greymare
Well-Known Member
you are most welcome..
id like to think i would be brave... but... who knows?
id like to think i would be brave... but... who knows?
What Would You Do?
- Thread starter c0de
- Start date
Dream
Well-Known Member
I would not divert the train, because I could see the girl. Disaster feels wrong to all of us. Most of all it feels wrong that someone should die before their time, secondly that the living should suffer, and thirdly death altogether -- but its not so bad if they've had a full life. A full life and a full train would sort of connect in my mind as opposed to 'little girl', and that is just how it would go.
Let us say I am driving a car. Driving, I take the risk of hitting a pedestrian. Should they risk dying so that I may travel rapidly? No, that is not fair. They are walking, so they should not be paying my 'driver's insurance'. At least with the girl & train there is a fair payment of insurance premiums.
17th Angel
לבעוט את התחת ולקחת שמות
- Messages
- 9,437
- Reaction score
- 10
- Points
- 0
There are going to be children on the train man lol...... Probally ones even younger than the girl.... Also how do you know this is before her time? This could be -her- time... Never got that statement... That can only be said by someone who knows when this person is meant to die and how they should die....
c0de
Vassal
- Messages
- 2,237
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 0
@ Alex
That's why i have trouble with it, cuz utilitarianism is a materialistic philosophy at the end of the day.
@ Grey
none of us do... until we get tested. and fail.. and learn.. and get tested again... i guess
@ Dream
That's some valid reasoning as well
path_of_one
Embracing the Mystery
I'm with Alex. And I don't buy that utilitarianism is materialistic (necessarily) or that it is only utilitarianism that would lead to a decision to save the 200 on the train over the little girl.
There are too many unknowns to make the decision based on any sort of rationality outside of the numbers game, to me. First, for those that say "Oh, but it's a little girl," the "little girl" could be 12 and the train could have 100 mothers and infants, for all you know. You don't know who is on the train.
Second, the idea that people need to live a "full life" is a false one, in my opinion. A full life isn't longevity, it's a way of living and dying. Living a good life and a good death. I've seen little kids with terminal illnesses who lived a full life, and had a good death. And I've seen old people who didn't live a full life, who lived with regret and pain, and died without a sense of purpose. The quality of one's life can't be measured in years.
Third, I think it is a mistake to assume some people's lives are worth more than others. What- if the train has 200 adults- mothers and fathers- then the suffering and pain of all those connected with them, and their lives, are somehow worth less than that of one kid? If the train is full of criminals, their bad deeds somehow make their lives worth less than a kid? Are we so bold as to say we can judge the worth of another's life? That if the person to run over was a criminal- say, a 16-year-old gang member, that we could know they are worthless compared to the little girl and it'd be easy to run them over... even as we hem and haw at the idea of it being an "innocent child"?
And can I excuse myself by saying, well, the train is already headed to the cliff? So my knowledge and capacity for action in my life is worthless? We just let famines occur and people die from disease and so forth, because, hey- why take responsibility for our creativity and capacity for free will? Wake up call- if we know about it and we do nothing... that *is* an action. We make a choice. It is inescapable and people who wish to play the determinist game are simply abdicating their responsibility as human beings. Like it or not, we have power. We have agency. And to ignore this is to be irresponsible and callous. It is a selfish choice to ignore your power to choose... it makes you feel better at the expense of others and what you could do for them. Of course these kinds of decisions are uncomfortable and of course fraught with risk and uncertainty. But that is human life. We do this all the time.
Every day, we in the Western world walk into stores and buy crap that is cheap because we're exploiting millions of poor people, many of them children, all over the world. We protect our national security through wars that sacrifice children, mothers, fathers... innocent people... all the time. Our entire lifestyle in the West is built on sacrificing innocent and relatively powerless people on a daily basis.
And we have qualms about running over some imaginary kid on a train track???
Forgive me if I have utter peace about my decision and real skepticism about debates on utilitarianism...
If only the real world worked where we were even concerned with the greatest good for the greatest number of people. At least we wouldn't be likely to have rioting over rice shortages, wars, and pharmaceuticals too expensive for people with AIDS in Africa to afford...
