08-01-2003 09:49									#361
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Calc II - that's fine...but can you give a little more explanation as to why you feel that way and what choice you feel you would make in such a situation?

	08-01-2003 09:58									#362
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Floyd - the major schizm I find between your thoughts and mine (and perhaps the people who think like I do and the people who think like you do) is centred around the infamous 'the ends do not justify the means' debate.

I can respect that, in almost all cases I feel that the ends does not justify the means. I am, however, willing to sacrifice my own morality (to not murder) for the purpose of saving 99 lives, if choosing not to sacrifice my morality leads to the deaths of 100 (including the one that would have died anyway). I recognize that you feel the ends never justify the means. But in this case, my feelings are that the ends (99 saved lives) justifies my killing a man who would have died regardless of my actions (whether I chose to kill or not to kill)

	08-01-2003 10:00									#363
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd Gah! That's what we've been debating for about four pages now

You think I remember that! I only respond to the posts as I see them.

Live for the moment!

	08-01-2003 10:01									#364
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

orange,

Do you agree with the following statement:

"If someone is going to be murdered no matter what, it makes no difference whether I murder him or someone else does."

	08-01-2003 10:05									#365
	Full PM-box? Change here!

of course. If you can show me something that is universally moral perhaps I will consider it.

Also in case why people would be confused as to why I would choose 10 innocent death over 1. (people are so obsesssed with "greatest good for greatest mass") Here it goes.

Since You all know morality is not basis for my decision making, we can ditch that and go straight to logic. Here I am faced with 2 undesirable situation. (you dont have to be moral to ask you be forced to kill or rather not kill) So lets use analogy for people who cant see it my way. To me, it's like somone telling me You have to eat Pistachio or Vanilla. Now I hate both equally, but obviously The person making this threat is forcing me. The fact alone that i am confined to limited option thru force repulses me. Therefore, if two options are equally undesirable, it does not matter which you choose.

However, it is most likely the case the person demanding this situation has established "or else..." because he wants the first action to be carried. So, if two actions are equally distasteful to you, its not hard to see why you would choose to do nothing just to spite the person who is forcibly trying to make you do something you dont want to do normally.

In addition, in our society, its harder to prosecute someone for not doing anything which resulted in death of human beings rather than doing something that causes death of human beings. But this does not have to be taken into account to see why I would choose to do nothing.

	08-01-2003 10:07									#366
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

another thought regarding the 'nothing that hasn't happened is inevitable' thoughts.

If you kill a man in self defence, you have murdered him, because he may not have killed you. In this light, if David believes nothing is inevitable, he would allow himself to be killed by an attacker instead of defending himself using deadly force, given that it was his only option.

Example: If you were held at gun point and told that your attacker was going to kill you, and had no other means of attack, would you be willing to shoot to kill. If so, you either do believe in the inevitability or even the likelihood of certain situations occuring affecting your decision to kill or you believe that the ends (your survival) justifies the means (you killing your attacker).

	08-01-2003 10:08									#367
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

im making cup o noodle and you guys are posting so fast.... my first sentence was in response to david flyod btw. I will explain myself more later but I am eating now~

	08-01-2003 10:09									#368
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd orange, Do you agree with the following statement: "If someone is going to be murdered no matter what, it makes no difference whether I murder him or someone else does."

It does make a difference, to me. I would not want to be the one to kill him. In this situation, however, there are no other variables.

Even in the example I gave: I would not like to be the one to kill, i would dread it, it would be a very painful thing for me to do - but I would do it if it was the only means for the survival of others.

	08-01-2003 10:16									#369
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Calc II To me, it's like somone telling me You have to eat Pistachio or Vanilla. Now I hate both equally, but obviously The person making this threat is forcing me. The fact alone that i am confined to limited option thru force repulses me. Therefore, if two options are equally undesirable, it does not matter which you choose.

In other words, the death of one person and the deaths of many people are equally undesirable to you - and faced with the spiderman scenario - you would choose randomly?

quote: However, it is most likely the case the person demanding this situation has established "or else..." because he wants the first action to be carried. So, if two actions are equally distasteful to you, its not hard to see why you would choose to do nothing just to spite the person who is forcibly trying to make you do something you dont want to do normally.

