Moral Conundrums

[fillthewalls]

i sometimes think im strange

but ive never felt bad about taking a life , so yes id quite happily do it , every soilder that goes to battle knows we will have to take life at some point , and ive never been haunted like some after


maybe im weird but im glad im not

 

[LustfulOne50]

Take the question a step further. Would you kill one person that you know and like to save 100 people you've never met?

The how well do you know a person...so you break bread together, sleep in the same tent or even play card or talk story's together...do you know that person;;;as human we allow individuals so close to us..... Correct me if I am wrong...but go from one box to the next ...Home and work ..at work we don't even know who we are working with nor do we actually take the time to really find out..." We just don't want to here their problem we have some of our own"...Now you can read this and lie to yourself, but inside you know it is true and this follows suite with your nice upscale neighbor too.

 

[LustfulOne50]

Technically, the situation where one soldier/Marine jumps on a live grenade to save the lives of his comrades would cause RB problems, because in all likelihood, that sacrifice is the taking of one life to spare those of the men around him, and therefore at odds with RB's position.

It is different I hate to say...if you jump on a grenade to save others that is you it is a individual decision, but to take a life to save other is another world one you live ...was it right for the rest of your life....but at reunion of Army Vet you tip the beer and toast to life and look at the smiling face that came home.

 

[RyanBlack]

Yes..without blinking an eye...This question put to me a well beaten up Special Forces type...his reasoning was in a fire fight you do not want someone turn cold on you and run the other way firing back...since the positions would be exposed to him....so as soon as he ( wouldn't be a she in boonies or forward position in Vietnam) got up to run you order him to stop and if he doesn't shoot to kill for he is more dangerous the the enemy....yes it's cold but it is real.

this hypothetical can be considered a valid position--though I disagree with the author of said killing---the source of those decisions are political in nature--soldiers are merely tools executing orders--not the true authors of death. Hammers dont build houses -- contractors do and my argument would be with the politicians with whom is vested that power of decision making, at least in our nation. My position vis a vis those circumstances still would not change however. Far too many soldiers are killed pointlessly in an effort to aquire and redistribute economic resources and I do not believe that is defensible if the cost if lives.

If you could save a 100 people by taking one person out, why wouldnt you? Why should a multitude of people die so that one person can live?

After you made the decision, you discover the person you killed would have cured diabetes or cancer etc and the 100 you saved are on death row. . . ..

No doubt you have not tasted combat or a fire fight situations...sorry we can weep tears of joy seeing our military bothers and sister march in the home town parade and not come home in a box do to some out of control soldier who goes in those termed words "Postal"( Not a military term).

Interesting you make an assertion you are unqualified to make--however I will provide you the information which validates your supposition to an extant. No I have not carried weapons into combat or firefights. Instead I have counseled the damaged warriors who come home, stood by the families as their husbands, sons, brothers and friends are returned in flag covered caskets. In addition, my own spouse--curently in Afghanistan--has served in combat command and control for 20 years in harms way. Id be more than happy to trade a couple of days with you. Ill carry a rifle in afghanistan and you can bury the husband of a wife and three kids who died needlessly and pointlessly somewhere--their lives wasted for political gain.

The politicians and the "gung ho" give away lives by the thousands in reality and it seems that you can create a possible hypothetical in which a soldier dies for his buddies. Another valid point to remmeber, there were more deaths from "friendly fire" in the first "persian gulf military action" than there were deaths from "unfriendly fire." While your scenarios are patriotically titilating and we all want to be on the side of the good guys, the facts of history argue against nearly every point you make.

Technically, the situation where one soldier/Marine jumps on a live grenade to save the lives of his comrades would cause RB problems, because in all likelihood, that sacrifice is the taking of one life to spare those of the men around him, and therefore at odds with RB's position.

that is the willing sacrifice of one for many--and not consistant with the question. Is it moral for one to make a choice to sacrifice themselves to save many is not even close to is it moral for one to kill to save many.

I can't speak for Ryan, but I do think there is a difference between the taking of a life and the giving of a life.
Just as there is a difference between me giving someone money willingly versus them taking it at the point of a knife or gun.