There are too many unknowns to make the decision based on any sort of rationality outside of the numbers game, to me. First, for those that say "Oh, but it's a little girl," the "little girl" could be 12 and the train could have 100 mothers and infants, for all you know. You don't know who is on the train.
Second, the idea that people need to live a "full life" is a false one, in my opinion. A full life isn't longevity, it's a way of living and dying. Living a good life and a good death. I've seen little kids with terminal illnesses who lived a full life, and had a good death. And I've seen old people who didn't live a full life, who lived with regret and pain, and died without a sense of purpose. The quality of one's life can't be measured in years.
Third, I think it is a mistake to assume some people's lives are worth more than others. What- if the train has 200 adults- mothers and fathers- then the suffering and pain of all those connected with them, and their lives, are somehow worth less than that of one kid? If the train is full of criminals, their bad deeds somehow make their lives worth less than a kid? Are we so bold as to say we can judge the worth of another's life? That if the person to run over was a criminal- say, a 16-year-old gang member, that we could know they are worthless compared to the little girl and it'd be easy to run them over... even as we hem and haw at the idea of it being an "innocent child"?
And can I excuse myself by saying, well, the train is already headed to the cliff? So my knowledge and capacity for action in my life is worthless? We just let famines occur and people die from disease and so forth, because, hey- why take responsibility for our creativity and capacity for free will? Wake up call- if we know about it and we do nothing... that *is* an action. We make a choice. It is inescapable and people who wish to play the determinist game are simply abdicating their responsibility as human beings. Like it or not, we have power. We have agency. And to ignore this is to be irresponsible and callous. It is a selfish choice to ignore your power to choose... it makes you feel better at the expense of others and what you could do for them. Of course these kinds of decisions are uncomfortable and of course fraught with risk and uncertainty. But that is human life. We do this all the time.
Every day, we in the Western world walk into stores and buy crap that is cheap because we're exploiting millions of poor people, many of them children, all over the world. We protect our national security through wars that sacrifice children, mothers, fathers... innocent people... all the time. Our entire lifestyle in the West is built on sacrificing innocent and relatively powerless people on a daily basis.
And we have qualms about running over some imaginary kid on a train track???
Forgive me if I have utter peace about my decision and real skepticism about debates on utilitarianism...
If only the real world worked where we were even concerned with the greatest good for the greatest number of people. At least we wouldn't be likely to have rioting over rice shortages, wars, and pharmaceuticals too expensive for people with AIDS in Africa to afford...
17th Angel
לבעוט את התחת ולקחת שמות
- Messages
- 9,437
- Reaction score
- 10
- Points
- 0
Wow, haven't heard that sound echo for awhile...
Some excellent points raised there sister
c0de
Vassal
- Messages
- 2,237
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 0
@ Path of One
Rescuing someone from death via famine is not the same because you are not forced to kill someone to save someone else. I agree that we need to take action, but what if that action causes us to commit a crime? Do the ends justify the means?
As for the rest, your reasoning is completely valid and rational, the same as Alex... The question here is whether rationality is itself enough.
Rescuing someone from death via famine is not the same because you are not forced to kill someone to save someone else. I agree that we need to take action, but what if that action causes us to commit a crime? Do the ends justify the means?
As for the rest, your reasoning is completely valid and rational, the same as Alex... The question here is whether rationality is itself enough.
17th Angel
לבעוט את התחת ולקחת שמות
- Messages
- 9,437
- Reaction score
- 10
- Points
- 0
I think, c0de my adorable brother! The point here and in many dire serious events.... Is; not too look too deep for another motive, meaning or reason... To rest your questioning thoughts and just do what you know should be done
17th Angel
לבעוט את התחת ולקחת שמות
- Messages
- 9,437
- Reaction score
- 10
- Points
- 0
May I share A story.... (appologies for the length of it.... But, read it and take what you get from it lol.)
The ramparts will fall to the enemy. It is just a matter of time. They will mount their attack at dawn. The main body of the allied forces has already drawn far back from the front. Only the mercenaries are left behind the barricade. Their orders: defend it to the death. These men, who have gone from battlefield to battlefield, know exactly what that means.