This part makes me think that you would simply not chose either. Now, morals aside (that I don't care about for now, as they're all different) if you feel it equally undesirable for either the individual or the group to die, why wouldn't you at least act to save one of them? Or is the undesirability of the deaths infinite, so that whether you save either or neither the end result is the same? If so, wouldn't you choose randomly, but including the option not to do anything?

You see, you wouldn't simply choose to do nothing. You would choose randomly between the three options (save A, save B, save neither) since all three lead to equally undesirable results. You can't say that you would choose to save neither, because that suggests another variable. Either you feel choosing neither provides a sense of justification to your choice (I couldn't save both, so I chose neither, to not 'play God') or for some other reason.

quote: In addition, in our society, its harder to prosecute someone for not doing anything which resulted in death of human beings rather than doing something that causes death of human beings. But this does not have to be taken into account to see why I would choose to do nothing.

laws have no bearing on this hypothetical. Irrelevant information.

	08-01-2003 10:16									#370
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Berzerker Ted - Nope.

Because you can't point out my exact post, can you?

quote: Deny you ignored some of my posts.

You're the one that made the accusation, the burden of proof is on you! You are hilarious Berzerker, you put the burden of proof on everyone except YOURSELF.

quote: Liar, responding with insults don't count.

Then that counts out about 90% of your posts to me. Speaking of which:

quote: Liar, I said government intervention caused the Depression.

quote: Ted: The Dust Bowl is a prime example of lassiez faire gone wrong, due to greedy free for all land mismangement, there was nothing to save the farmland when the drought and subsequent flooding washed it all away. Hypzerker:We weren't under a laissez faire system. Geez, you people keep citing government induced calamities and blame the marketplace

quote: Ted: What kind of system was the farm system then? Also tell me how government intrusion into the farm system caused the Dust Bowl. Hypzerker: The Depression was government induced. And farming practices were tied to government regulation of the economy.

quote: You quoted some guy who said a more recent drought (88-89?) was worse than the dust bowl.

I quoted the National Drought Mitigation Center at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. And gave examples of several droughts that had occured since the 1930s.

	08-01-2003 10:17									#371
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by orange another thought regarding the 'nothing that hasn't happened is inevitable' thoughts. If you kill a man in self defence, you have murdered him, because he may not have killed you. In this light, if David believes nothing is inevitable, he would allow himself to be killed by an attacker instead of defending himself using deadly force, given that it was his only option. Example: If you were held at gun point and told that your attacker was going to kill you, and had no other means of attack, would you be willing to shoot to kill. If so, you either do believe in the inevitability or even the likelihood of certain situations occuring affecting your decision to kill or you believe that the ends (your survival) justifies the means (you killing your attacker).

Without inevitablity? Can I use % chance.

Lets say situtation is assessed to be 60% likely that someone would kill me if I dont defend myself. So I shoot him. Even if Later we determine he wouldnt have killed me afterall. I would dread not choosing the optimal solution, but I would never regret my action. Its silly to take risk like that for your life.

(Million dollar on table, you have chance to double it or lose it all. Do you fold and walk away with money or risk a 40% chance?)

	08-01-2003 10:20									#372
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: If you kill a man in self defence, you have murdered him, because he may not have killed you. In this light, if David believes nothing is inevitable, he would allow himself to be killed by an attacker instead of defending himself using deadly force, given that it was his only option.

That's silly. If someone is coming after me with a knife, he is violating my freedom. One does not have the freedom to violate the rights of another, and when one does, there is no moral paradox in stopping them.

True, a knife might not kill me, and a person breaking into my home at night might not even be dangerous, but I'd have no compunction over shooting either one.

I'm not shooting the person because of the inevitability of my death - that isn't the issue. The issue is that they are violating my rights, and I have the right to protect myself.

