|
Until you sign up you can't do much. Yes, it's free.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 | / / / Viewing Topic
|  |
Web Resources: Suicide Myths Dispelled, Suicide Information
USA Suicide Hotline: 1-800-SUICIDE (1-800-784-2433)
|
Vordhosbn
Quality Control Engineer
|
    
Quote: from Its Bearsy Bitch at 1:22 pm on Sep. 25, 2008
 Quote: from noahjk at 7:57 am on Sep. 25, 2008
Quote: from Nikki at 10:42 am on Sep. 24, 2008
It's still murder, though, even if she was about to die. Who's to say that the day after her death all the poor people don't suddenly die in a fire, or something?
I feel like this sums up pretty much the entire post.
Really? Because this was a terrible argument. For instance in my state assisted suicide is legal only to people who are going to die in a few months anyway. Are you going to argue, "Well that's as wrong as helping a healthy teenager kill himself because he might have died in a car crash the next day anyway!" Very weak argument.
i disagree. i support assisted suicide, as long as the person wishing to end their life is in the right state of mind to make the decision. this is not murder.
-------
In the world we must seek, love is purged of the instinct for domination.
-- Bertrand Russel, Proposed Roads to Freedom
|
|
|
|
|
 LiveWire Humor
|
|
|
|
Vordhosbn
Quality Control Engineer
|
Quote: from Its Bearsy Bitch at 1:24 pm on Sep. 25, 2008
Quote: from Vordhosbn at 5:46 am on Sep. 25, 2008
the way i see this, it isnt about capitalism, communism, or any other ism... i see what bearsy is saying, but it is flawed logic. yes, the murderer could probably justify to himself that he had done the 'right' thing. if you take a consequentialist approach - absolutely. kill one to save a bunch. there you go, solved. it isn't that simple. i am not a consequentialist, so i can't agree with you. as a humanist, i hold the value of humanity above anything else. and that doesn't mean human life either. i value humanity as an evolving whole, and what it is that sets us apart from animals. things like compassion, like forethought, like love. by killing that elderly woman for, essentially, something as fickle as currency, you are devaluing humanity. some things just aren't worth destroying ourselves for. arguments like "but she stole!" and "but what about the poor kiddies!" just don't hold any weight when the alternative is as barbaric as murder.
it's not as fickle as currency, these people could starve. as a humanist you would want to save many instead of one.
yes, as a humanist and a deontologist, i would. i believe that the act of killing somebody is stronger that it's result.
-------
In the world we must seek, love is purged of the instinct for domination.
-- Bertrand Russel, Proposed Roads to Freedom
|
|
|
Bearsy
Guru
 Patron
|
Quote: from Vordhosbn at 1:28 pm on Sep. 25, 2008
Quote: from Its Bearsy Bitch at 1:24 pm on Sep. 25, 2008
Quote: from Vordhosbn at 5:46 am on Sep. 25, 2008
the way i see this, it isnt about capitalism, communism, or any other ism... i see what bearsy is saying, but it is flawed logic. yes, the murderer could probably justify to himself that he had done the 'right' thing. if you take a consequentialist approach - absolutely. kill one to save a bunch. there you go, solved. it isn't that simple. i am not a consequentialist, so i can't agree with you. as a humanist, i hold the value of humanity above anything else. and that doesn't mean human life either. i value humanity as an evolving whole, and what it is that sets us apart from animals. things like compassion, like forethought, like love. by killing that elderly woman for, essentially, something as fickle as currency, you are devaluing humanity. some things just aren't worth destroying ourselves for. arguments like "but she stole!" and "but what about the poor kiddies!" just don't hold any weight when the alternative is as barbaric as murder.
it's not as fickle as currency, these people could starve. as a humanist you would want to save many instead of one.
yes, as a humanist and a deontologist, i would. i believe that the act of killing somebody is stronger that it's result.
so to answer the question
a) If someone was to kill her and take her money, and distribute it to the poor in the area (which would result in many lives being improved a lot), would you consider him a good or bad person? Also take in account that she is very old and is about to die anyway.
You would say that he's a bad person for killing this woman in an attempt to save others. Really. Say a shooter comes to your school and shooting the freaking class up. Wouldn't a heroic person with a gun on them go and shoot the shooter?
-------
click and please click
^use head phones
|
|
|
Vordhosbn
Quality Control Engineer
|
Quote: from Its Bearsy Bitch at 1:28 pm on Sep. 25, 2008
Quote: from Vordhosbn at 1:26 pm on Sep. 25, 2008
Quote: from Its Bearsy Bitch at 1:22 pm on Sep. 25, 2008
Quote: from noahjk at 7:57 am on Sep. 25, 2008
Quote: from Nikki at 10:42 am on Sep. 24, 2008
It's still murder, though, even if she was about to die. Who's to say that the day after her death all the poor people don't suddenly die in a fire, or something?
I feel like this sums up pretty much the entire post.
Really? Because this was a terrible argument. For instance in my state assisted suicide is legal only to people who are going to die in a few months anyway. Are you going to argue, "Well that's as wrong as helping a healthy teenager kill himself because he might have died in a car crash the next day anyway!" Very weak argument.
i disagree. i support assisted suicide, as long as the person wishing to end their life is in the right state of mind to make the decision. this is not murder.
