NationStates Jolt Archive

Quite simply, what (if any) moral stance cannot be thrown away under pressure? Are certain actions always unjustifiable, or can circumstance justify anything?

There are basically an infinity of possible cercumstances for anything. I'm sure they'd cover a justifiable situation for atleast 99.99999% of all actions.

Killing civilians intentionally

Killing in cold blood

What about destroying the universe?

"justification" is just as much of a human construct as "morality". Neither are "truths" that we can find or prove scientifically - they have to be decided. Your question is actually fairly meaningless, as there's no meaningful answer (IE an answer that is not subjective and value-laden). So your question really shouldn't be "is there anything that doesn't go out the window when under fire", but it could very well be "what do you personally hold to under duress".

To answer that rephrased question, I tend to stick to two things: the golden rule (treat others as you would have them treat you) and a fight against the worst left-over from our evolutionary heritage: single-minded group identification.

What about destroying the universe?
That depends are we destroying the universe for science, or out of meglomania?

To answer that rephrased question, I tend to stick to two things: the golden rule (treat others as you would have them treat you)

Pretty inflexible rule there. People are different and want different things. Treat them as you think they want to be treated or deserve to be treated.

Killing civilians intentionally

Killing in cold blood

And if that civilian forcibly has a bomb strapped around her waist with her baby being held captive by a group of terrorists, under threat that they'll kill it if she doesn't blow up the bus she is about to climb aboard?

You have a split second decision. Fire on her, save a bus full of innocents, condemn the baby to death. Choose not to, her and the bus go up in flames, the baby's life is spared and it goes on through life with no mother.

Whose life is worth more? The baby's? How can you justify letting 30 people die to save a single life, a life that will undoubtedly be spent in pain and suffering. What if there are other babies on that bus, with mothers who love them; fathers who will soon become widowers as their family is destroyed, a call sent to them at work, notifying them that their two most precious things in the world are gone? Two broken, charred bodies all that remains as you watch on soundlessly, a consequence of your inaction.

Does the end justify the means? Will you kill a life to save more lives? What if your own family were aboard that bus? What if you are the father? What if you are the mother? The child?

Pretty inflexible rule there. People are different and want different things. Treat them as you think they want to be treated or deserve to be treated.

I would want people to treat me with a sensitivity to my unique circumstances and needs. =) The golden rule fits.

And if that civilian forcibly has a bomb strapped around her waist with her baby being held captive by a group of terrorists, under threat that they'll kill it if she doesn't blow up the bus she is about to climb aboard

You have a split second decision. Fire on her, save a bus full of innocents, condemn the baby to death. Choose not to, her and the bus go up in flames, the baby's life is spared and it goes on through life with no mother.

Whose life is worth more? The baby's? How can you justify letting 30 people die to save a single life, a life that will undoubtedly be spent in pain and suffering. What if there are other babies on that bus, with mothers who love them; fathers who will soon become widowers as their family is destroyed, a call sent to them at work, notifying them that their two most precious things in the world are gone? Two broken, charred bodies all that remains as you watch on soundlessly, a consequence of your inaction.

Does the end justify the means? Will you kill a life to save more lives? What if your own family were aboard that bus? What if you are the father? What if you are the mother? The child?

If the civilian is a suicide bomber, it isnt killing in cold blood. So you whole story doesnt refer to the idea I suggested so it is moot. Furthermore if the civilian is a suicide bomber they are not a civilian any more. They are a terrorist.

[QUOTE=Sir Darwin]
To answer that rephrased question, I tend to stick to two things: the golden rule (treat others as you would have them treat you) [QUOTE]

Pretty inflexible rule there. People are different and want different things. Treat them as you think they want to be treated or deserve to be treated.
actually it's more like Treat them the same way you would like them to treat you.

in other words, I treat people here with respect because I would like to be treated with respect. and how others treat me is an indication as to how they would like to be treated.

for instance, I never harp on anyone's grammer or spelling since I myself am a terrible speller thus don't want anyone harping about my Spelling.