Either way, a life is ending, and it's being ended knowingly. The original question did not specify the taking of another's life, merely the taking of one life. RB's position, if I understood it correctly, was that the taking of even one life was indefensible. If I knowingly throw myself on a live grenade, the odds that I will survive it are very small (although it has happened). It is done with the intention of sacrificing -- taking -- my life to save the life of my fellow soldiers.

let me clarify--my assumption was the taking of another persons life--lets not be specious

I'm not sure that I agree with Ryan that it's never justified, but I also think that a simple 1 life < 100 lives is not really a calculation any of can or should make easily.

The basis of the argument as I understand it is the moral principle: The end justifies the means. The product outweighs the process. That is a position I am not willing to accept in a generalized way, it permits too much justification and rationalization of heinous crimes for the purpose of accomplishing a "higher purpose." Killing everyone who has the taysachs gene would prevent cases of taysachs babies--that sort of argument and assertion is an invalid syllogism.

 

[NattyBumppo]

that is the willing sacrifice of one for many--and not consistant with the question. Is it moral for one to make a choice to sacrifice themselves to save many is not even close to is it moral for one to kill to save many.

let me clarify--my assumption was the taking of another persons life--lets not be specious

In no way is this specious. The original question is thus:

If you were put in a position to kill one person in order to save the lives of one hundred other people, could you kill?

Knowingly taking a life is killing. If someone commits suicide, he's said to have killed himself. You can use semantics all you want, but it's still same thing: A life is taken without it expiring on its own.

You made an absolutist statement, that taking of a life is indefensible. I provided a hypothetical which, in fact, has had very real examples throughout history. If a person takes his own life to spare those of other people, I say it is not only perfectly defensible, it is laudable and not specious.

 

[LustfulOne50]

this hypothetical can be considered a valid position--though I disagree with the author of said killing---the source of those decisions are political in nature--soldiers are merely tools executing orders--not the true authors of death. Hammers dont build houses -- contractors do and my argument would be with the politicians with whom is vested that power of decision making, at least in our nation. My position vis a vis those circumstances still would not change however. Far too many soldiers are killed pointlessly in an effort to aquire and redistribute economic resources and I do not believe that is defensible if the cost if lives.



After you made the decision, you discover the person you killed would have cured diabetes or cancer etc and the 100 you saved are on death row. . . ..



Interesting you make an assertion you are unqualified to make--however I will provide you the information which validates your supposition to an extant. No I have not carried weapons into combat or firefights. Instead I have counseled the damaged warriors who come home, stood by the families as their husbands, sons, brothers and friends are returned in flag covered caskets. In addition, my own spouse--curently in Afghanistan--has served in combat command and control for 20 years in harms way. Id be more than happy to trade a couple of days with you. Ill carry a rifle in afghanistan and you can bury the husband of a wife and three kids who died needlessly and pointlessly somewhere--their lives wasted for political gain.

The politicians and the "gung ho" give away lives by the thousands in reality and it seems that you can create a possible hypothetical in which a soldier dies for his buddies. Another valid point to remmeber, there were more deaths from "friendly fire" in the first "persian gulf military action" than there were deaths from "unfriendly fire." While your scenarios are patriotically titilating and we all want to be on the side of the good guys, the facts of history argue against nearly every point you make.



that is the willing sacrifice of one for many--and not consistant with the question. Is it moral for one to make a choice to sacrifice themselves to save many is not even close to is it moral for one to kill to save many.





let me clarify--my assumption was the taking of another persons life--lets not be specious



The basis of the argument as I understand it is the moral principle: The end justifies the means. The product outweighs the process. That is a position I am not willing to accept in a generalized way, it permits too much justification and rationalization of heinous crimes for the purpose of accomplishing a "higher purpose." Killing everyone who has the taysachs gene would prevent cases of taysachs babies--that sort of argument and assertion is an invalid syllogism.

Yes soldiers are pawns and everyone knows pawn go first..but it nice to see a pawn come home alive and not in a bag......I don't know if you have seen any of my posting on Afghanistan..but we need to get the hell out of there...and we are finding the weaponry used to fight the Russia being used on our troops....Stop Gap and they wonder why young troops are committing suicide I thought we had learned from Vietnam.

 

[RyanBlack]

The how well do you know a person...so you break bread together, sleep in the same tent or even play card or talk story's together...do you know that person;;;as human we allow individuals so close to us..... Correct me if I am wrong...but go from one box to the next ...Home and work ..at work we don't even know who we are working with nor do we actually take the time to really find out..." We just don't want to here their problem we have some of our own"...Now you can read this and lie to yourself, but inside you know it is true and this follows suite with your nice upscale neighbor too.

