Can Wrong Sometimes Be Right?

[BritPat]

An unanswerable question.

 

Regards

 

Angel.

 

I answered it therefore your answer by definition is wrong.

 

As for the title of the thread less a case of Wrong sometimes being Right and more a case of Wrong not being wrong.

Edited September 14, 2011 by BritPat

[HeadingNorth]

An unanswerable question.

 

Unanswerable in the sense of there being no one right answer, I can agree with that.

 

 

But as pointed out, some people have been faced with a real-life decision that it equivalent to this. At what point - if ever - does it become justifiable to kill some number of innocent people, in order to save a larger number of innocent people from dying?

 

You might still say it is an unanswerable question, but in the real world, if you refuse to answer you have chosen the second option, because the large number of people will die unless you act.

[salsafan]

If YOU kill, you go to hell. If HE kills, he goes to hell.

You can only control what you do in your life time. You cannot control what someone else does.

 

I would try and persuade him not to kill them in any way that I can, and also not kill any one myself. What you send out verbally is also karma as well, so becareful how you say and what you say.

 

[Added] You have a third option. You could kill him. Or not kill him but bind him, and release the others.

That is how I view my humane values. Even though he is the police chief, but he is not humane in any way at all, or ethical.

 

All humans are equal. It is the decision from humans which change the ethical value of one person's life over that of another. If you followed what he said, it means you belief in his position and buy into his police structure, even though it is based on inhumane values. Think about that angle.

Edited September 14, 2011 by salsafan

[HeadingNorth]

If YOU kill, you go to hell.

 

That won't be a concern for atheists; and would you not worry about going to hell for failing to save nine lives when you had the chance?

 

 

[Added] You have a third option. You could kill him.

 

The terms of the debate usually specify that the option of killing him isn't available; he might be standing thirty yards away with a machine gun, having given you a knife with which to choose your victim, for instance. (In which case you could try to kill him, but that would just lead to 11 deaths instead of 10, one of them being your own.)

[salsafan]

That won't be a concern for atheists; and would you not worry about going to hell for failing to save nine lives when you had the chance?

You would feel guilt either way for killing 1 person, or not being blackmailed into a decision and therefore 10 is killed. Since that guilt will always exist. What can and should you do? You cannot control someone else's decision, or change their religious beliefs. But you can try your best to persuade them, or to find a way to verbally resolve the issue.

 

The karmic of the killing lies on the hand of the person that did it. Cos how do you know that the children of the deceased won't take revenge? What goes round comes round. Someone up there has an eye and is counting the bad in the world and where things happened. I'm fairly certain of that.

 

The terms of the debate usually specify that the option of killing him isn't available; he might be standing thirty yards away with a machine gun, having given you a knife with which to choose your victim, for instance. (In which case you could try to kill him, but that would just lead to 11 deaths instead of 10, one of them being your own.)

 

In the real world, these are the kind of options you would think about. Cos otherwise, you are losing your own values, and integrity as a person. If you do not believe in any of it to begin with, then why would such options bother you in any way at all? You may as well let that police chief kill who he likes. It won't make one bit of moral difference to you.

[Stvoider]

Kill the policeman and then choose how many of the rest to pistol whip to death.

[HeadingNorth]

The karmic of the killing lies on the hand of the person that did it

 

That is a whole different argument, and really doesn't belong on this thread. But suffice it to say that your answer to the question is you would refuse to get involved.

[BritPat]

You would feel guilt either way for killing 1 person, or not being blackmailed into a decision and therefore 10 is killed. Since that guilt will always exist. What can and should you do? You cannot control someone else's decision, or change their religious beliefs. But you can try your best to persuade them, or to find a way to verbally resolve the issue.

 

The karmic of the killing lies on the hand of the person that did it. Cos how do you know that the children of the deceased won't take revenge? What goes round comes round. Someone up there has an eye and is counting the bad in the world and where things happened. I'm fairly certain of that.

 

 

 

In the real world, these are the kind of options you would think about. Cos otherwise, you are losing your own values, and integrity as a person. If you do not believe in any of it to begin with, then why would such options bother you in any way at all? You may as well let that police chief kill who he likes. It won't make one bit of moral difference to you.

 

That may be true but it will make a hell of a lot of existential difference to those that would otherwise have been saved.

 

Just so long as your sense of morality is preserved all is well.

 

Is it immoral to launch the lifeboat on Sunday when the crew should be in Church?

Edited September 14, 2011 by BritPat

[salsafan]

That is a whole different argument, and really doesn't belong on this thread. But suffice it to say that your answer to the question is you would refuse to get involved.

To be honest, from what little clarification he has given, it is loaded with lots of moral presumptions already. He said "right or wrong", in what context? Morally right or wrong? Responsibly right or wrong as a human being? Duty as a foreigner, what? What is it that he is implying?

 

The real true answer can only be as good as the description of the situation that he describes. My answer is not to not get involved, cos that is your projection of what you want it to be. In my mind, I think you already have an expected answer in your mind. You also limited me in asking for further clarification in the background details already. So it is one illogical argument which is just based on theorectical argument for argument sake.

 

If I was a policeman, or was working in the force, and then that situation comes out. My action and decision point also differs too. Cos I have a duty to do my role and to save as many civilians. Yet, if I was a traveller, and entered into this situation, and I do not have the option to kill that guy, then yes, I would not kill anyone, and be killed instead. Are you telling me that you will kill ?

[salsafan]

That may be true but it will make a hell of a lot of existential difference to those that would otherwise have been saved.

 

Just so long as your sense of morality is preserved all is well.

 

Is it immoral to launch the lifeboat on Sunday when the crew should be in Church?

No. Why are you derailing this ?

 

I am challenging Headingnorth about his proposition that I cannot have the option to kill this guy but yet is forced to make a decision. Cos once I killed, it changes me. If all those options cannot exist, then I won't kill. It is not a job or role that I am in to do. I would obviously find any options not to kill anyone first. If that is not available, then I would try and kill the police chief, cos he is being inhumane.

 

Unless you are saying that you are just like the police chief and think so inhumanely and support the killing of others with no remorse. Is that what you seem to be implying ?