The Problem with Libertarians...

[David Floyd]

If orange's scenario is a case where one person will die of natural causes, and there is no violation of rights involved, as it seems Berzerker thought, then I would push the button. I am not causing anyone to die by doing that because the death is not contingent upon a murder.

Then it becomes a simple case of whether or not I would save 99 people, while at the same time committing no immoral acts. If that is the case, then of course I would save 99 people.

But I think my original interpretation is how orange meant it.

[orange]

Ok, so we have to define some things here.

According to Floyd:
If your life is put in danger, killing is not murder.
If you have the approval of the person to be killed, killing is not murder.

Correct? (Not speaking legally, but according to your morals)

An aside: Do you support the death penalty?

[David Floyd]

If your life is put in danger, killing is not murder.
If you have the approval of the person to be killed, killing is not murder.

Correct.

If you go where I think you're gonna go with that, though, I have an answer all ready

An aside: Do you support the death penalty?

Used to be very strongly pro-death penalty, but now I'm starting to reconsider giving the state the power to kill as a punishment. I don't know if I support it anymore or not.

[orange]

Originally posted by David Floyd
If orange's scenario is a case where one person will die of natural causes, and there is no violation of rights involved, as it seems Berzerker thought, then I would push the button. I am not causing anyone to die by doing that because the death is not contingent upon a murder.

Then it becomes a simple case of whether or not I would save 99 people, while at the same time committing no immoral acts. If that is the case, then of course I would save 99 people.

But I think my original interpretation is how orange meant it.

I actually did mean it as if they would naturally die, though I don't see a difference in this case. Whether or not the person would naturally die, or die from an unseen hand makes no difference on the fact that he will die whether or not you push the button.

An addition to that list must be made. It seems that, if someone's death is a natural inevitability, it is not murder to kill them. Yes?

[David Floyd]

I actually did mean it as if they would naturally die, though I don't see a difference in this case. Whether or not the person would naturally die, or die from an unseen hand makes no difference on the fact that he will die whether or not you push the button.

If the person is naturally going to die at the same moment, regardless of what you do, then pushing the button is not an act of murder, because your action is not killing anyone.

An addition to that list must be made. It seems that, if someone's death is a natural inevitability, it is not murder to kill them. Yes?

Not at all. Your example and clarification are implying that I have nothing to do with the fact of death around the same time. If that is the case, then I'm not killing them, am I?

[David Floyd]

But out of curiosity, what is the mechanism of death?

If by pushing the button, I dump a room full of water on top of him, whereas if I don't push the button, someone will kill him another way, it is murder if I push the button.

On the other hand, if by pushing the button I let everyone but him out of the room, whereas if I don't no one is let out, and then someone commits murder, I am not committing murder by pushing the button.

It's a fine line, perhaps, but to me it is very relevant.

[orange]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Correct.

If you go where I think you're gonna go with that, though, I have an answer all ready

Well, we'll see if you knew where I was going with this.

How are you able to accurately judge whether your life is in danger or not? Is a verbal "I am going to kill you" required? Or is it the visual interpretation of the event? A combination of both? You said that someone attempting to murder you removes the morality issue of killing them.

I'll play along with that for a moment, but I fail to see how assault would justify killing using your thought process. Even assault with a deadly weapon (not a gun). They may not intend to kill you, only to hurt you. There is the possibility that it is someone playing a joke with a fake knife. So many variables here at play - what removes the morality behind killing him in 'self defence'.

If you killed him in what you felt was self defence, and it turned out it was a joke - a fake knife - would you be justified? Would the act still be void of any question regarding morality?

Used to be very strongly pro-death penalty, but now I'm starting to reconsider giving the state the power to kill as a punishment. I don't know if I support it anymore or not.

Ok. Now, how does the state's execution of an individual for a crime not committed against the state differ from a third party killing a man in the act of murder to save a life? (I vaguely recall you being against acting with lethal force in defense of another)

[orange]

Originally posted by David Floyd
But out of curiosity, what is the mechanism of death?

If by pushing the button, I dump a room full of water on top of him, whereas if I don't push the button, someone will kill him another way, it is murder if I push the button.

On the other hand, if by pushing the button I let everyone but him out of the room, whereas if I don't no one is let out, and then someone commits murder, I am not committing murder by pushing the button.

It's a fine line, perhaps, but to me it is very relevant.

I understand, so I will specify.

Death is instant in both cases. If you push the button, the man dies instantly but the others lives. If you do not push the button, an invisible hand pushes the button, and everyone dies instantly.

[orange]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Not at all. Your example and clarification are implying that I have nothing to do with the fact of death around the same time. If that is the case, then I'm not killing them, am I?

no, you can assume some value of time passes

[orange]

Originally posted by Berzerker
David -
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...

Very good way of turning this into a real world scenario Couldn't think of one myself.

I'd say it's damn near perfect, except throw in the variable that you can't speak to the woman. She is unconscious or otherwise impaired from speaking motioning or otherwise indicating her feelings on the matter. The choice is yours and yours alone.

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.

I very much agree. Those are my feelings as well. You must admit, however, that there is the possibility that the person would not be willing to die, regardless of the reasoning behind it. Again, assume no communication with this individual.

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

I realize this. You wouldn't be 'immoral' for not doing anything, in my opinion. I feel, however, that most people would rationally choose to save the greatest number possible.

[David Floyd]

How are you able to accurately judge whether your life is in danger or not? Is a verbal "I am going to kill you" required? Or is it the visual interpretation of the event? A combination of both?

