Morality? What morality?

[Betterave]

I concur if you willfully under perform it is a form of lying. Not all under performance is willful.

If Jesus was capable of defending himself (it does seem that he was not )

[BIBLEDRB]mark 14:36[/BIBLEDRB]

and did not it, amounts to suicide. He willfully allows himself to be killed. It is willful termination of one’s own life.

This is utter nonsense you’re talking, jon.

Matthew 26, 53: Do you think that I cannot ask my Father, and he will give me presently more than twelve legions of angels?

Accepting to be killed is not the same as killing oneself. If someone says, “kill me or I’ll kill you,” you are not required to kill that person. In certain circumstances, maybe, but certainly not just as a matter of course. It is permissible to “lay down one’s life for a friend.” There is no greater love than this, according to Jesus. He laid his life down freely. Did you miss that part of the gospel? (It’s only, like, the most important part!)

 

[dskysmine]

If someone says, “kill me or I’ll kill you,” you are not required to kill that person.

Yet, that was the scenario you described with your presidential bodyguard.

 

[Betterave]

It’s implied not explicit.

No it is not implied! Thinking that it is implied is absurd.

No, the president is in charge of his own safety - he utilizes body guards to that end. e.x. the dismissal of advice not to ride in a convertible by Kennedy. The president is still in charge.

That is idiotic. The president is in charge and he has the power to charge other individuals with protecting him.

No, it is implied in the verbiage.

No, it certainly is not.

But it doesn’t explicitly say in defense of individuals, it purposely uses the collective. The citizenry isn’t in mortal danger because the President is lost, as evidenced by our historical assassinations. The Republic still stands.

There is no collective apart from individuals! Stop ignoring that! Remember the false dichotomy thing? You obviously are ignorant about what a false dichotomy is, seriously; and that is not an insult, but a clearly evidenced observation. Take the time to think and learn when you need to - that is simply indispensable if you are at all interested in thinking in a way that makes any sense.

 

[Betterave]

Yet, that was the scenario you described with your presidential bodyguard.

No it wasn’t!

 

[Betterave]

lol. First I wrote mother in both sides… then I remembered that you could be older and not have a mother so I changed the first to wife but forgot the second.
Consider the scenario for wife in the both sides

Thanks for noticing your mistake! I assumed you meant something like that but the answer is easy: there is no absolute moral imperative to find a cure for cancer, so obviously no, the guy is not justified in raping my wife.

[Did you notice how I just answered you, without attempting to change the terms of the silly scenario you offered, and this in spite of the fact that it *was a very silly scenario, whereas mine was not?]

 

[Spock]

Actually I don’t have all the time in the world… and it’s got nothing to do with evasion, it’s got to do with facts. I usually don’t use “thought experiments” for morality exercises because morality only applies to facts.

Thought experiments are a time-honored method to investigate hypothetical scenarios. They help us to clarify our concepts, even if they never materialze in actual life.

Wether or not his scenario was ever real it doesn’t tell us anything other than:
1 - A is about to kill B (which is considered evil I suppose)
2 - I have an obligation to protect B.
3 - The only way to stop 1 from happening (and keeping 2) is to kill A.

I don’t have any other information and I’m supposed to sign a blank check to support conclusion 3?
Puhlease…
3 is a non-sequitor from 1, much more from 1 and 2 together.

This summary is quite incorrect. The proper setup is:

1. A is about to kill B.
2. You are aware of this fact. You are in the position to prevent this act. However, your only option is to kill “A”.

These are the prerequisites. They are no negotiable. They cannot be questioned on the ground that there “might” be other ways and means to prevent 1). Period. If you wish to think along these lines, you are welcome. If you wish to decline the challenge, you are also welcome.

The question is: “Is it morally acceptable to prevent 1) by killing the would-be-murderer?”.

Now, to help, we can consider a few subsets of this scenario.

A) The person to be killed is “you”. This is the clear case of self-defense.
B) The person to be killed is your child. Is it morally acceptable to protect your child?
C) The person to be killed is someone else’s child. Is it morally acceptable to protect someone else’s child?
D) The person to be killed is a member of your family. Is it morally acceptable to protect someone other members of you family?
E) The person to be killed is a total stranger. Is it morally acceptable to protect someone who is a stranger to you?

Etc… etc…

Generally speaking “if someone’s life is threatened, and if you are in the position to save that life, and if your only option is to kill the would-be-murderer” - then what is the morally correct action? To allow the murder to take place, or prevent it by performing another murder?

