Just a simple question

[lelinator]

If I had the means to bring my family member’s life to “an abrupt end,” I would use those means instead to bring the lives of his torturers to an abrupt end. No, I would absolutely not kill a family member.

So in The last of the Mohicans you would’ve shot the executioner. I wonder what the moral implications of that are?

 

[Asinner]

So in Last of the Mohicans you would’ve shot the executioner.

Nope, that has nothing to do with the scenario I responded to, if you would so kindly look at my post again.

I don’t know what I would have done in Last of the Mohicans, because I haven’t seen the movie.

 

[SPBlitz]

This could be a sign of your high moral standards. Or it could be a sign that you’re apathetic.

Wow - that’s pretty cold

 

[lelinator]

Wow - that’s pretty cold

None-the-less it’s true.

 

[SPBlitz]

So what you’re implying is that if someone is unwilling to kill a suffering loved one than that’s because they don’t care about their loved one’s suffering? Please.

 

[Asinner]

None-the-less it’s true.

No it’s not, and it’s right up to the line of an ad hominim is what it is.

Edit: Actually after rereading, what you was was an ad hominim.

 

[lelinator]

So what you’re implying is that if someone is unwilling to kill a suffering loved one than that’s because they don’t care about their loved one’s suffering? Please.

Really…that’s what you got from that? Hmmm…okay, I’ll just back out of the room very, very slowly.

 

[lelinator]

No it’s not, and it’s right up to the line of an ad hominim is what it is.

Not even close.

It’s just simple facts. An apathetic person will have much less difficulty allowing someone to suffer than an empathetic person will.

Doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure that one out.

 

[SPBlitz]

Zaccheus posted that

I never once considered killing her. It would have been an evil act.

to which you replied

This could be a sign of your high moral standards. Or it could be a sign that you’re apathetic.

It certainly sounds as though you were implying that his reluctance to kill his mother despite her suffering was motivated by apathy.

 

[lelinator]

It certainly sounds as though you were implying that his reluctance to kill his mother despite her suffering was motivated by apathy.

It could well have been made easier by apathy.

 

[SPBlitz]

Don’t try to play this off like you were just making an offhand remark. When you say 'it could be apathy" you really mean “it is apathy”. If you’re going to say that, at least own it.

 

[lelinator]

Don’t try to play this off like you were just making an offhand remark. When you say 'it could be apathy" you really mean “it is apathy”. If you’re going to say that, at least own it.

Really…now you can read my mind?

It was a statement of fact, it could be a sign of apathy.

 

[Beryllos]

Friends, stand down. As far as I can tell, there was no ad hominem or other reason to take offense. The statement was that it could be a sign of either high moral standards or apathy. If someone said that to me, I would reply “Yeah, the first one,” and move on from there.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Who amongst us would stand by and let a family member suffer an agonising and protracted death such as described without bringing it to an abrupt end?

If I had the means to bring my family member’s life to “an abrupt end,” I would use those means instead to bring the lives of his torturers to an abrupt end. No, I would absolutely not kill a family member.

Killing them would not prevent the agony of your nearest and dearest. But thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[lelinator]

Friends, stand down. As far as I can tell, there was no ad hominem or other reason to take offense. The statement was that it could be a sign of either high moral standards or apathy. If someone said that to me, I would reply “Yeah, the first one,” and move on from there.

Thanks Beryllos, unfortunately the post has been flagged and removed, which means that I’ll soon be suspended…again. Oh well, I did have some interesting discussions this time around. But all good things must come to an end.

Alas, it’ll probably be a long one this time.

Edit:

On second thought, there’s something that I would like to say before I go this time. Some people seem to believe that I was making an ad hominem attack against Zaccheus, because I suggested that apathy could be one reason for being able to stand by and watch a loved one suffer and die, as if I was being insensitive because I don’t know what that’s like. But I, as much as anyone else on this forum, know all too well what that’s like. I have spent the last 28 years caring for elderly and ill loved ones. Three of whom are gone now, and there’s just one left to go. After she spent time in the hospital, and nursing home I finally decided that my job wasn’t done yet, and that she needed to come home and spend whatever time was left at home with me. Because whatever is involved, I can do it more compassionately than any hospital or nursing home ever could. If you’ve ever walked away down a hospital corridor with a loved one literally screaming for you to help them, then you know how that feels. It’s tough. So you try to do what you can, and be happy and cheerful no matter what attitude you’re getting, or what verbal abuse you have to take, or what task you have to perform.

