How About THIS Morals -Ethics Question?

[PLOlover]

The real answer, once I recognized your question when you said ok no gunmen, two burning buildings ...

Ok. First of all you have a property right in the dog. He belongs to you. A stranger you have no connection to.

So. Two burning buildings you can be completely justified if you choose to save your dog, which is your property.

But. In the coerced example of the gunman, you may incur some liability, criminal liability and civil liability, if you choose your property and thereby arguably assist/accomplice the murder.

So I think you are under no obligation to act to save anyone, however, taking any active role which results in a crime can in the most extreme case put you in the role of an accomplice. The Patty Hearst example comes to mind.

[Lestat]

So you're saying he shouldn't have titled it a moral -ethics question, but a material and legal question?

[chomsky53]

david, posting faggot [censored] doesnt make you smart. it makes you a faggot. i think even you can see why.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
So you're saying he shouldn't have titled it a moral -ethics question, but a material and legal question?

[/ QUOTE ]

In a sense all law is just the practical ramifications of the public morality.

I also think all natural rights are founded on private property, something like that.

But you know the bible is a lawbook and most people would say it is about morality.

I don't think it has to do with ethics as ethics is more of a "you have a duty to more than one person in an issue", and how to deal with it.

[Kripke]

If you are a believer in ethical egoism, you might want to choose the dog.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/e/egoism.htm

However, if you are not mentally ill, even contemplating saving the dog is not an option.

- Kripke

[craig r]

[ QUOTE ]
david, posting faggot [censored] doesnt make you smart. it makes you a faggot. i think even you can see why.

[/ QUOTE ]

At least change your name. Come on man!!

craig