 

[Betterave]

Actually I don’t have all the time in the world… and it’s got nothing to do with evasion, it’s got to do with facts. I usually don’t use “thought experiments” for morality exercises because morality only applies to facts. Wether or not his scenario was ever real it doesn’t tell us anything other than:
1 - A is about to kill B (which is considered evil I suppose)
2 - I have an obligation to protect B.
3 - The only way to stop 1 from happening (and keeping 2) is to kill A.

I don’t have any other information and I’m supposed to sign a blank check to support conclusion 3?
Puhlease…
3 is a non-sequitor from 1, much more from 1 and 2 together.

Since 3 is part of the scenario and is not supposed to follow from 1, or from 1 and 2 together, it is stupid to call it a non sequitur. So in this case you’ve conned yourself by completely ignoring the logical structure of the argument, so in this case, as it turns out, you indeed are a douche (no offense intended).

 

[jonfawkes]

This is utter nonsense you’re talking, jon.

Matthew 26, 53: Do you think that I cannot ask my Father, and he will give me presently more than twelve legions of angels?

Accepting to be killed is not the same as killing oneself. If someone says, “kill me or I’ll kill you,” you are not required to kill that person. In certain circumstances, maybe, but certainly not just as a matter of course. It is permissible to “lay down one’s life for a friend.” There is no greater love than this, according to Jesus. He laid his life down freely. Did you miss that part of the gospel? (It’s only, like, the most important part!)

Jesus asks not just once but twice for the cup to pass. He accepts the choice is not His but the Father’s.

Also when other’s “lay down” their lives there is always the possibility of divine intervention (or simply chance) that it won’t play out that way. Jesus being divine knows that He/The Father won’t intervene ( even though He makes that appeal).

[BIBLEDRB]John 15:13[/BIBLEDRB]

is a call to martyrdom ( I didn’t miss it ) - But just as Spock is questioning the line for self defense - where is the line for suicide?

Suicide is the will taking of one’s own life, even if it’s by another, e.x. blue suicide (suicide by cop)

God incarnates with the purpose to die - to be sacrificed was the plan. A “natural” death was never in the picture.

 

[jonfawkes]

That is idiotic. The president is in charge and he has the power to charge other individuals with protecting him.

How do we disagree?

There is no collective apart from individuals! Stop ignoring that! Remember the false dichotomy thing? You obviously are ignorant about what a false dichotomy is, seriously; and that is not an insult, but a clearly evidenced observation. Take the time to think and learn when you need to - that is simply indispensable if you are at all interested in thinking in a way that makes any sense.

If they wished to specify an individual case they would have used the verbiage to express it. The death of one doesn’t mean the death of the whole. It speaks of protecting the collective.

There is no dichotomy, False or otherwise - just a reading of the text.

 

[Betterave]

Jesus asks not just once but twice for the cup to pass. He accepts the choice is not His but the Father’s.

Also when other’s “lay down” their lives there is always the possibility of divine intervention (or simply chance) that it won’t play out that way. Jesus being divine knows that He/The Father won’t intervene ( even though He makes that appeal).

So to Jesus’ question, “Do you think that I cannot ask my Father, and he will give me presently more than twelve legions of angels?”

you answer: “Yes that’s what I think: you cannot do that.”

[BIBLEDRB]John 15:13[/BIBLEDRB]

is a call to martyrdom ( I didn’t miss it ) - But just as Spock is questioning the line for self defense - where is the line for suicide?

Suicide is the will taking of one’s own life, even if it’s by another, e.x. blue suicide (suicide by cop)

God incarnates with the purpose to die - to be sacrificed was the plan. A “natural” death was never in the picture.

Of course talking about the line is legitimate and tricky, but your claim that *any intentional failure to defend oneself, using whatever means are available, is suicide *is still complete nonsense.

 

[jonfawkes]

So to Jesus’ question, “Do you think that I cannot ask my Father, and he will give me presently more than twelve legions of angels?”

you answer: “Yes that’s what I think: you cannot do that.”

Of course talking about the line is legitimate and tricky, but your claim that *any intentional failure to defend oneself, using whatever means are available, is suicide *is still complete nonsense.

That seems to be what is implied - if Jesus’ will is contrary to The Father, He defers to The Father.

Do you care to expound how it’s nonsense? I can dismiss things out of hand as well

Also, I said “willful”, so it is the choice (and the action to carry out) to stop living - which is suicide.