"They've just left us here to die," chuckles the one called Toma in darkness too thick for a person to make out his own hand.
"They want us to buy time so the main force can pull farther back. We're supposed to be their shields, performing our final service for our employers."
His dry, papery laugh shakes the darkness.
Kaim says nothing in reply. Other mercenaries must be gathered there around them in the blackness, but all keep their thoughts to themselves.
Mercenaries have nothing to say to each other on the battlefield. They might be on opposite sides in the next battle. At a time like this especially, when they have to defend the barricade against the enemy's withering attack, they can't spare time even to look at each other's faces.
Kaim knows nothing about this fighter called Toma. His voice sounds young. He probably has very little experience as a mercenary.
If a man grows talkative in the face of death, it means that, deep down somewhere, he has a weakness that prevents him from becoming a true soldier. A mercenary with even a hint of such weakness can never cheat death and live to see another day.
It is the law of the battlefield, and a man like Toma will only learn that law in the moment before he loses his life.
"We're done for. We'll all be dead in the morning. We'll have that 'silent homecoming' they talk about. I can't stand it. I just can't stand it."
In the darkness, no voices rise to second these sentiments. It's too late for talk like this. The day they chose the mercenary's path was when they should have resigned themselves to death.
They will sell their lives for a little money. They prolong their lives, a day at a time, by taking the lives of one enemy after another. That's what a mercenary is: nothing more, nothing less.
"Hey... can anybody hear me? How many of us are here? We're all going to die together. We'll just be a line of corpses in the morning. Don't shut up now. Answer me!"
No one says a thing. Instead of voices, the silent darkness begins to fill with a tangible sense of annoyance.
Wordlessly to gather on the battlefield; wordlessly to fight the enemy; and just as wordlessly to die.
That is the rule of the mercenary, the "aesthetic" of the mercenary, if such an expression may be permitted.
But Toma has taken it upon himself to abandon that aesthetic.
"I knew it was hopeless from the start. Headquarters didn't know what they were doing. There was no way a strategy like that could work. You know what I'm talking about, don't you guys? We had to lose. It's a total mess. I wish to hell I had joined the other side. Then we could have gotten a mountain of cash for winning. We could have drunk ourselves blind. We could have had all the women we wanted. I could have gone either way on this one but I picked the wrong side to fight on..."
"Hey, you!" an older voice booms out of the darkness. An angry voice.
"Yeah, what?" answers Toma, his voice more vibrant now at having at last found someone willing to talk with him.
As if to crush his momentary enthusiasm, the other man goes on, "How about shutting up a while? If you really want to run off at the mouth that much, I can send you to the next world a step ahead of the rest of us."
"I-I'm sorry..."
Instantly dejected, Toma falls silent and the darkness grows still again.
The stillness is charged, however, with a deep tension. Far deeper, even, than before Toma started talking.
The veteran warriors know: watch out for a talkative man.
Being talkative means trusting in words--trusting too much in words.
Words are useless on the battlefield. You take up your weapon in silence, you fight in silence, you kill the enemy--or he kills you--in silence. All the mercenaries here have lived this way. All but the talkative one.
A soldier who clings too desperately to words may cling just as desperately to something else--to the sweet trap of betrayal, for example, or the seduction of desertion under fire, or the lure of madness.
Kaim has often seen pitiful mercenaries who, unable to endure the terror of being surrounded by the enemy, go beserk and attack men from their own side.
Will Toma prove to be another such case? The possibility is great, and no doubt the other men are thinking the same thing, too. In the stillness, they turn the same gazes toward Toma that they reserve for confrontations with the enemy, looking for any signs of change in his demeanor. The moment they perceive the slightest threat in him, a blade will soundlessly pierce the left side of his chest.
The silence continues. Not even the usual all-night cries of insects can be heard tonight as they were last night. Perhaps the insects knew enough to clear out in advance of the enemy's dawn attack. The thought reminds Kaim that he saw no birds in the area yesterday, either. Although animals came to snatch food when the men first built this fortification, there has been no sign of them for several days now.