This is not an example of the ends justifying the means. That phrase implies immorality on my part. But someone else is already acting immorally, against me, so it is in no way immoral for me to protect myself. Fighting off someone who is assaulting me is not assault, and killing someone assaulting me with a knife is not murder. Both assault and murder are, by definition, unjust acts. But it's silly to say that fighting back is unjust.

	08-01-2003 10:20									#373
	Remove this text

David -

quote: Berzerker, I hate to disagree, but...

I know, hehe, the feeling is mutual. You might convince me I'm wrong though.

quote: Very true, but wouldn't you agree that there is a big difference between you killing someone and another person killing someone, in terms of moral responsibility?

I was unaware the hypothetical said another person was involved, only me and the people whose lives are on the line. I'd agree if this other person was committing the murder(s), but the hypothetical made no mention of a murderer putting me in the position of choosing.

quote: Sure, the person is dead either way, but you can't be held accountable for the actions of others.

True, but I am responsible for mine. If I was a doctor faced with murdering a pregnant woman who will die because of the pregnancy no matter what I do, but my actions would save the baby, then I do what I can to save the life of the baby even if that includes murdering the woman. Now, this is a quasi-real world scenario which requires knowledge the doctor wouldn't normally have - that the woman's death is inevitable - but let's say the doc did have that knowledge. No action and both die, action and 1 lives. I believe I'd have her blessing...

Orange -

quote: So your ration says that saving 99 lives supercedes the immorality of killing one person, given that he would die anyway? Not saying you're wrong, I'm just clarifying.

I don't consider it immoral to murder the one person since they are dead either way. It would be immoral to let the 99 die through non-action. I have to ask what I would want if I was the one person, and I wouldn't hold it against the person pushing the button if they chose to save the 99 even if the hypothetical allowed for them the choice of saving me or the 99 people. The act of "murder" with regards to immorality does depend to a degree on the wishes of the victim. Let's say my death would save a million people but I could not commit suicide for personal reasons. You have to "murder" me to save these people. Do I give you my blessing or do I condemn you as a murderer? I give you my blessing.

quote: The second (Spiderman) hypothetical does. It allows for saving either one person or a group of people whose number is greater than 1.

True, but as David pointed out, we are not the instrument taking their life, an accident is the instrument.

	08-01-2003 10:22									#374
	Got spare money?

quote: It does make a difference, to me. I would not want to be the one to kill him. In this situation, however, there are no other variables.

I disagree. In your scenario, the only variable is whether or not you want to behave morally. Murder can never be a moral act, therefore if I want to behave morally I won't commit murder. This has nothing to do with the actions of other people - if someone else wants to behave immorally, that is their problem, and they are in the wrong, but they can in no circumstance make you responsible for their own actions.

	08-01-2003 10:25									#375
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Berzerker,

quote: I was unaware the hypothetical said another person was involved, only me and the people whose lives are on the line. I'd agree if this other person was committing the murder(s), but the hypothetical made no mention of a murderer putting me in the position of choosing.

Well, I don't see any other way the example can make any modicum of sense, other than the fact that you are making a choice between you murdering someone and someone else committing murder.

I think we can both agree that hypotheticals like that are stupid, though, because they have no bearing on real life.

quote: No action and both die, action and 1 lives. I believe I'd have her blessing...

I'm certain you would, and if she gives permission, I see no problem.

	08-01-2003 10:27									#376
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

If orange's scenario is a case where one person will die of natural causes, and there is no violation of rights involved, as it seems Berzerker thought, then I would push the button. I am not causing anyone to die by doing that because the death is not contingent upon a murder.

Then it becomes a simple case of whether or not I would save 99 people, while at the same time committing no immoral acts. If that is the case, then of course I would save 99 people.

But I think my original interpretation is how orange meant it.

	08-01-2003 10:33									#377
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Ok, so we have to define some things here.

According to Floyd:
If your life is put in danger, killing is not murder.
If you have the approval of the person to be killed, killing is not murder.

Correct? (Not speaking legally, but according to your morals)

An aside: Do you support the death penalty?

	08-01-2003 10:35									#378
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: If your life is put in danger, killing is not murder. If you have the approval of the person to be killed, killing is not murder.