Do you support assisting the suicide of people who are physically healthy?
yes i do. as long as the person is of a clear mind and chooses to end their own life, then i support it. however, if a person is physically sound, they probably don't need assisted suicide. they can generally do it themselves. if you're talking about, say, a doctor prescribing some kind of injection or something that the subject can administer themselves to make the suicide painless, then yes, i'd support that too. obviously this would be after they have talked to doctors, psychiatrists, counsellors etc to give them a chance to really consider their decision.
-------
In the world we must seek, love is purged of the instinct for domination.
-- Bertrand Russel, Proposed Roads to Freedom
|
|
|
Vordhosbn
Quality Control Engineer
|
Quote: from Its Bearsy Bitch at 1:31 pm on Sep. 25, 2008
Quote: from Vordhosbn at 1:28 pm on Sep. 25, 2008
Quote: from Its Bearsy Bitch at 1:24 pm on Sep. 25, 2008
Quote: from Vordhosbn at 5:46 am on Sep. 25, 2008
the way i see this, it isnt about capitalism, communism, or any other ism... i see what bearsy is saying, but it is flawed logic. yes, the murderer could probably justify to himself that he had done the 'right' thing. if you take a consequentialist approach - absolutely. kill one to save a bunch. there you go, solved. it isn't that simple. i am not a consequentialist, so i can't agree with you. as a humanist, i hold the value of humanity above anything else. and that doesn't mean human life either. i value humanity as an evolving whole, and what it is that sets us apart from animals. things like compassion, like forethought, like love. by killing that elderly woman for, essentially, something as fickle as currency, you are devaluing humanity. some things just aren't worth destroying ourselves for. arguments like "but she stole!" and "but what about the poor kiddies!" just don't hold any weight when the alternative is as barbaric as murder.
it's not as fickle as currency, these people could starve. as a humanist you would want to save many instead of one.
yes, as a humanist and a deontologist, i would. i believe that the act of killing somebody is stronger that it's result.
so to answer the question
a) If someone was to kill her and take her money, and distribute it to the poor in the area (which would result in many lives being improved a lot), would you consider him a good or bad person? Also take in account that she is very old and is about to die anyway.
You would say that he's a bad person for killing this woman in an attempt to save others. Really. Say a shooter comes to your school and shooting the freaking class up. Wouldn't a heroic person with a gun on them go and shoot the shooter?
we're going in circles here... yes. i would consider him a bad person for redistributing her wealth. you can't just keep paraphrasing essentially the same hypothetical hoping to get an emotional response out of me. i've told you where i stand on this.
-------
In the world we must seek, love is purged of the instinct for domination.
-- Bertrand Russel, Proposed Roads to Freedom
|
|
|
Bearsy
Guru
Patron
|
Quote: from Vordhosbn at 1:34 pm on Sep. 25, 2008
Quote: from Its Bearsy Bitch at 1:31 pm on Sep. 25, 2008
Quote: from Vordhosbn at 1:28 pm on Sep. 25, 2008
Quote: from Its Bearsy Bitch at 1:24 pm on Sep. 25, 2008
Quote: from Vordhosbn at 5:46 am on Sep. 25, 2008
the way i see this, it isnt about capitalism, communism, or any other ism... i see what bearsy is saying, but it is flawed logic. yes, the murderer could probably justify to himself that he had done the 'right' thing. if you take a consequentialist approach - absolutely. kill one to save a bunch. there you go, solved. it isn't that simple. i am not a consequentialist, so i can't agree with you. as a humanist, i hold the value of humanity above anything else. and that doesn't mean human life either. i value humanity as an evolving whole, and what it is that sets us apart from animals. things like compassion, like forethought, like love. by killing that elderly woman for, essentially, something as fickle as currency, you are devaluing humanity. some things just aren't worth destroying ourselves for. arguments like "but she stole!" and "but what about the poor kiddies!" just don't hold any weight when the alternative is as barbaric as murder.
it's not as fickle as currency, these people could starve. as a humanist you would want to save many instead of one.
yes, as a humanist and a deontologist, i would. i believe that the act of killing somebody is stronger that it's result.
so to answer the question
a) If someone was to kill her and take her money, and distribute it to the poor in the area (which would result in many lives being improved a lot), would you consider him a good or bad person? Also take in account that she is very old and is about to die anyway.
You would say that he's a bad person for killing this woman in an attempt to save others. Really. Say a shooter comes to your school and shooting the freaking class up. Wouldn't a heroic person with a gun on them go and shoot the shooter?
we're going in circles here... yes. i would consider him a bad person for redistributing her wealth. you can't just keep paraphrasing essentially the same hypothetical hoping to get an emotional response out of me. i've told you where i stand on this.
I'm not trying to get an emotional response after you, but wouldn't YOU shoot the shooter if they were in the act and you had a gun? Would you tell someone they were a bad person for shooting someone who was on a killing spree?
Post edited at 1:36 pm on Sep. 25, 2008 by Bearsy
-------
click and please click
^use head phones
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bearsy
Guru
Patron
|
Also no one is a complete deontologist, no one is pro-swirly but when someone has to give a nerd a swirly or else the world will blow up suddenly everybody's a consequentialist.
-------
click and please click
^use head phones
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Looking for something else?
|
|
|
|
|
|
| / / / Viewing Topic | |
|
832 users online 
222863 members 
You have 1 new message.