Animals have mysterious powers of foreknowledge that humans have lost. This becomes painfully obvious from any visit to a battlefield.
There can be little doubt that the animals have turned their backs on this barricade.
Right about now, in some distant forest, a huge flock of black birds may be taking wing in search of humans corpses to strip of their flesh:
"It's feast time, boys!"
They already know, somehow. Once the sun is fully up, the battle will be over. If they don't get here first, they'll lose some of their feast to a flock from another forest. Their black bodies hidden against the night sky, those birds now are probably flying for all they're worth.
A voice in the night. Toma's voice.
Weeping.
The ramparts will fall to the enemy. It is just a matter of time. They will mount their attack at dawn. The main body of the allied forces has already drawn far back from the front. Only the mercenaries are left behind the barricade. Their orders: defend it to the death. These men, who have gone from battlefield to battlefield, know exactly what that means.
"They've just left us here to die," chuckles the one called Toma in darkness too thick for a person to make out his own hand.
"They want us to buy time so the main force can pull farther back. We're supposed to be their shields, performing our final service for our employers."
His dry, papery laugh shakes the darkness.
Kaim says nothing in reply. Other mercenaries must be gathered there around them in the blackness, but all keep their thoughts to themselves.
Mercenaries have nothing to say to each other on the battlefield. They might be on opposite sides in the next battle. At a time like this especially, when they have to defend the barricade against the enemy's withering attack, they can't spare time even to look at each other's faces.
Kaim knows nothing about this fighter called Toma. His voice sounds young. He probably has very little experience as a mercenary.
If a man grows talkative in the face of death, it means that, deep down somewhere, he has a weakness that prevents him from becoming a true soldier. A mercenary with even a hint of such weakness can never cheat death and live to see another day.
It is the law of the battlefield, and a man like Toma will only learn that law in the moment before he loses his life.
"We're done for. We'll all be dead in the morning. We'll have that 'silent homecoming' they talk about. I can't stand it. I just can't stand it."
In the darkness, no voices rise to second these sentiments. It's too late for talk like this. The day they chose the mercenary's path was when they should have resigned themselves to death.
They will sell their lives for a little money. They prolong their lives, a day at a time, by taking the lives of one enemy after another. That's what a mercenary is: nothing more, nothing less.
"Hey... can anybody hear me? How many of us are here? We're all going to die together. We'll just be a line of corpses in the morning. Don't shut up now. Answer me!"
No one says a thing. Instead of voices, the silent darkness begins to fill with a tangible sense of annoyance.
Wordlessly to gather on the battlefield; wordlessly to fight the enemy; and just as wordlessly to die.
That is the rule of the mercenary, the "aesthetic" of the mercenary, if such an expression may be permitted.
But Toma has taken it upon himself to abandon that aesthetic.
"I knew it was hopeless from the start. Headquarters didn't know what they were doing. There was no way a strategy like that could work. You know what I'm talking about, don't you guys? We had to lose. It's a total mess. I wish to hell I had joined the other side. Then we could have gotten a mountain of cash for winning. We could have drunk ourselves blind. We could have had all the women we wanted. I could have gone either way on this one but I picked the wrong side to fight on..."
"Hey, you!" an older voice booms out of the darkness. An angry voice.
"Yeah, what?" answers Toma, his voice more vibrant now at having at last found someone willing to talk with him.
As if to crush his momentary enthusiasm, the other man goes on, "How about shutting up a while? If you really want to run off at the mouth that much, I can send you to the next world a step ahead of the rest of us."
"I-I'm sorry..."
Instantly dejected, Toma falls silent and the darkness grows still again.
The stillness is charged, however, with a deep tension. Far deeper, even, than before Toma started talking.
The veteran warriors know: watch out for a talkative man.
Being talkative means trusting in words--trusting too much in words.
Words are useless on the battlefield. You take up your weapon in silence, you fight in silence, you kill the enemy--or he kills you--in silence. All the mercenaries here have lived this way. All but the talkative one.