Correct.

If you go where I think you're gonna go with that, though, I have an answer all ready

quote: An aside: Do you support the death penalty?

Used to be very strongly pro-death penalty, but now I'm starting to reconsider giving the state the power to kill as a punishment. I don't know if I support it anymore or not.

	08-01-2003 10:37									#379
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd If orange's scenario is a case where one person will die of natural causes, and there is no violation of rights involved, as it seems Berzerker thought, then I would push the button. I am not causing anyone to die by doing that because the death is not contingent upon a murder. Then it becomes a simple case of whether or not I would save 99 people, while at the same time committing no immoral acts. If that is the case, then of course I would save 99 people. But I think my original interpretation is how orange meant it.

I actually did mean it as if they would naturally die, though I don't see a difference in this case. Whether or not the person would naturally die, or die from an unseen hand makes no difference on the fact that he will die whether or not you push the button.

An addition to that list must be made. It seems that, if someone's death is a natural inevitability, it is not murder to kill them. Yes?

	08-01-2003 10:40									#380
	Put an end to popups!

quote: I actually did mean it as if they would naturally die, though I don't see a difference in this case. Whether or not the person would naturally die, or die from an unseen hand makes no difference on the fact that he will die whether or not you push the button.

If the person is naturally going to die at the same moment, regardless of what you do, then pushing the button is not an act of murder, because your action is not killing anyone.

quote: An addition to that list must be made. It seems that, if someone's death is a natural inevitability, it is not murder to kill them. Yes?

Not at all. Your example and clarification are implying that I have nothing to do with the fact of death around the same time. If that is the case, then I'm not killing them, am I?

	08-01-2003 10:42									#381
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

But out of curiosity, what is the mechanism of death?

If by pushing the button, I dump a room full of water on top of him, whereas if I don't push the button, someone will kill him another way, it is murder if I push the button.

On the other hand, if by pushing the button I let everyone but him out of the room, whereas if I don't no one is let out, and then someone commits murder, I am not committing murder by pushing the button.

It's a fine line, perhaps, but to me it is very relevant.

	08-01-2003 10:44									#382
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd Correct. If you go where I think you're gonna go with that, though, I have an answer all ready

Well, we'll see if you knew where I was going with this.

How are you able to accurately judge whether your life is in danger or not? Is a verbal "I am going to kill you" required? Or is it the visual interpretation of the event? A combination of both? You said that someone attempting to murder you removes the morality issue of killing them.

I'll play along with that for a moment, but I fail to see how assault would justify killing using your thought process. Even assault with a deadly weapon (not a gun). They may not intend to kill you, only to hurt you. There is the possibility that it is someone playing a joke with a fake knife. So many variables here at play - what removes the morality behind killing him in 'self defence'.

If you killed him in what you felt was self defence, and it turned out it was a joke - a fake knife - would you be justified? Would the act still be void of any question regarding morality?

quote: Used to be very strongly pro-death penalty, but now I'm starting to reconsider giving the state the power to kill as a punishment. I don't know if I support it anymore or not.

Ok. Now, how does the state's execution of an individual for a crime not committed against the state differ from a third party killing a man in the act of murder to save a life? (I vaguely recall you being against acting with lethal force in defense of another)

	08-01-2003 10:45									#383
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd But out of curiosity, what is the mechanism of death? If by pushing the button, I dump a room full of water on top of him, whereas if I don't push the button, someone will kill him another way, it is murder if I push the button. On the other hand, if by pushing the button I let everyone but him out of the room, whereas if I don't no one is let out, and then someone commits murder, I am not committing murder by pushing the button. It's a fine line, perhaps, but to me it is very relevant.

I understand, so I will specify.

Death is instant in both cases. If you push the button, the man dies instantly but the others lives. If you do not push the button, an invisible hand pushes the button, and everyone dies instantly.

