The Problem with Libertarians...

[orange]

or, if you prefer...the spiderman scenario...(only no loopholes this time):

You have the ability to save one or the other: a random person or a group of random people trapped inside a cable car. It is given that you can only save the individual OR the group, but not both. It is given that these individuals are randomly chosen. It is given that you do not know who you are saving until you've saved them. Do you choose to save the individual, do you choose to save the group, or do you refuse action?

[orange]

according to what I've gathered of your collective beliefs, you will not push the button, and you'll refuse action for two reasons:

1) Pushing the button would be an immoral act on your part. You will not knowingly cause the death of a random person.

2) The idea that: Nothing is a given.

Therefore 100 people, including the one that you would have killed if you had pushed the button, are dead. You will not be morally responsible for anyone's death. The scenario has resolved itself.

It is the second scenario where I am especially interested to hear the response of One_Brow, mainly because he can either adhere to his previous claims and choose randomly (ie - flip a coin, that's who he saves) but in such a scenario where all information was given, I can't imagine that he would choose randomly. I have a feeling reason would win over, he would choose to save the greater number of individuals. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I can't imagine anyone (given that the individuals are random and unknown) choosing to save one person when they can save more than one.

[Berzerker]

Ted -

Point out the exact post please.

Nope, you didn't support your accusations.

By the way, I saw you just ignored someone else's post. Hypocrite.

Really? Whose? Did I chastise them for ignoring my posts? You're obviously too stupid to understand what hypocrisy means. If I chastised them for ignoring my posts after I ignored theirs, that would be hypocrisy. You know, like you've been doing.

You also completely ignored my Dust Bowl post way back there. That makes you a double hypocrite.

You've been ignoring some of my posts from almost the outset of our debate. Remember? You criticised me for posting long responses as an excuse to ignore them.

But I understand why you couldn't refute several neutral, well documented sources.

Documentation that the Dust Bowl occured? I never said it didn't.

It's alot easier to just label people as hypocrites and be done with it.

I proved my accusations, you haven't. But you sure would know how easy it is to label.

Hypocrite.

Label - no proof - hypocrite.

[David Floyd]

orange,

Do you choose to push the button (since one cannot be 'made' to choose) or do you refuse action?

Refuse action. I will not commit murder.

Do you choose to save the individual, do you choose to save the group, or do you refuse action?

Refusing action is not the moral response in this scenario, because your act of saving one person/group is not causing anyone else to die. As to which I would save, that's a tough call that I don't want to ever have to make. Most likely I would save the group of people, simply because I would be exerting a positive effect on many lives, which is better than a positive effect on only one. And given that this act does not make me responsible for the death of the one random person, I have not acted immorally - I am not exerting a negative effect on anyone.

Hopefully that answer is sufficient.

[orange]

well put

[Berzerker]

Orange -

interesting loophole, Berzerker.

Excuse me, I didn't come up with a question about a "choice" to murder people.

I know that you have a lot of posts to respond to, so take your time but let me ask you a revised form of the question then.

Yes, I do have many posts to respond to and if I miss one, Ted will accuse me of hypocrisy even if he is clueless about the meaning of the word.

I realize that this is a very abstract hypothetical, and that you'd never be faced with such a choice

Then why ask it if it's meaningless?

There is a button. If you push it, it will kill one person. If you do not push the button, 100 people, INCLUDING THE ONE THAT WILL DIE IF YOU PUSH THE BUTTON, will die. You know these are facts, and they will happen. You also do not know any of the people. Do you choose to push the button (since one cannot be 'made' to choose) or do you refuse action?

I push the button.

according to what I've gathered of your collective beliefs, you will not push the button, and you'll refuse action for two reasons:

1) Pushing the button would be an immoral act on your part. You will not knowingly cause the death of a random person.

2) The idea that: Nothing is a given.

You said no loopholes.

Therefore 100 people, including the one that you would have killed if you had pushed the button, are dead. You will not be morally responsible for anyone's death. The scenario has resolved itself.

You couldn't wait for my answer before answering for me? You didn't re-phrase the question, you changed it. In the first hypothetical, I would have been murdering someone to save the lives of 5 people. In your hypothetical, the one person dies either way.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I can't imagine anyone (given that the individuals are random and unknown) choosing to save one person when they can save more than one.

Your hypothetical doesn't allow for saving one person.

or, if you prefer...the spiderman scenario...(only no loopholes this time):

You have the ability to save one or the other: a random person or a group of random people trapped inside a cable car. It is given that you can only save the individual OR the group, but not both. It is given that these individuals are randomly chosen. It is given that you do not know who you are saving until you've saved them. Do you choose to save the individual, do you choose to save the group, or do you refuse action?

I save the group, nothing immoral about that.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Ted -

Nope, you didn't support your accusations.

Nice dodge. Now point out the exact post.

You've been ignoring some of my posts from almost the outset of our debate.

Point out the exact posts. He ducks left, he ducks right, can anybody catch this guy?

Remember? You criticised me for posting long responses as an excuse to ignore them.

