Re: The Value of Human Life (a poll for BigSooner)
 

[ QUOTE ]
The right thing to do would be to refrain from using the death ray,

[/ QUOTE ]

And let the children starve to death? I'd rather be killed with an unforseen death ray than knowingly starve to death.

Re: The Value of Human Life (a poll for BigSooner)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I can not justify taking someone else's life even if it means letting someone I love die.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can justify taking someone else's life... even if no loved one's are involved: self-defense, euthanasia.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough: I think good arguments can be made for killing someone in the two examples listed. Can you give a justification for killing someone who (1) hasn't infringed on your rights at all and (2) hasn't consented to your taking their life?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure: to save someone else's life. If a suicide bomber is about to blow up a building that I'm not in, then it would be moral for me to kill him to prevent him from killing other people.

Then, the next step would be to kill someone who wasn't intentionally putting other people's lives at risk.

Then, the next step would be to introduce acts of omission, and show that they are really no better than acts of commission. But, I digress.

Killing an innocent person is bad. That is true. However, there are times when that is the least bad choice. Which would make it the right or moral thing to do.

[/ QUOTE ]


What makes this stuff "morally right" though? If a "morally wrong" action poses no negative consequence to me, why should I care? It's like the illegalization of oral sex in some states: they can't enforce it, so no one seems to care. The "illegality" is just a formality, and it's completely worthless.

Re: Reply to mrmazzo and lestat
 

[ QUOTE ]
We have to define "right" and "wrong" before we can go any further. I want to hear someone give me a good definition of them without telling me that it's what God wants us to do, or that I'm a bad person for not believing in right and wrong (even though I honestly don't know what they are)

[/ QUOTE ]

Something is good to the extent that it increases happiness(*) and/or decreases suffering(*).

Something is bad to the extent that it decreases happiness(*) and/or increases suffering(*).

An action is right to the extent that it was intended to do good.

An action is wrong to the extent that it was intended to do bad.

(*) "Happiness" means not just pleasure, but joy, peace, contentment, and well-being. Suffering is the opposite of that.

Re: The Value of Human Life (a poll for BigSooner)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I can not justify taking someone else's life even if it means letting someone I love die.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can justify taking someone else's life... even if no loved one's are involved: self-defense, euthanasia.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough: I think good arguments can be made for killing someone in the two examples listed. Can you give a justification for killing someone who (1) hasn't infringed on your rights at all and (2) hasn't consented to your taking their life?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure: to save someone else's life. If a suicide bomber is about to blow up a building that I'm not in, then it would be moral for me to kill him to prevent him from killing other people.

Then, the next step would be to kill someone who wasn't intentionally putting other people's lives at risk.

Then, the next step would be to introduce acts of omission, and show that they are really no better than acts of commission. But, I digress.

Killing an innocent person is bad. That is true. However, there are times when that is the least bad choice. Which would make it the right or moral thing to do.

[/ QUOTE ]


What makes this stuff "morally right" though? If a "morally wrong" action poses no negative consequence to me, why should I care?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's "morally right" because it is motivated by the intent to do good (increase happiness). You should care because you would want other people to stop the bomber if YOU were in the building. Mutual cooperation is beneficial to happiness.

Re: Reply to mrmazzo and lestat
 

Exactly. But who defines right and wrong? And when does what's right and wrong change? Certainly most would agree to killing 10 children if it would save the entire human race. Some might be willing to kill 10 children if it kept their country from going bankrupt. I might be willing to give up my life so that 10 strange children can live, but not be willing to give up my kid's life.

The majority (society), helps us with what is acceptable and what isn't for the good of that society. But you seemed to have purposely taken society out of the question.

Re: Reply to mrmazzo and lestat
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We have to define "right" and "wrong" before we can go any further. I want to hear someone give me a good definition of them without telling me that it's what God wants us to do, or that I'm a bad person for not believing in right and wrong (even though I honestly don't know what they are)

[/ QUOTE ]

Something is good to the extent that it increases happiness(*) and/or decreases suffering(*).

Something is bad to the extent that it decreases happiness(*) and/or increases suffering(*).

An action is right to the extent that it was intended to do good.

An action is wrong to the extent that it was intended to do bad.

(*) "Happiness" means not just pleasure, but joy, peace, contentment, and well-being. Suffering is the opposite of that.

[/ QUOTE ]




Here, then, is an interesting twist...

Let's say that there is an island out in the Pacific somewhere. About two hundred natives live on it. Although they are isolated from the rest of the world, they live happy lives and have plenty to eat.

Let's say my beloved girlfriend is dying and the only remedy is to vaporize all the inhabitants of the island. (DEATH RAY! DEATH RAY! DEATH RAY!)

If I nuke them, I and my girlfriend, and our friends, are much happier. The inhabitants of the island do not suffer, and their lack of existance doesn't bother the rest of the world.

If I don't nuke them, my girlfriend dies, I am sad because I killed her, and other people that matter to me are also sad. The island inhabitants continue living happy lives, but their happiness will not affect the rest of us.

What incentive is there for me to spare the islanders' lives?

Re: Reply to mrmazzo and lestat
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We have to define "right" and "wrong" before we can go any further. I want to hear someone give me a good definition of them without telling me that it's what God wants us to do, or that I'm a bad person for not believing in right and wrong (even though I honestly don't know what they are)

[/ QUOTE ]

Something is good to the extent that it increases happiness(*) and/or decreases suffering(*).

Something is bad to the extent that it decreases happiness(*) and/or increases suffering(*).

An action is right to the extent that it was intended to do good.

An action is wrong to the extent that it was intended to do bad.

(*) "Happiness" means not just pleasure, but joy, peace, contentment, and well-being. Suffering is the opposite of that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why Kip, it appears that you are adopting Buddhism. Congrats! (absolutely no sarcasm intended)

Re: Reply to mrmazzo and lestat
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue">And not murdering innocent people takes precedence over saving the life of an individual, no matter how dear to heart. </font>

Takes precedence for who? Takes precedence for you? Takes precedence for the innocent people? Takes precedence for God?

Suppose the loved one was your child. Then it certainly doesn't take evolutionary precedence insofar as advancing one's own genes. If you are saying you would give up the life of your child for 10 strangers, then you are either not a parent, or I pity your child.

If not killing innocents were our only concern, there could be no winnable wars. A general could never commit 20 innocent soldiers live's to any cause.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow Stat,

I must say you floored me with this one. I’d have never put you on this.

RJT

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm being honest, which I don't think anyone who has a child is doing if they say they'd choose allowing their child to suffer a horrible death over 10 strangers.

I guess this is where being an athiest is helpful. I don't worry about God's wrath. But how much more pitiful are those who do, yet STILL save their child?

[/ QUOTE ]

Purnell, (I mean Stat, - edited)

I assumed you were being honest. If one would have no problem with murder then I would hope that he would at least be honest on an open forum –lol. It just surprised me is all I was saying.

(I think this illustrates well NotReady’s point from a while back; that he was trying to make (yet few seemed to get): If … (can’t remember exact context) then murder is OK

RJT

Re: Reply to mrmazzo and lestat
 

No biggie, but you are talking to lestat, not me. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: Reply to mrmazzo and lestat
 

[ QUOTE ]
No biggie, but you are talking to lestat, not me. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL - oops, late night at weekly poker game.

RJT