A soldier who clings too desperately to words may cling just as desperately to something else--to the sweet trap of betrayal, for example, or the seduction of desertion under fire, or the lure of madness.
Kaim has often seen pitiful mercenaries who, unable to endure the terror of being surrounded by the enemy, go beserk and attack men from their own side.
Will Toma prove to be another such case? The possibility is great, and no doubt the other men are thinking the same thing, too. In the stillness, they turn the same gazes toward Toma that they reserve for confrontations with the enemy, looking for any signs of change in his demeanor. The moment they perceive the slightest threat in him, a blade will soundlessly pierce the left side of his chest.
The silence continues. Not even the usual all-night cries of insects can be heard tonight as they were last night. Perhaps the insects knew enough to clear out in advance of the enemy's dawn attack. The thought reminds Kaim that he saw no birds in the area yesterday, either. Although animals came to snatch food when the men first built this fortification, there has been no sign of them for several days now.
Animals have mysterious powers of foreknowledge that humans have lost. This becomes painfully obvious from any visit to a battlefield.
There can be little doubt that the animals have turned their backs on this barricade.
Right about now, in some distant forest, a huge flock of black birds may be taking wing in search of humans corpses to strip of their flesh:
"It's feast time, boys!"
They already know, somehow. Once the sun is fully up, the battle will be over. If they don't get here first, they'll lose some of their feast to a flock from another forest. Their black bodies hidden against the night sky, those birds now are probably flying for all they're worth.
A voice in the night. Toma's voice.
Weeping.
c0de
Vassal
- Messages
- 2,237
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 0
@ Alex
(lol) i think my brain is just cracked dude i can't help it... too many short-circuits!!
p.s. just read your story dude, here's my two cents: the differnece between a warrior and a soldier is this: a soldier does not analyze his orders while a warrior always stays true to a higher purpose. A soldier will commit a war crime if he is ordered to, a warrior will not.
(lol) i think my brain is just cracked dude
i can't help it... too many short-circuits!!p.s. just read your story dude, here's my two cents: the differnece between a warrior and a soldier is this: a soldier does not analyze his orders while a warrior always stays true to a higher purpose. A soldier will commit a war crime if he is ordered to, a warrior will not.
17th Angel
לבעוט את התחת ולקחת שמות
- Messages
- 9,437
- Reaction score
- 10
- Points
- 0
Not looking for the difference between a warrior and a soldier. But, if thats what you get from it thats cool
Dream
Well-Known Member
Alex said:
Oh, no no no, no no no! You two keep getting caught up in the big picture when you should be focusing upon the details. Girls like being treated special, and saving the girl is romantic not materialistic. Deep down, people on a train have already committed their lives to that train. They are like the brave souls that went down with the Titanic, but the little girl is one of the people they would put into a raft to be rescued. Anything else would be backwards.Path of One said:
Faithfulservant
Well-Known Member
Im not saying my choice is right.. (letting it go off cliff) I just know myself... and I know how I think.
I would be looking at the little girl and I would be looking at the train full of 200 people that I cannot see.
I could not make the choice of purposefully killing that girl by my own hand while looking at her standing on those tracks. Call it a sacrifice or whatever... its still murder. I dont believe that sacrificing 200 is any more than sacrificing 1. I dont think 200 lives has more value than her 1 life.... All life is precious.
I think there are quite a fewhere that would be the same way if it really happened regardless of how they voted and voted because it sounded better or more heroic... I just took the time to put myself in the position and thought about it before I voted.
I would be looking at the little girl and I would be looking at the train full of 200 people that I cannot see.
I could not make the choice of purposefully killing that girl by my own hand while looking at her standing on those tracks. Call it a sacrifice or whatever... its still murder. I dont believe that sacrificing 200 is any more than sacrificing 1. I dont think 200 lives has more value than her 1 life.... All life is precious.
I think there are quite a fewhere that would be the same way if it really happened regardless of how they voted and voted because it sounded better or more heroic... I just took the time to put myself in the position and thought about it before I voted.
I don't do hypotheticals.