So do I think that I’m a remarkably empathetic person. Not at all. In some ways I’m one of the most apathetic people that you’ll ever meet. There are a lot of people that I don’t care about at all. And I’m not shy about letting them know it. But in some ways it’s that ability to be detached that has helped me to do this for 28 years. So when I wonder whether apathy can help someone overlook the suffering of a loved one, I know what I’m talking about. And I think that in some ways, apathy can make it easier.

That’s all that I wanted to say. Be careful when judging others. You can never be sure who you’re talking to, or what they’re going through.

 

[SPBlitz]

If I may, I do apologize if I was a bit overly sensitive, and in retrospect I should have given you the benefit of the doubt when interpreting your comment. For what it’s worth, while I disagreed with your comment, I didn’t think it contained anything worth flagging or getting suspended over.

 

[lelinator]

If I may, I do apologize if I was a bit overly sensitive, and in retrospect I should have given you the benefit of the doubt when interpreting your comment. For what it’s worth, while I disagreed with your comment, I didn’t think it contained anything worth flagging or getting suspended over.

Apology accepted. And you’re allowed to disagree, and you’re allowed to misjudge things. I do it all the time. Even though you’d think by now I would’ve learned not to. Perhaps I just need someone to blow off steam at sometimes. And don’t worry if I get suspended, I’ve been suspended so many times that I’ve kinda become apathetic to it you might say.

Let me apologize as well for being confrontational, and not choosing my words more carefully. And let me commend you for being as understanding and forgiving as you’ve been, it goes a long way.

Take care, maybe I’ll see you around, and maybe not.

 

[goout]

goout:

How do you distinguish between needless suffering and “regular” suffering?

I do not need to die, and I don’t need to have an arthritic hip. And I definitely don’t see the need for even one more bout of anxiety. Those are all “needless” so to speak, yet I will endure them.

Can we escape suffering?

There’s a scene in Last Of The Mohicans (spoiler alert) when our hero’s rival is being burnt to death as a punishment. Our hero, from a distance, takes aim with his rifle and shoots him dead to end his suffering.

Who amongst us would stand by and let a family member suffer an agonising and protracted death such as described without bringing it to an abrupt end?

My mom struggled to breathe and just sit up for about a year. She just died in September. She had congestive heart failure. We could have done several things to terminate her life, including quietly medicating her to death.

What you are proposing is consequentialist morality, where the good end justifies evil means.
We don’t commit moral evil to solve problems.

Suffering is part of the human condition. Why is a question full of mystery. But if you begin to solve suffering by evil means, you jump down a bottomless pit.

 

[Spaten]

… But you don’t like the answers.

I did not say that I don’t LIKE the answers. I disagree with them. My aim was to gain more information about this problem - as YOU consider it. And I received the answer.

Why not brush off the worms ? Or pick them off or whatever.

Changing the scenario is “lazy” How about suggesting to invoke some magical powers and restore the health of the sufferer? The premise is that there is no other solution. I chose the worms as an example of a truly disgusting way to die.

Refusing to kill somebody is not equivalent to forcing suffering on them.

In this case it IS, because there is no other way to stop the useless suffering.

Killing an innocent is murder, regardless of the law.

According to your incorrect parsing of the words.

You must not do any evil act in hopes to produce a good result.

Preventing needless suffering is NOT evil. Allowing needless suffering IS evil.

 

[Beryllos]

I chose the worms as an example of a truly disgusting way to die.

Allow me to suggest another reason that you chose worms. I had wondered about this earlier. The worms are visible to you. Cancer is worse than worms for the one who suffers. It’s like worms on the inside. The difference with worms is that you can see it and be disgusted by it. It makes you suffer.

Therefore, could it be that your motivation to kill the other is not purely for the other’s sake, to end the other’s suffering, but to stop your own sympathetic/empathetic suffering?