Congratulations.... I was suspicious that you were a moron, but now there is no doubt.
A dillema for the "moral" Absolutist...
- Thread starter Punisher1984
- Start date
OK, I am losing IQ points just reading this idiocy.... I think I will bow out and let you cowards battle it out trying to determine which victims you want to help murder.
:mock: Cowards!
:mock: Cowards!
First off, cattyfan was making what we like to call "a joke".
But more importantly the original scenario didn't rue out fighting back, it only ruled out fighting back with the likelihood of being successful.
From the scenario....
So I don't match their firepower? :idunno: I die trying.
That's the difference between us when confronted with this life or death scenario: I would immediately put a premium on my survival and the survival of my fiancee. No dilemma there.
Pekkle
New member
I was thinking this the entire time.
More than half the text here has been ad hominem. :bang:
mighty_duck
New member
This is like pulling out teeth!
We assumed that chances are identical. The only factor you have on which to save (first) is that one choice saves your loved one, while the other saves 10 strangers. Why do you keep trying to look for outside distractions? The point of hypotheticals is to shield us from these distractions. Whatever decision you make, you have an equal (non-existent) chance of saving them both.
ETA- If the question wasn't clear enough: You do know the location of your loved one.
Supposing the chances are equal, saying you would still choose your single loved one over 10 strangers is still a moral decision. It says your personal interests are more important to you than the good of 10 lives.
Would your decision be any different if there were a million people in the group instead of just 10?
We assumed that chances are identical. The only factor you have on which to save (first) is that one choice saves your loved one, while the other saves 10 strangers. Why do you keep trying to look for outside distractions? The point of hypotheticals is to shield us from these distractions. Whatever decision you make, you have an equal (non-existent) chance of saving them both.
ETA- If the question wasn't clear enough: You do know the location of your loved one.
Supposing the chances are equal, saying you would still choose your single loved one over 10 strangers is still a moral decision. It says your personal interests are more important to you than the good of 10 lives.
Would your decision be any different if there were a million people in the group instead of just 10?
When dealing with absolute morons sometimes that's the best option.
Are you are coward like they are?
Pulling teeth????
I answered you directly two... no wait... THREE TIMES!!!
You are a moron.
Fair enough. You have the right to take the cowardly way out and save your own skin.
...and the love of my life. Ummm...:think:
If you think survival and living is inherently cowardly, go ahead, but I don't see any percentage in getting my sweetheart's brains blown out if I can help it.:idunno:
So you will actively participate in murder to save your loved one and yourself???? That's cowardly.
I would rather go down fighting and I know my wife would feel the same way. Neither one of us would find value in becoming criminals just to save our own skin.
LosingMyReligion
New member
You are just repeating what duck already said. That was the point of his example. duck said clearly that his example was meant to demonstrate that you can phrase the question in terms of positives and still show that you can't be absolute in your judgement call without damning yourself. Someone will die and you determine who. If you believe in absolutes then you are doomed as a killer. It merely shows that relativism, far from being simply an excuse to do what you want, is a solution to the inevitable. Under relativism you saved the most savable. Under absolutism, you killed, period. It shows the intractability of absolutism.
I say..... Lets Roll!
I provided my answer to this hypothetical a while ago, earlier on the thread. Saving my life and the life of the most important person to me trumps the lives of any stranger.
Gerald
Resident Fiend
Which is as it should be. :thumb:
mighty_ducks alternate scenario isn't a absolute moral dilemma.
Attempting to save lives, knowing that you can't save them all isn't a crime.
There is simply so other way to say that. If you can't comprehend that, I guess I can't help you.
Yet in this scenario you need to participate in murder to save yourself and your loved one. That makes you a coward.
Coward. :loser:
LosingMyReligion
New member
I agree - because of relativism. In a relativist view, there isn't anything wrong with saving people even if others can't be saved. But in an absolutist view there is because there is absolutely no room for one death being less bad than another. You are left with no possible way out, no reason for one choice over the other. That's why the philosophy breaks down. That's the whole point we are trying to demonstrate. It seems that each argument you raise is in support of a relativist view.