	08-01-2003 10:47									#384
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd Not at all. Your example and clarification are implying that I have nothing to do with the fact of death around the same time. If that is the case, then I'm not killing them, am I?

no, you can assume some value of time passes

	08-01-2003 10:52									#385
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Berzerker David - True, but I am responsible for mine. If I was a doctor faced with murdering a pregnant woman who will die because of the pregnancy no matter what I do, but my actions would save the baby, then I do what I can to save the life of the baby even if that includes murdering the woman. Now, this is a quasi-real world scenario which requires knowledge the doctor wouldn't normally have - that the woman's death is inevitable - but let's say the doc did have that knowledge. No action and both die, action and 1 lives. I believe I'd have her blessing...

Very good way of turning this into a real world scenario Couldn't think of one myself.

I'd say it's damn near perfect, except throw in the variable that you can't speak to the woman. She is unconscious or otherwise impaired from speaking motioning or otherwise indicating her feelings on the matter. The choice is yours and yours alone.

quote: I don't consider it immoral to murder the one person since they are dead either way. It would be immoral to let the 99 die through non-action. I have to ask what I would want if I was the one person, and I wouldn't hold it against the person pushing the button if they chose to save the 99 even if the hypothetical allowed for them the choice of saving me or the 99 people.

I very much agree. Those are my feelings as well. You must admit, however, that there is the possibility that the person would not be willing to die, regardless of the reasoning behind it. Again, assume no communication with this individual.

quote: True, but as David pointed out, we are not the instrument taking their life, an accident is the instrument.

I realize this. You wouldn't be 'immoral' for not doing anything, in my opinion. I feel, however, that most people would rationally choose to save the greatest number possible.

	08-01-2003 10:57									#386
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: How are you able to accurately judge whether your life is in danger or not? Is a verbal "I am going to kill you" required? Or is it the visual interpretation of the event? A combination of both?

Obviously, some threats are credible, and some aren't. If a five year old threatens my death, common sense dictates that I'm not in danger. If a 24 year old guy with a knife is coming after me, common sense dictates that I am in danger.

quote: I'll play along with that for a moment, but I fail to see how assault would justify killing using your thought process. Even assault with a deadly weapon (not a gun). They may not intend to kill you, only to hurt you. There is the possibility that it is someone playing a joke with a fake knife.

Well, if it's a friend playing around, I probably know that I'm not in real danger. If it's someone I don't know playing around - actually that's totally unrealistic but I'll run with it - then I have to treat it the same as an actual assault. My only information is someone I don't know is coming at me with a knife. You see the difference, I assume?

quote: If you killed him in what you felt was self defence, and it turned out it was a joke - a fake knife - would you be justified? Would the act still be void of any question regarding morality?

Yes, I would be justified. If someone I don't know tries to rob me using a fake - but very realistic looking - gun, and I end up pulling out my own gun and killing them, I did not act immorally. I acted in self defense - I had no reasonable way of knowing the gun was fake. In fact, it was reasonable for me to assume that it was not fake - if someone is willing to rob me, why shouldn't the be willing to commit armed robbery?

quote: Ok. Now, how does the state's execution of an individual for a crime not committed against the state differ from a third party killing a man in the act of murder to save a life? (I vaguely recall you being against acting with lethal force in defense of another)

Actually what I oppose is State A acting in defense of State B. This act is coercive towards the citizens of State A. Individual action is by definition non-coercive, because how do you coerce yourself?

Acting in defense of someone is not unjustified, but neither is not acting in defense (if I felt there was a threat to my own safety by acting in their defense - I don't have an obligation to help someone at the risk of my own health/life). What is unjustified is forcing someone else to act in defense of another.

And that's where I thought you were gonna go with it.

quote: Death is instant in both cases. If you push the button, the man dies instantly but the others lives. If you do not push the button, an invisible hand pushes the button, and everyone dies instantly.

Then it's a simple matter of me committing one murder vs. someone else committing a hundred murders. The two acts are unrelated - I bear no responsibility for the 100 murders, but complete responsibility for the one. Therefore I do not commit murder.

quote: no, you can assume some value of time passes

But you just told me it didn't. And even if it did, the amount of time matters. A year is certainly more significant than ten seconds.

