not murder. Both assault and murder are, by definition, unjust acts. But it's silly to say that fighting back is unjust.

[Berzerker]

David -

Berzerker,

I hate to disagree, but...

I know, hehe, the feeling is mutual. You might convince me I'm wrong though.

Very true, but wouldn't you agree that there is a big difference between you killing someone and another person killing someone, in terms of moral responsibility?

I was unaware the hypothetical said another person was involved, only me and the people whose lives are on the line. I'd agree if this other person was committing the murder(s), but the hypothetical made no mention of a murderer putting me in the position of choosing.

Sure, the person is dead either way, but you can't be held accountable for the actions of others.

True, but I am responsible for mine. If I was a doctor faced with murdering a pregnant woman who will die because of the pregnancy no matter what I do, but my actions would save the baby, then I do what I can to save the life of the baby even if that includes murdering the woman. Now, this is a quasi-real world scenario which requires knowledge the doctor wouldn't normally have - that the woman's death is inevitable - but let's say the doc did have that knowledge. No action and both die, action and 1 lives. I believe I'd have her blessing...

Orange -

So your ration says that saving 99 lives supercedes the immorality of killing one person, given that he would die anyway?

Not saying you're wrong, I'm just clarifying.

I don't consider it immoral to murder the one person since they are dead either way. It would be immoral to let the 99 die through non-action. I have to ask what I would want if I was the one person, and I wouldn't hold it against the person pushing the button if they chose to save the 99 even if the hypothetical allowed for them the choice of saving me or the 99 people. The act of "murder" with regards to immorality does depend to a degree on the wishes of the victim. Let's say my death would save a million people but I could not commit suicide for personal reasons. You have to "murder" me to save these people. Do I give you my blessing or do I condemn you as a murderer? I give you my blessing.

The second (Spiderman) hypothetical does. It allows for saving either one person or a group of people whose number is greater than 1.

True, but as David pointed out, we are not the instrument taking their life, an accident is the instrument.

[David Floyd]

It does make a difference, to me. I would not want to be the one to kill him. In this situation, however, there are no other variables.

I disagree. In your scenario, the only variable is whether or not you want to behave morally. Murder can never be a moral act, therefore if I want to behave morally I won't commit murder. This has nothing to do with the actions of other people - if someone else wants to behave immorally, that is their problem, and they are in the wrong, but they can in no circumstance make you responsible for their own actions.

[David Floyd]

Berzerker,

I was unaware the hypothetical said another person was involved, only me and the people whose lives are on the line. I'd agree if this other person was committing the murder(s), but the hypothetical made no mention of a murderer putting me in the position of choosing.

Well, I don't see any other way the example can make any modicum of sense, other than the fact that you are making a choice between you murdering someone and someone else committing murder.

I think we can both agree that hypotheticals like that are stupid, though, because they have no bearing on real life.

No action and both die, action and 1 lives. I believe I'd have her blessing...

I'm certain you would, and if she gives permission, I see no problem.