Gerald
Resident Fiend
And attempting to save lives, knowing that you can't save any is getting yourself killed for nothing.
A dillema for the "moral" Absolutist...
- Thread starter Punisher1984
- Start date
That might be one of the most asinine things ever typed on this forum.
You are an unadulterated moron.
It's easy to make judgments like this but a quick dismissal often belies reality. I don't consider the sonderkommandos "cowards"; I consider them people who did what they had to do. Dipping into fiction, I don't see the tragic character of Sophie Zawistowski as a "coward" based on the hideous "choice" she had to make. What you do to survive in such a nightmarish situation is beyond what we'd retrospectively call cowardice.
You are wrong.
I would spit in the face of the killers and go down fighting. I am not going to join up with evil and help some retards murder people.
I will not do evil so that good may come of it. I will stand with all the other men and women who willing give their lives for the cause of what is right.
I will let you losers take the sissy's way out.
Gerald
Resident Fiend
If I'm faced with a situation in which the choices are for me and mine to live OR everybody dies including me and mine, then I'm going to save me and mine.
Like I said, trying to save lives by fighting when anything you attempt is going to fail and get you and everybody else killed is just throwing your life away for nothing.
All your action would accomplish is assuage your Manly Pride™ right before you die.
LosingMyReligion
New member
You ignored the part where I said crime and morality are not synonymous. It doesn't have to be a question of crime to be a question of morality. You are clinging to the word 'crime' because you seemingly can't articulate your argument without it.
The point is that you can't save them all. But if you truly are an absolutist 100% you would be frozen in place unable to decide or left unable to cope with your decision. If you have determined that you can make a choice, even if random, and live with it, then you are a relativist, like it or not.
So what you are saying is if an evil nation was attacking America and you knew America was going to lose you would join up with the evil nation to save your own skin?
Not me.
I guess that's the difference between guys like you.... and guys like me.
I would go down swinging.
Door
New member
It's not standing up for the truth, even if it gets you killed, that makes you good for nothing.
Gerald
Resident Fiend
Then my side will hack you to bits and exterminate the people you're trying to defend.
You'll be dead, and your vain sacrifice utterly forgotten. You will have accomplished nothing.
If you can't make an intelligent point please go away.
Seriously, your point is asinine. It's a non-point.
You keep saying the same thing over and over again and it never makes it any more true or logical than your first attempt. You are not equipped to be involved in this type of a conversation because you lack the comprehension skills necessary to understand the difference in the various hypotheticals.
Gerald
Resident Fiend
So, you have a problem with the fact that I place no value on personal honor, and will gladly take advantage of an opponent who does.
I prefer to win by subterfuge and betrayal (befriend your enemy, then stab him in the back when he drops his guard).
And you will murder in the process?
That's cowardly.
Stand up for what is right!
Or.... as a friend of mine once said....
Do right and risk the consequences.
Gerald
Resident Fiend
Killing a mortal enemy isn't murder, it's pest control. Murder is predicated on the victim being human.
C
cattyfan
Guest
No...I don't determine who. The people doing the killing are making that determination. They may be looking for a scapegoat, but the deaths are on them, not me.
Just because you don't like the answer doesn't make it any less true.
LosingMyReligion
New member
Ok then. I've fully conveyed my thoughts on the question anyway. Have a nice day and see you around.
:chuckle:
Yeah... like we are on this boat and we are all gonna die unless we eat the fat guy or toss out the old lady.
But hey.... stupid situational ethics scenarios are the bread and butter of every "fresh out of college" high school teacher.
As well as Jesus.
Huh?
Why is your loved one or the 10 innocent people a mortal enemy?
You aren't making any sense. (I guess that shouldn't shock me)
Do you have a point to make? Or are you just gonna be stupid from the sidelines?
Gerald
Resident Fiend
No, but those who endanger them are.
I was still responding to the "personal honor" issue.
The upshot is this: I'm not going to take a bullet for a stranger under any circumstances, no matter how dire.
There's no point in getting myself killed if it won't at the very least take my mortal enemy (see above) and all his buddies (also my mortal enemies) with me. In the scenario presented, that option is unavailable.