Obviously, some threats are credible, and some aren't. If a five year old threatens my death, common sense dictates that I'm not in danger. If a 24 year old guy with a knife is coming after me, common sense dictates that I am in danger.

I'll play along with that for a moment, but I fail to see how assault would justify killing using your thought process. Even assault with a deadly weapon (not a gun). They may not intend to kill you, only to hurt you. There is the possibility that it is someone playing a joke with a fake knife.

Well, if it's a friend playing around, I probably know that I'm not in real danger. If it's someone I don't know playing around - actually that's totally unrealistic but I'll run with it - then I have to treat it the same as an actual assault. My only information is someone I don't know is coming at me with a knife. You see the difference, I assume?

If you killed him in what you felt was self defence, and it turned out it was a joke - a fake knife - would you be justified? Would the act still be void of any question regarding morality?

Yes, I would be justified. If someone I don't know tries to rob me using a fake - but very realistic looking - gun, and I end up pulling out my own gun and killing them, I did not act immorally. I acted in self defense - I had no reasonable way of knowing the gun was fake. In fact, it was reasonable for me to assume that it was not fake - if someone is willing to rob me, why shouldn't the be willing to commit armed robbery?

Ok. Now, how does the state's execution of an individual for a crime not committed against the state differ from a third party killing a man in the act of murder to save a life? (I vaguely recall you being against acting with lethal force in defense of another)

Actually what I oppose is State A acting in defense of State B. This act is coercive towards the citizens of State A. Individual action is by definition non-coercive, because how do you coerce yourself?

Acting in defense of someone is not unjustified, but neither is not acting in defense (if I felt there was a threat to my own safety by acting in their defense - I don't have an obligation to help someone at the risk of my own health/life). What is unjustified is forcing someone else to act in defense of another.

And that's where I thought you were gonna go with it.

Death is instant in both cases. If you push the button, the man dies instantly but the others lives. If you do not push the button, an invisible hand pushes the button, and everyone dies instantly.

Then it's a simple matter of me committing one murder vs. someone else committing a hundred murders. The two acts are unrelated - I bear no responsibility for the 100 murders, but complete responsibility for the one. Therefore I do not commit murder.

no, you can assume some value of time passes

But you just told me it didn't. And even if it did, the amount of time matters. A year is certainly more significant than ten seconds.

[Berzerker]

Ted -

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

You want me to identify a post you never posted?

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.

So I'm supposed to quote a post you never made?

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

That's quite a statement coming after your accusation that my lengthy line by line rebuttals should be ignored, hypocrite.

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

You said the dust bowl occured under laissez faire - wrong. You said greedy land mismanagement caused the dust bowl, hence laissez faire was responsible. Wrong. We weren't under a laissez faire system, government intervention was involved with that "greedy land mismanagement". If you need the obvious expalined to you, that government intervention also caused the Depression. The Federal Reserve system and banking practices under government regulation contributed to "greedy land mismanagement".

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.

Which is true. On the one hand you claim that greedy mismanagement caused the dust bowl which you blame on laissez faire, on the other, you say government intervention in the economy was not responsible because there was none? If laissez faire did not exist, then government intervention did exist. So if you're going to blame the dust bowl on an economic system, blame the economic system in place at the time, not a system that did not exist at the time.

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.

Does that mean you didn't quote some guy who said a drought in 88-89 was worse than the dust bowl? Was that the drought coinciding with the massive firestorm at Yellowstone? That wasn't entirely drought driven, unwise forestry practices helped cause that firestorm. I asked if their was any subsequent drought impacting a similar sized area for a roughly equal amount of time, did you cite such a drought? I'm well aware that farming practices changed after the dust bowl, my folks lived through that time here in Kansas and I am familiar that the dust bowl was caused in part by stupid farming practices, but for you to blame the dust bowl on laissez faire is nonsense.

[orange]

Unfortunately, must call it a night. Early class tomorrow.

By some value of time, i meant something short...10 seconds was what I was getting at...basically trying to separate the two events so that it would be you killing someone else, rather than hitting a button 'as he dies'.

Still interested to see what Berzerker thinks about that. And One_Brow. I'll check back tomorrow and see if the thread is still floating around.

Thanks for for the spar Good night.

[Ben Kenobi]

"I'd say it's damn near perfect, except throw in the variable that you can't speak to the woman. She is unconscious or otherwise impaired from speaking motioning or otherwise indicating her feelings on the matter. The choice is yours and yours alone."

Finally.

I agree with Orange- because of this alteration, I lose my earlier objection of speaking to person who will kill the other five people, such as offering to switch my life for someone else's.

Would I act to save the life of the baby, even if it meant killing the mother in order to save the baby's life?

Yes.

The same is with the alternate scenario of an ectopic pregnancy. Because two will die if no action is taken rather than one, it is a moral decision to act to save the one, rather than doing nothing and letting two die.

Good job Berzerker.

[David Floyd]

The same is with the alternate scenario of an ectopic pregnancy. Because two will die if no action is taken rather than one, it is a moral decision to act to save the one, rather than doing nothing and letting two die.

Again, though, that isn't an act of murder, because the mother is going to die of natural causes at roughly the same time - she is not going to be murdered, therefore you aren't separating the acts. Because no murder will be committed, you aren't morally responsible for murder. I'm having a bit of trouble explaining the point I'm making, so hopefully you get it - it's kinda late and I'm tired