Actually me, (and many others) were making fun of your posts because you don't really ever offer a point, you just anally take things line by line (like this post) and say something to the effect of, "no that's not right" (which is always your opinion and never supported by anything else other than your opinion).

I've responded to every single one of your posts.

Documentation that the Dust Bowl occured? I never said it didn't.

You know what you said, cut the act and fess up.

You said that government intervention (the story of your life) caused the Dust Bowl. I said that government intervention not only had nothing to do with the Dust Bowl, but that government intervention has also helped prevent another Dust Bowl from occuring and then provided sources to back up my analysis.

Please provide me with 19th Century American drug usage please.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Berzerker
You couldn't wait for my answer before answering for me?

You would never do that to someone though, would you Hypzerker?

[David Floyd]

Berzerker,

I hate to disagree, but...

In your hypothetical, the one person dies either way.

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?

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

[orange]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Orange -
Excuse me, I didn't come up with a question about a "choice" to murder people.

I was saying I hadn't thought the choice not to choose. Technically I said you had to, but you're right: a forced choice is not a choice, and you can't really argue your position on the first hypothetical.

Yes, I do have many posts to respond to and if I miss one, Ted will accuse me of hypocrisy even if he is clueless about the meaning of the word.

I understand

Then why ask it if it's meaningless?

It helps to understand the thought process.

I push the button.

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.

You said no loopholes.

That I did...but I thought that you would use the logic that, no matter what I say is a given, it is not a given since it hasn't happened yet.

You couldn't wait for my answer before answering for me? You didn't re-phrase the question, you changed it. In the first hypothetical, I would have been murdering someone to save the lives of 5 people. In your hypothetical, the one person dies either way.

haha, sorry Was actualling making a prediciton for Floyd and to some extent One_Brow. You're right though, I did change the question entirely. By "rephrase" i meant "come up with a question without a loophole" I think the second one is best at that, but I'm mainly looking for One_Brow's take on that. (He argued that 5 deaths is no worse than 1 death)

Your hypothetical doesn't allow for saving one person.

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

I save the group, nothing immoral about that.

I agree. Again, your ration tells you that, if given a choice, you will save the largest possible number, rather than the fewest possible number or simply not acting. I'd like to see One_Brow state anything, because either he refutes his previous statement OR he is illogical.

[Graag]

There is a button. If you push it, it will kill one person. If you do not push the button, 100 people, INCLUDING THE ONE THAT WILL DIE IF YOU PUSH THE BUTTON, will die. You know these are facts, and they will happen. You also do not know any of the people. Do you choose to push the button (since one cannot be 'made' to choose) or do you refuse action?

Pretty simple, push the button. The action of pushing the button saves the lives of the other 99, and does alter the inevitable death of the 1.

The button could be said not to kill the man, but to save the others only, as the man dies whether you press the button or not, the button's effect as far as the man is concerned is irrelevant.

or, if you prefer...the spiderman scenario...(only no loopholes this time):

You have the ability to save one or the other: a random person or a group of random people trapped inside a cable car. It is given that you can only save the individual OR the group, but not both. It is given that these individuals are randomly chosen. It is given that you do not know who you are saving until you've saved them. Do you choose to save the individual, do you choose to save the group, or do you refuse action?

Save the group, no explanation needed methinks.

A better question would be:

If you were told you hand to kill a stranger, or 10 different strangers would die, would you do it?

Much trickier for me. I don't think I could do it (kill the one stranger), but if the situation actually arose, I don't know what I would do.

[David Floyd]

If you were told you hand to kill a stranger, or 10 different strangers would die, would you do it?

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

[Berzerker]

Ted -

Nice dodge. Now point out the exact post.

Nope.

Point out the exact posts. He ducks left, he ducks right, can anybody catch this guy?

Deny you ignored some of my posts.

Actually me, (and many others) were making fun of your posts because you don't really ever offer a point, you just anally take things line by line (like this post) and say something to the effect of, "no that's not right" (which is always your opinion and never supported by anything else other than your opinion).

The only people I've seen chastise me for making long posts are people lacking the balls to debate, but is that an admission you've been ignoring some of my posts?

I've responded to every single one of your posts.

Liar, responding with insults don't count.

You know what you said, cut the act and fess up.

I said the Dust Bowl never occured?

You said that government intervention (the story of your life) caused the Dust Bowl.

Liar, I said government intervention caused the Depression.

I said that government intervention not only had nothing to do with the Dust Bowl, but that government intervention has also helped prevent another Dust Bowl from occuring and then provided sources to back up my analysis.

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

Please provide me with 19th Century American drug usage please.

Use google.

You would never do that to someone though, would you Hypzerker?

Notice the smilie?

[Zero]

What the hell is wrong with this thread? it goes from liberatarian, parenting, and morality and... whatever i cant read all this~

in spiderman scenario, My decision to save the individual or the group does not have to follow logic. It is for me perfectly moral to save an individual I dont know over a group let alone save a stranger for group of people you know. Morality is bullcrap.

Graag for your choice, I would let ten people die.

[David Floyd]

Morality is bullcrap.

Interesting. I take it you don't believe in right and wrong, then?