|
|
#121 |
|
Little Chief Hare
|
It depends on what stage of his life he was at. He was violently anti-semetic and racist well before he took power. At any point in time when he held the intention as well as the reasonable ability to murder I think he could be killed. I.E., we have a period between the mid twenties and mid 30's when he could have been killed before the Holocaust, WWII, etc.
However, if I knew he was going to become that person well beforehand, I could just as easily and more morally take other actions to prevent him from ending up that way. I could kidnap him and smuggle him out of germany, or befriend him in his teens when he was an artist and change his outlook by conversation. Or I could gouge his eyes out and break all his limbs. That would work in our favor, and it's more moral than murder. |
|
|
|
|
|
#122 |
|
Giant Pi Operator
|
About the "would you reject medicine?" comment and one of the above posts:
This medicine comment is most certainly relevant. Medicine is an artifical way to preserve your life. Someone said that we have "no right to decide who dies and who doesn't." If you would not want to interfere with who dies and who doesn't, why give medicine, why perform surgery, why brush your teeth, if all of it is interference? Would you save your grandfather by paying for his surgery, extending his life 20 years, or just let him die as he is "supposed to?" Saving lives is something we should all be obligated to do under reasonable circumstances such as this. |
|
|
|
|
|
#123 |
|
Little Chief Hare
|
But that's precisely the problem. These aren't reasonable circumstances. Murdering an innocent man is not reasonable.
Medicine, as I've said before, has no human cost. Now, let's say we introduce a human cost. Let's say we have the potential to save countless human lives. Millions, maybe even billions. A new cancer drug has been devised. The only problem is that we're not sure if it works on humans yet. In tests in lab rats it destroys the cancer but when tested in monkeys it worsens it so much the monkeys die within hours. Now, do we test this drug on unwilling humans if we can't find any willing ones simply because we might possibly save lives? No, this is an unethical practice, regardless of the intended consequence. |
|
|
|
|
|
#124 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: New York
Age: 34
Posts: 504
|
They would not be unwilling, though. If someone is about to die, they probably would not mind signing up for the clinical test.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#125 |
|
Little Chief Hare
|
Right, in which case it would be fine because they would be willing. Same thing as if the one guy on the other track was screaming at you to switch the track.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#126 | |
|
Beach Bum Extraordinaire
|
I reach on the other side of my bed and read the Bible. No, im not saying that Im a professor or a peacher, but I have a basic understanding what God wants a expects from us.
Quote:
Remember in the movie Master and Commander were The ship's mass breaks in a storm and it's tipping the ship over? The Captain could cut the ropes and the crew would be save, but if he did that then the one man on the mass in the water would die. In your eyes, what would you do? And for those of you who said "I wouldnt it might be a black man and I go to jail", I would go to jail for somthing right. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#127 | |||
|
Little Chief Hare
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
#128 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 117
|
@ everyone who would pull the lever
Someone laid out a situation earlier when you had to be proactive to save the five people As in, the five people are in a runaway train about to go off a cliff, and the only chance they have of being saved is if you push this obese man in front of the train. Would you save the five people by killing the one? |
|
|
|
|
|
#129 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 551
|
I would not pull the lever. If fate brought them to that conclusion that they will be crushed by a random falling metal ball then thats thier fate. You can't choose who death takes. Its not right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#130 | |
|
(The Fat's Sabobah)
|
Quote:
Also, what's this "you can't choose who death takes"? It's nonsense. Death isn't an entity that floats around from person to person taking their souls with it's scythe. Sorry, but that concept of death died with the rise of monotheism and was later abolished with increased knowledge human anatomy. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#131 |
|
doin' just fine
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Ontario, Canada
Age: 34
Posts: 822
|
hellll no
|
|
|
|
|
|
#132 | |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 551
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#133 |
|
A.K.A. Stargame
|
I would pull the lever, then run over and push the one person out of the way. I would do that because I would not willingly sit and watch ANYONE die, wether I know them or not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#134 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: New York
Age: 34
Posts: 504
|
You cannot save them all, that is the point of the question. Please people, stop adding in circumstances and what you would do. There are two and only two choices; you must pick one, not make up a third.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#135 |
|
A.K.A. Stargame
|
Sorry, I was thinking about what I would have tried doing. I really wouldn't know what to do at that point.... Having either one person die, or a whole group? That's just hard.... It isn't my choice who lives or dies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#136 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 551
|
5 People die. You don't have the right to make that kind of desision.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#137 |
|
A.K.A. Stargame
|
Indeed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#138 |
|
FFR Player
|
I would half pull the lever so that they would all be caught in the middle. Problem solved.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#139 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 551
|
HAHAH!!! Score!
|
|
|
|
|
|
#140 |
|
A.K.A. Stargame
|
Clever.
|
|
|
|
![]() |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|