Postmaster
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,312
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 0
Interesting faithfulservant, I bet more women would choose that option then men I think. You know if you were faced with the situation visually your emotions would control you. Whereas men when faced with that adrenaline pumping situation would let reason override there emotions.
path_of_one
Embracing the Mystery
I'm a woman. An emotional woman. And my emotions would tell me save the 200. Sorry. Maybe I'm a poor example.
It isn't just reason that causes me to choose that action- it is feeling and, in the moment, my intuition (which of course I cannot assess until it is that moment). Why should I feel more emotionally connected to one little girl I can see, than 200 people I cannot see?
This is a major issue in the human brain that I think limits our compassion and is a root cause of much of the evil in the world. We choose war because we serve ourselves and those close to us, and we have a hard time caring about the innocents slaughtered in some far distant country. We have no qualm about electrocuting some guy on death row, because in our mind, he's just a criminal and what does his life matter?
We only feel for what is in front of us, the people we know and see. Loving others becomes some philosophical or rational argument... and there is the assumption that a decision like mine would be based on "reason" and "materialism" rather than on emotion. You assume that I would be incapable of any real emotion toward 200 people I don't know on a train. But that's false.
I'm deeply emotional about human beings I've never met. I weep when I read statistics about war and disease and famine, because it is real suffering to me. It isn't just rationality and numbers. Those people are as real to me as my neighbors. Saying 200 people's suffering is the same as one person's suffering makes no sense to me, either rationally or emotionally. Guess I'm just wired different. I experience more suffering as more suffering, and 200 sudden deaths are more suffering than one sudden death.
And C0de...
Some things, like famine, could be solved without the death of another. But some things cannot.
We sacrifice people every day in the name of war and patriotism for our so-called security. People would let 200 people on a train die to save one little girl, yet may let 200 Iraqi children die to save one U.S. citizen.
We make these decisions every day of our lives, whether we acknowledge it or not. We support or deny support to our governments making these trade-offs every day.
Statistics show the biggest losers in wars are innocent civilians, and the biggest casualties are children. Yet we cry "War!" so we feel secure and our lifestyle can continue on. Even when the real threat to us nationally is minimal, we feel better taking vengeance... and those slaughtered children are called "collateral damage" and we don't bother with any memorials for those innocents who are sacrificed for us.
Famine and poverty are even more telling... we sacrifice others merely for the sake of our lifestyle and enjoyment. That speaks volumes on its own. I guess perhaps if we could see and touch and hear every child enslaved by global capitalism, or who dies by age 5 due to unclean water and malnutrition, then maybe we'd feel a connection? Maybe we'd feel like it's worth giving up a little, paying a bit more for our junk, making some real sacrifice of our own?
But we don't. We only feel bad, momentarily, when we pass the homeless guy on the corner or watch some "Feed the Children" infomercial. Then we push it aside and go back to our regular lives.
It isn't just reason that causes me to choose that action- it is feeling and, in the moment, my intuition (which of course I cannot assess until it is that moment). Why should I feel more emotionally connected to one little girl I can see, than 200 people I cannot see?
This is a major issue in the human brain that I think limits our compassion and is a root cause of much of the evil in the world. We choose war because we serve ourselves and those close to us, and we have a hard time caring about the innocents slaughtered in some far distant country. We have no qualm about electrocuting some guy on death row, because in our mind, he's just a criminal and what does his life matter?
We only feel for what is in front of us, the people we know and see. Loving others becomes some philosophical or rational argument... and there is the assumption that a decision like mine would be based on "reason" and "materialism" rather than on emotion. You assume that I would be incapable of any real emotion toward 200 people I don't know on a train. But that's false.
I'm deeply emotional about human beings I've never met. I weep when I read statistics about war and disease and famine, because it is real suffering to me. It isn't just rationality and numbers. Those people are as real to me as my neighbors. Saying 200 people's suffering is the same as one person's suffering makes no sense to me, either rationally or emotionally. Guess I'm just wired different. I experience more suffering as more suffering, and 200 sudden deaths are more suffering than one sudden death.
And C0de...
Some things, like famine, could be solved without the death of another. But some things cannot.