[QUOTE=Blood has been shed]
for instance, I never harp on anyone's grammer or spelling since I myself am a terrible speller thus don't want anyone harping about my Spelling.

So someone who would have appriciated on some grammer help misses out on your advice since you don't like to be corrected. And someone who would themselves wants to be corrected in grammer gives you advice (thus annoying you).

If the civilian is a suicide bomber, it isnt killing in cold blood. So you whole story doesnt refer to the idea I suggested so it is moot. Furthermore if the civilian is a suicide bomber they are not a civilian any more. They are a terrorist.

I'd still like an answer to my question. Would you or wouldn't you fire on her?

So someone who would have appriciated on some grammer help misses out on your advice since you don't like to be corrected. And someone who would themselves wants to be corrected in grammer gives you advice (thus annoying you).
that is correct... well except the annoying me part. :p

now, how can you know when someone wants to be corrected on Grammar/spelling if they don't ask for it?

and just because someone does it to me (and it has happened before) doesn't mean that I will respond in kind.

[QUOTE=JuNii]

So someone who would have appriciated on some grammer help misses out on your advice since you don't like to be corrected. And someone who would themselves wants to be corrected in grammer gives you advice (thus annoying you).

And anyone who wants to tell you that the word is spelled 'grammar' has to disregard what you want.

And if that civilian forcibly has a bomb strapped around her waist with her baby being held captive by a group of terrorists, under threat that they'll kill it if she doesn't blow up the bus she is about to climb aboard?

Then she is doing the wrong thing because she is killing more people to save one.

You have a split second decision. Fire on her, save a bus full of innocents, condemn the baby to death. Choose not to, her and the bus go up in flames, the baby's life is spared and it goes on through life with no mother.

The choice is quite obvious.

Whose life is worth more? The baby's? How can you justify letting 30 people die to save a single life, a life that will undoubtedly be spent in pain and suffering. What if there are other babies on that bus, with mothers who love them; fathers who will soon become widowers as their family is destroyed, a call sent to them at work, notifying them that their two most precious things in the world are gone? Two broken, charred bodies all that remains as you watch on soundlessly, a consequence of your inaction.

No one life is worth more than another, unless we get into the age thing, but let's not. In this case, the lives of the people on the bus are more important than the life of the baby, because there are multiple lives at stake against one life. Since all lives are equal, the lives or many are more important than the lives of fewer or one.

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one

Does the end justify the means? Will you kill a life to save more lives? What if your own family were aboard that bus? What if you are the father? What if you are the mother? The child?

I would, without second thought, kill a life to save more lives. The only second thought would be "would it actually save more lives", I would need to be absolutely sure that it would before I would do it. I would kill 100 innocent people in cold blood if it meant saving 1000 innocent people.

If you would NOT kill people to save more people, then you are a bad person (to put it simply). You have allowed your weakness to cause more deaths than there should have been.

And anyone who wants to tell you that the word is spelled 'grammar' has to disregard what you want.
yep.

[QUOTE=Blood has been shed]

And anyone who wants to tell you that the word is spelled 'grammar' has to disregard what you want.

See I would never correct your spelling mistakes! You've treated me in a way I would not treat you :eek:

Some people think extreme discipline or tough love is fine to give to their children/students/friends. Especially if thats how you'd have liked to be raised.

just whats logical is also morally right as far as I believe.

See I would never correct your spelling mistakes! You've treated me in a way I would not treat you :eek:

Some people think extreme discipline or tough love is fine to give to their children/students/friends. Especially if thats how you'd have liked to be raised.
well, most people who use tough love or abuse to raise/treat others tend to have been raised by tough love/abuse.

that is different than doing unto others as you would have them do unto you.

just whats logical is also morally right as far as I believe.
in Chess as in War, sacrificing pawns is a logical move.