 

[dskysmine]

Thanks for noticing your mistake! I assumed you meant something like that but the answer is easy: there is no absolute moral imperative to find a cure for cancer, so obviously no, the guy is not justified in raping my wife.

[Did you notice how I just answered you, without attempting to change the terms of the silly scenario you offered, and this in spite of the fact that it *was

a very silly scenario, whereas mine was not?]
Says who?
There are plenty of doctors that wouldn’t agree with you.
Furthermore, You said that the bodyguard was morally bound to defend the president. That bound is an agreement only between the bodyguard and the president… no one else. It is not absolute. My daughter could have a cancer and as her father I would be “morally bound” to do anything in my power to save her, including raping your wife.

Thought experiments are a time-honored method to investigate hypothetical scenarios. They help us to clarify our concepts, even if they never materialze in actual life.

I’m not arguing against thought experiments, I’m arguing against thought experiments that are ridiculous.

This summary is quite incorrect. The proper setup is:

1. A is about to kill B.
2. You are aware of this fact. You are in the position to prevent this act. However, your only option is to kill “A”.

These are the prerequisites. They are no negotiable. They cannot be questioned on the ground that there “might” be other ways and means to prevent 1). Period. If you wish to think along these lines, you are welcome. If you wish to decline the challenge, you are also welcome.

The question is: “Is it morally acceptable to prevent 1) by killing the would-be-murderer?”.

Now, to help, we can consider a few subsets of this scenario.

A) The person to be killed is “you”. This is the clear case of self-defense.
B) The person to be killed is your child. Is it morally acceptable to protect your child?
C) The person to be killed is someone else’s child. Is it morally acceptable to protect someone else’s child?
D) The person to be killed is a member of your family. Is it morally acceptable to protect someone other members of you family?
E) The person to be killed is a total stranger. Is it morally acceptable to protect someone who is a stranger to you?

Etc… etc…

Generally speaking “if someone’s life is threatened, and if you are in the position to save that life, and if your only option is to kill the would-be-murderer” - then what is the morally correct action? To allow the murder to take place, or prevent it by performing another murder?

The morally correct action would be letting the murder to take place IF AND ONLY IF the only way to stop it would be killing another human being.

Since 3 is part of the scenario and is not supposed to follow from 1, or from 1 and 2 together, it is stupid to call it a non sequitur. So in this case you’ve conned yourself by completely ignoring the logical structure of the argument, so in this case, as it turns out, you indeed are a douche (no offense intended).

You didn’t post the scenario as strict as Spock defined it. Not my fault you don’t know how to explain yourself.
And funny enough, both of you are now in agreement. I guess subjective morality wins again

 

[Betterave]

How do we disagree?

You rejected my claim that the bodyguard is in charge of the president’s security. You said, “no, the president’s in charge of his own security.” But the president uses his authority to put the bodyguard in charge of his security. In other words, you have presented another false dichotomy here.

If they wished to specify an individual case they would have used the verbiage to express it. The death of one doesn’t mean the death of the whole. It speaks of protecting the collective.

There is no dichotomy, False or otherwise - just a reading of the text.

They do not speak of the collective, they use the term ‘civil community’. Your false dichotomy is: individual or civil community (not both). And you choose civil community, forgetting apparently that the civil community is composed of individuals, that the only way to protect the civil community is to protect the individuals who compose the civil community, and *especially *those who are in charge of the civil community.

You might as well say that a soldier is not obligated to use lethal force to protect his commanding officer or even just his fellow soldiers, because these are all just individuals, not collectives. That makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[Betterave]

That seems to be what is implied - if Jesus’ will is contrary to The Father, He defers to The Father.

How does he do that except by his own act of will?? This is again a false dichotomy: defer to the Father’s will or follow his own will. That is a false dichotomy!

Do you care to expound how it’s nonsense? I can dismiss things out of hand as well

You can also bring up red herrings like “oh but there’s a fine line - what about blue suicide” which has nothing to do with your claim: “any intentional failure to defend oneself, using whatever means are available, is suicide” - which is an absurd claim that any can see to be absurd. If you disagree, at least do so honestly without introducing silly red herrings.

Also, I said “willful”, so it is the choice (and the action to carry out) to stop living - which is suicide.

It is not just that, however; suicide implies that death is aimed at as an end in itself, and not simply accepted as a consequence/side-effect of some other morally legitimate end.