We sacrifice people every day in the name of war and patriotism for our so-called security. People would let 200 people on a train die to save one little girl, yet may let 200 Iraqi children die to save one U.S. citizen.
We make these decisions every day of our lives, whether we acknowledge it or not. We support or deny support to our governments making these trade-offs every day.
Statistics show the biggest losers in wars are innocent civilians, and the biggest casualties are children. Yet we cry "War!" so we feel secure and our lifestyle can continue on. Even when the real threat to us nationally is minimal, we feel better taking vengeance... and those slaughtered children are called "collateral damage" and we don't bother with any memorials for those innocents who are sacrificed for us.
Famine and poverty are even more telling... we sacrifice others merely for the sake of our lifestyle and enjoyment. That speaks volumes on its own. I guess perhaps if we could see and touch and hear every child enslaved by global capitalism, or who dies by age 5 due to unclean water and malnutrition, then maybe we'd feel a connection? Maybe we'd feel like it's worth giving up a little, paying a bit more for our junk, making some real sacrifice of our own?
But we don't. We only feel bad, momentarily, when we pass the homeless guy on the corner or watch some "Feed the Children" infomercial. Then we push it aside and go back to our regular lives.
Dream
Well-Known Member
Path of One, it is that your love points far outward. I have met people with this kind of difference before, and I knew a girl who felt lots of love for animals. She was vegetarian for this reason (a very good reason). I witnessed that her love was stronger than her stomach. If she merely heard of harm coming to an animal, she would be upset about it for several hours or all day. She could occasionally eat with someone else who was having meat, but she could not have any. I thought about this and about how different we were. I do not know whether all people are capable of being that way. The way that you think about things is special, and maybe it is the environment or genetics that keeps us all from feeling hurts as intensely. Maybe it is because you are a woman, but maybe not.
c0de
Vassal
- Messages
- 2,237
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 0
@ Path of One
Wait... I'm confused... you said that the world would be better off running on the principles of the "greater good" (rite?) but then you gave the example of the Iraq War... which is clearly the result of such calculations of the "greater good" by some group of people who think they know what is in the best interests of 'civilization'.
As I said before, I think that at the end of the day it is a question of whether the ends justify the means? And for me, they don't. Practical example: According to my beliefs, there is no such thing as "collateral damage" but only "war crimes". You can not kill civilians in war (intentionally). This can not be justified by any sort of calculation of a "greater good".
Wait... I'm confused... you said that the world would be better off running on the principles of the "greater good" (rite?) but then you gave the example of the Iraq War... which is clearly the result of such calculations of the "greater good" by some group of people who think they know what is in the best interests of 'civilization'.
As I said before, I think that at the end of the day it is a question of whether the ends justify the means? And for me, they don't. Practical example: According to my beliefs, there is no such thing as "collateral damage" but only "war crimes". You can not kill civilians in war (intentionally). This can not be justified by any sort of calculation of a "greater good".
path_of_one
Embracing the Mystery
I think that's giving that group of people too much credit. I don't think the greatest good was any part of that calculation.
Americans were afraid and wanted vengeance.
Some people stood to gain a lot of money out of having a war.
"Democratization" was a cover, and a poorly constructed one to anyone who knows much about the Middle East, democracy, and how war affects a population.
What is even more confusing is that while I am trying to make the point that the ends do not justify the means. And you also seem to be agreeing with this in principle... yet we are still somehow disagreeing...
...
... that's it... im goin to sleep! enuff brain work
I agree ends do not justify means. But sometimes, no matter which means you pick, you do something bad to someone. In your example, either choice kills people. One choice kills one person, and the other choice kills 200 people. Whether they jump off the train or whatever, it's going to kill more than one person, most certainly. So... the situation is kill a person... or kill some people.
Unsavory, but it is what you chose to set up for us.
My point is that non-action is action. You can't weasel your way out of killing someone if you know a bunch of people will be killed unless you do X action. Your knowledge means your choice to abstain from action makes you responsible, in part, for their death. So- either way, in your example, you're going to kill someone. The question is how many.
I say kill as few people as possible.