	08-01-2003 10:58									#387
	Got spare money?

Ted -

quote: Because you can't point out my exact post, can you?

You want me to identify a post you never posted?

quote: You're the one that made the accusation, the burden of proof is on you! You are hilarious Berzerker, you put the burden of proof on everyone except YOURSELF.

So I'm supposed to quote a post you never made?

quote: Then that counts out about 90% of your posts to me.

That's quite a statement coming after your accusation that my lengthy line by line rebuttals should be ignored, hypocrite.

quote: Ted: The Dust Bowl is a prime example of lassiez faire gone wrong, due to greedy free for all land mismangement, there was nothing to save the farmland when the drought and subsequent flooding washed it all away. Hypzerker:We weren't under a laissez faire system. Geez, you people keep citing government induced calamities and blame the marketplace

You said the dust bowl occured under laissez faire - wrong. You said greedy land mismanagement caused the dust bowl, hence laissez faire was responsible. Wrong. We weren't under a laissez faire system, government intervention was involved with that "greedy land mismanagement". If you need the obvious expalined to you, that government intervention also caused the Depression. The Federal Reserve system and banking practices under government regulation contributed to "greedy land mismanagement".

quote: Ted: What kind of system was the farm system then? Also tell me how government intrusion into the farm system caused the Dust Bowl. Hypzerker: The Depression was government induced. And farming practices were tied to government regulation of the economy.

Which is true. On the one hand you claim that greedy mismanagement caused the dust bowl which you blame on laissez faire, on the other, you say government intervention in the economy was not responsible because there was none? If laissez faire did not exist, then government intervention did exist. So if you're going to blame the dust bowl on an economic system, blame the economic system in place at the time, not a system that did not exist at the time.

quote: I quoted the National Drought Mitigation Center at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. And gave examples of several droughts that had occured since the 1930s.

Does that mean you didn't quote some guy who said a drought in 88-89 was worse than the dust bowl? Was that the drought coinciding with the massive firestorm at Yellowstone? That wasn't entirely drought driven, unwise forestry practices helped cause that firestorm. I asked if their was any subsequent drought impacting a similar sized area for a roughly equal amount of time, did you cite such a drought? I'm well aware that farming practices changed after the dust bowl, my folks lived through that time here in Kansas and I am familiar that the dust bowl was caused in part by stupid farming practices, but for you to blame the dust bowl on laissez faire is nonsense.

	08-01-2003 11:02									#388
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Unfortunately, must call it a night. Early class tomorrow.

By some value of time, i meant something short...10 seconds was what I was getting at...basically trying to separate the two events so that it would be you killing someone else, rather than hitting a button 'as he dies'.

Still interested to see what Berzerker thinks about that. And One_Brow. I'll check back tomorrow and see if the thread is still floating around.

Thanks for for the spar Good night.

	08-01-2003 11:08									#389
	Suffering from ads?

"I'd say it's damn near perfect, except throw in the variable that you can't speak to the woman. She is unconscious or otherwise impaired from speaking motioning or otherwise indicating her feelings on the matter. The choice is yours and yours alone."

Finally.

I agree with Orange- because of this alteration, I lose my earlier objection of speaking to person who will kill the other five people, such as offering to switch my life for someone else's.

Would I act to save the life of the baby, even if it meant killing the mother in order to save the baby's life?

Yes.

The same is with the alternate scenario of an ectopic pregnancy. Because two will die if no action is taken rather than one, it is a moral decision to act to save the one, rather than doing nothing and letting two die.

Good job Berzerker.

	08-01-2003 11:11									#390
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: The same is with the alternate scenario of an ectopic pregnancy. Because two will die if no action is taken rather than one, it is a moral decision to act to save the one, rather than doing nothing and letting two die.

Again, though, that isn't an act of murder, because the mother is going to die of natural causes at roughly the same time - she is not going to be murdered, therefore you aren't separating the acts. Because no murder will be committed, you aren't morally responsible for murder. I'm having a bit of trouble explaining the point I'm making, so hopefully you get it - it's kinda late and I'm tired