 

[jonfawkes]

You rejected my claim that the bodyguard is in charge of the president’s security. You said, “no, the president’s in charge of his own security.” But the president uses his authority to put the bodyguard in charge of his security. In other words, you have presented another false dichotomy here.

The President can dismiss and reject advice and protection. Even if it is against his own best interest. He is ultimately in charge of his own security.

They do not speak of the collective, they use the term ‘civil community’. Your false dichotomy is: individual or civil community (not both). And you choose civil community, forgetting apparently that the civil community is composed of individuals, that the only way to protect the civil community is to protect the individuals who compose the civil community, and *especially *those who are in charge of the civil community.

You might as well say that a soldier is not obligated to use lethal force to protect his commanding officer or even just his fellow soldiers, because these are all just individuals, not collectives. That makes no sense whatsoever.

now it’s you being ridiculous - community is a collective. If they wanted to specify both they would have specified both. The existence of the concept of collateral damage shows that protecting “all” the individuals isn’t the path to protect the whole. You’re presenting a false dichotomy, namely, that all individuals must be protected to protect the whole. Just not true.

The solider is operating on a different paradigm.

 

[Betterave]

Says who?
There are plenty of doctors that wouldn’t agree with you.

I doubt that, but so what? If they exist (which I doubt), then they are wrong.

Furthermore, You said that the bodyguard was morally bound to defend the president. That bound is an agreement only between the bodyguard and the president… no one else. It is not absolute. My daughter could have a cancer and as her father I would be “morally bound” to do anything in my power to save her, including raping your wife.

LOL! Are you serious? Why is that??

You didn’t post the scenario as strict as Spock defined it. Not my fault you don’t know how to explain yourself.
And funny enough, both of you are now in agreement. I guess subjective morality wins again

There’s nothing funny about the fact that Spock is not an idiot and that he has the intellectual integrity not to attack a straw man - and that he and I are in agreement about that. Your blaming me for your silly straw man arguments is… desperate, at best. Don’t be such a douche.

 

[Betterave]

The President can dismiss and reject advice and protection. Even if it is against his own best interest. He is ultimately in charge of his own security.

LOL! So what? Dismissing and rejecting advice is obviously not part of my scenario.

now it’s you being ridiculous - community is a collective. If they wanted to specify both they would have specified both.

What are you talking about? (sounds like irrelevant rambling)

The existence of the concept of collateral damage shows that protecting “all” the individuals isn’t the path to protect the whole.

I never said it was.

You’re presenting a false dichotomy, namely, that all individuals must be protected to protect the whole. Just not true.

LOL! That’s not even a dichotomy! It’s also not something I said! Good grief.

The solider is operating on a different paradigm.

Oh, okey-dokey - good to know.

 

[dskysmine]

I doubt that, but so what? If they exist (which I doubt), then they are wrong.

Because what Betterave says is objective morality? >_> I pity you.

LOL! Are you serious? Why is that??

It’s my scenario…

There’s nothing funny about the fact that Spock is not an idiot and that he has the intellectual integrity not to attack a straw man - and that he and I are in agreement about that. Your blaming me for your silly straw man arguments is… desperate, at best. Don’t be such a douche.

Both of you are also in agreement that morality is subjective… you just haven’t realized it.

 

[Spock]

I’m not arguing against thought experiments, I’m arguing against thought experiments that are ridiculous.

And what is the dividing line between a “ridiculous” and the “garden-variety” thought experiments?

The morally correct action would be letting the murder to take place IF AND ONLY IF the only way to stop it would be killing another human being.

It is an option, all right. It would even be in accordance with certain passages in the Bible (turn the other cheek, do not resist evil, etc…). But that is again not the question I asked. Even the CC accepts that killing in self-defense is morally justifyable. What about the “extended” self-defense? That is the question.

 

[dskysmine]

And what is the dividing line between a “ridiculous” and the “garden-variety” thought experiments?

Ask betterave he was the one who compared the two scenarios. For me they are the same.

It is an option, all right. It would even be in accordance with certain passages in the Bible (turn the other cheek, do not resist evil, etc…). But that is again not the question I asked. Even the CC accepts that killing in self-defense is morally justifyable. What about the “extended” self-defense? That is the question.

It wasn’t? It’s the same thing… even if the killer is trying to kill me (and I know about it) and the only (emphasis on only) way for me to stop him is by killing him the moral choice is to let myself be murdered. The fact that the Church says it is justifiable doesn’t mean it is “good”. In a court of law you can be declared not guilty, and it doesn’t mean you are innocent.