It is EXACTLY for this reason that I hold the position I do. We do not KNOW the future, nor do we know the motivations, insights, expectations of others without years of intimate contact (not to be understood as sexual; this is stil lit afterall )

For every scenario or hypothetical created in defense of the position, an opposing and contrary hypothetical scenario can be created to balance the equation--that is the problem with hypotheticals and why they are poor choices for defending your positon in debate.

"Killing Hitler would have saved millions"---that is a possible scenario; however, "killing Hitler would have enabled Stalin to become much more powerful, creating the atomic bomb earlier and we would be living in a communist world today" each hypothetical can be balanced with a contrasting hypothetical which makes them both moot.

Claiming to posess the level of insight and experience to make decisions which will cost lives should not, indeed MUST NOT! be taken lightly and the weight of such decisions must weigh extremely heavily on those upon whom that mantle is placed.

 

[RyanBlack]

In no way is this specious. The original question is thus:

If you were put in a position to kill one person in order to save the lives of one hundred other people, could you kill?

Knowingly taking a life is killing. If someone commits suicide, he's said to have killed himself. You can use semantics all you want, but it's still same thing: A life is taken without it expiring on its own.

You made an absolutist statement, that taking of a life is indefensible. I provided a hypothetical which, in fact, has had very real examples throughout history. If a person takes his own life to spare those of other people, I say it is not only perfectly defensible, it is laudable and not specious.

I stand corrected and have clarified my position my statement should have read "taking the lives of others"



Is suicide a moral choice might make a good next question

 

[RyanBlack]

Yes soldiers are pawns and everyone knows pawn go first..but it nice to see a pawn come home alive and not in a bag......I don't know if you have seen any of my posting on Afghanistan..but we need to get the hell out of there...and we are finding the weaponry used to fight the Russia being used on our troops....Stop Gap and they wonder why young troops are committing suicide I thought we had learned from Vietnam.

After millinea of wars we haven learned -- I would suggest if the purpose was to defend the united states from terrorists--the soulution would be to bomb Riyadh--with the stated intention to follow up on Mecca or Medina if another terrorist attack occured. Saudi Arabia is the source of the majority of funding to purchase weapons, and train "soldiers" terrorists and plan attacks. Consisency of purpose and methodology would seem simple to even the most junior political science student. However, the economic resources of Saudi Arabia outweigh the cost of terrorism--so instead we send soldiers to die---they are cheaper and the action is politicized and spun in information and propaganda to please the electorate.

Lives are NOT being sacrificed to save others, lives are being sacrificed to preserve economic supply chains.

 

[LustfulOne50]

After millinea of wars we haven learned -- I would suggest if the purpose was to defend the united states from terrorists--the soulution would be to bomb Riyadh--with the stated intention to follow up on Mecca or Medina if another terrorist attack occured. Saudi Arabia is the source of the majority of funding to purchase weapons, and train "soldiers" terrorists and plan attacks. Consisency of purpose and methodology would seem simple to even the most junior political science student. However, the economic resources of Saudi Arabia outweigh the cost of terrorism--so instead we send soldiers to die---they are cheaper and the action is politicized and spun in information and propaganda to please the electorate.

Lives are NOT being sacrificed to save others, lives are being sacrificed to preserve economic supply chains.

They play games with American public as if they are gullible Bush and Company should be in jail....study history and you will find we Bin Ladin to train Afghanistan fighters against the Russian and paid him to destroy poppy field in Afghanistan(40 million smacker) and how did always get in contact him through Pakistan....check the 9-11 bombers...Oh My it is Pakistan...>>> why did we go to Iraq...????Oil maybe.....Sorry now we are way off the subject at hand...

 

[RedPanties]

I don't think I could. I don't think I have the capacity to kill.

 

[IhateClowns]

Holy Cow the PG went GB....What have I done???????????????????????

 

[RyanBlack]

They play games with American public as if they are gullible Bush and Company should be in jail....study history and you will find we Bin Ladin to train Afghanistan fighters against the Russian and paid him to destroy poppy field in Afghanistan(40 million smacker) and how did always get in contact him through Pakistan....check the 9-11 bombers...Oh My it is Pakistan...>>> why did we go to Iraq...????Oil maybe.....Sorry now we are way off the subject at hand...