Killing civilians intentionally

Killing in cold blood

Let's just convince Ann Coulter of this.

What about destroying the universe?
What about thinking inside the box for once?

Let's just convince Ann Coulter of this.
Innocent until proven guilty sir. Do not be so quick to judge things of which you know little about.

And Ann Coulter is nothing more than someone who is balancing the astronomical amount of far leftist's in this country vs. the quite few radical-right.

By the way if you think their is an substantial amount of radical-right's in this country, maybe if you weren't such a pussy you wouldn't view everyone who supports the war as the radical-right.

that is different than doing unto others as you would have them do unto you.

What about those people that regard firm discipline as important. They voluntarily join the army and lots of people do other stuff I would hate but they'd love. But its not big deal.

What about those people that regard firm discipline as important. They voluntarily join the army and lots of people do other stuff I would hate but they'd love. But its not big deal.
those are their morals. I don't hold others to follow my morals or beliefs.

so yes, someone can walk up to me and shoot me, rape me then feed me to their dogs.

Innocent until proven guilty sir. Do not be so quick to judge things of which you know little about.

And Ann Coulter is nothing more than someone who is balancing the astronomical amount of far leftist's in this country vs. the quite few radical-right.

By the way if you think their is an substantial amount of radical-right's in this country, maybe if you weren't such a pussy you wouldn't view everyone who supports the war as the radical-right.

You clearly don't realize how much of a psycho that woman is. Just read a few of her quotes and you can see that the woman has some serious issues where civil rights are concerned. I certainly believe radical-right suits Coulter perfectly. A recent article explains just a little bit of why:

http://entertainment.msn.com//tv/article.aspx?news=225090&affid=100055

those are their morals. I don't hold others to follow my morals or beliefs.


You don't hold others to follow your moral beleifs. But if you're rational you'd want people to apply your morality to you whatever it is (Ie. one person might think : Don't kill me / rape me - Another would include give me religious belifs / teach me discipline) therefore by using the golden rule I'll have corrected your grammer or said things to you that'd you wouldn't want to hear (but I would have liked to hear) since I'm treating you how I would like to be treated.

You don't hold others to follow your moral beleifs. But if you're rational you'd want people to apply your morality to you whatever it is (Ie. one person might think : Don't kill me / rape me - Another would include give me religious belifs / teach me discipline) therefore by using the golden rule I'll have corrected your grammer or said things to you that'd you wouldn't want to hear (but I would have liked to hear) since I'm treating you how I would like to be treated.nope, if I'm rational, I don't expect them to follow my morals but the Law.

some believe in Finders/Keepers others believe in returning anything they find, even if it's a wallet full of cash.

the Golden rule moral is for me to follow. thus, you can correct my grammar and spelling all you want or say thing that I don't want to hear for you must follow your set of Moral rules, not mine. However, I won't be doing to you anything that I find that annoys me when others do to me.

nope, if I'm rational, I don't expect them to follow my morals but the Law.

some believe in Finders/Keepers others believe in returning anything they find, even if it's a wallet full of cash.

the Golden rule moral is for me to follow. thus, you can correct my grammar and spelling all you want or say thing that I don't want to hear for you must follow your set of Moral rules, not mine. However, I won't be doing to you anything that I find that annoys me when others do to me.

Actually I think I agree with you now. Nicely put. Although I guess you would still have to make sure that you're not doing stuff to someone that they find annoying (even if you wouldn't) ... otherwise you might not be very popular.

Actually I think I agree with you now. Nicely put. Although I guess you would still have to make sure that you're not doing stuff to someone that they find annoying (even if you wouldn't) ... otherwise you might not be very popular.
yep, and if they tell me that what i'm doing is annoying or disturbing to them (a joke taken the wrong way for example) then I apologise for it. as I hope others would do when they do/say something that hits too close to home.

Morality is relative. It can be compromised to serve a greater good.