I agree we have gotten off subject, but even that digression serves to highlight that the decisions to take lives and create circumstances where the case is made that taking or sacrificing the lives of others for a "higher purpose" if fraught with deception and flawed logic and simply irrational actions--therefore it CAN NOT be justified to kill one to save 100 because it is an irrational and untrue supposition in the first place, and the concupitant corollaries only conpound the errors.

 

[kendra1980]

Holy Cow the PG went GB....What have I done???????????????????????

I don't think so. Was an interesting discussion, I thought.

No name calling or belittling. THAT is how they roll on the GB


Depending on the circumstance, could I kill one, to save the lives of many...yes.

 

[RyanBlack]

Holy Cow the PG went GB....What have I done???????????????????????

not at all

the essential difference is that we haven't decended to calling each other "poopy head" etc.

 

[NattyBumppo]

not at all

the essential difference is that we haven't decended to calling each other "poopy head" etc.

Or any variations of cunt...o' wait, that's already happened around here...

 

[RyanBlack]

I don't think so. Was an interesting discussion, I thought.

No name calling or belittling. THAT is how they roll on the GB


Depending on the circumstance, could I kill one, to save the lives of many...yes.

would you make that decison before hand--even if you had no time later to analyze those circumstances to find out if they might be consistant with your personal moral code?

 

[RyanBlack]

Or any variations of cunt...o' wait, that's already happened around here...

oooooooooooooo you know I love it when you use the bad words ya big tease wanna see a pic of my cock now????--Im sure you do I'll just pm it right over

 

[NattyBumppo]

oooooooooooooo you know I love it when you use the bad words ya big tease wanna see a pic of my cock now????--Im sure you do I'll just pm it right over

Aren't there some sheep you can harrass instead and not hijack this thread...?

 

[kendra1980]

would you make that decison before hand--even if you had no time later to analyze those circumstances to find out if they might be consistant with your personal moral code?

I'll put it this way, if I had a concealed weapons permit and waltzed my way into the shoe store at the mall to buy a gorgeous pair of Jimmy Choos, only to walk out of that particular store and and find some maniac sniping at men, women and children, could I stop him?

Yes.

Would it bug me that I had to after? Probably.

 

[LustfulOne50]

I agree we have gotten off subject, but even that digression serves to highlight that the decisions to take lives and create circumstances where the case is made that taking or sacrificing the lives of others for a "higher purpose" if fraught with deception and flawed logic and simply irrational actions--therefore it CAN NOT be justified to kill one to save 100 because it is an irrational and untrue supposition in the first place, and the concupitant corollaries only conpound the errors.

higher purpose" if fraught with deception and flawed logic and simply irrational actions--therefore it CAN NOT be justified to kill one to save 100 because it is an irrational and untrue supposition[/B]...is you..and intellectual thinking..nice to set in comfort.

How flawed the thinking you say may be...Yes..I would never blink and eye to take someone one to save others...It is a what a soldiers trained to do make that decision whether moral or not to save the lives of his fellow soldiers.

 

[NattyBumppo]

How flawed the thinking you say may be...Yes..I would never blink and eye to take someone one to save others...It is a what a soldiers trained to do make that decision whether moral or not to save the lives of his fellow soldiers.

And I think it is not only permissible but required for a soldier to do it.

 

[RyanBlack]

I'll put it this way, if I had a concealed weapons permit and waltzed my way into the shoe store at the mall to buy a gorgeous pair of Jimmy Choos, only to walk out of that particular store and and find some maniac sniping at men, women and children, could I stop him?

Yes.

Would it bug me that I had to after? Probably.

what if it later turned out to be discount day for rapists and child molesters at Jimmy Choo's store and the sniper was the father of a young child who had been harmed by those customers? Certainly you might feel bad afterwards, but would you still stand by your decision? and if not, could you undue it?

 

[RyanBlack]

And I think it is not only permissible but required for a soldier to do it.

I maintain my argument (supported by UCMJ and Rules of Engagement) that the soldier is NOT the decision maker

 

[RyanBlack]

Aren't there some sheep you can harrass instead and not hijack this thread...?

now Why would I want sheep when I have an old goat like you