If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
You aren`t sure of my point.Your wiki example emphasizes my point as much as my wiki example. I`m advocating minding your own business INSTEAD of violently threatening others if they don`t agree or fit in with your view of the world.
I`m not advocating sitting back if some sociopath decides they should mind your business for you.
Er, but the whole point of the poem is about people sitting back because they're not being interfered with. Which is what you actually advocate - your entire political philosphy seems to be a rather convoluted version 'Im alright, Jack'
It`s not relevant to the point I`m making but I`m finding that assertiveness of yours intoxicating. :flirt: :flirt: :flirt:
My first thought is why "a child" and not "a person". Tugging at the heartstrings perhaps ? A paraplegic newborn would have been better, I suppose.
I`d ask myself( very quickly) if my help was needed. Highly unlikely, but the child may not want my help.
Self interest is the thing that would probably cause me not to help in any way I could.
Some examples:
The "government" have passed a law saying it is illegal to help children drowning in ponds.Anyone breaking this law faces the death sentence.On seeing the child, I also notice some armed thug with his silly costume from the Office of Pond Patrol looking menacingly at me with an itchy finger.
I can`t swim and there is a strong likelihood I would be the first to drown.
A loved one (e.g. my own child) is in mortal danger at the same time.
As John Lennon said "IMAGINE".
Never thought about it like that but if the entire political philosophy of EVERYONE on this rotating ball of dirt had that "I`m alright, Jack" attitude there could be instant world peace and all the perceived problems may suddenly become unconvoluted.
But they don't - so those who try to stop the world and try to get off are ignoring their moral responsibilities. Fine, if that's what you want to do, but the moral high ground looks pretty shaky...
Stop the world and try to get off ? Where have I given you that idea ?
When you have happiness in your life, I find that you want things to last forever.
Moral responsibilities ?
What are they ? And to whom are you responsible ?
To paraphrase Voltaire, "If you wish to discourse with me young lady,first define your terms"
"Moral Evil" ? ? What is it ? How would you define it ? Subjective,surely,unless you accept a universal morality ?
The Law Of Unintended Consequences notwithstanding I see a difference in the examples.
The child (a subjectively "good" person ) is (I`ll assume just for you
The trolley example involved the murder of someone by you performing your so-called moral duty (?).
If I may be so bold but I`ll digress briefly and let you know that a little bird told me of an incident on a railway station with her boyfriend that had echoes of this
An expensive Armani suit isn`t high on my listings of self interest but that`s me. I wouldn`t answer for anyone else.Some may have their suit has their highest value.
I`ll just remind,if you need it, that a law is just some person`s opinion backed by a gun. To threaten to kill someone with your opinion seems like a damn good definition of morally reprehensible.
To answer that specific question, sure you do. (My subjective opinion is that, given the circumstances you have given, very few people would not help).
The trolley example differs for the reason given earlier. I noticed you said yes to both trolley examples.
Time for you to take the stand,it`s question time.
Why do you think it`s morally right to murder someone in those examples ?
Further......
I`ll wait for your answer(if you care to,that is !) before I ask question 2
Put better than I did
Utilitarian arguments are to my mind are merely the moral refuge for the great many who feel they have a right to interfere in situations, the dynamics for which they have no real viable information or personal familiarity.
I bet George Bush would argue, about sending troops into Iraq, in much the same way his Father sent troops into Somalia that it was all for the greater good of saving the many at the cost of the few.
(OMG! I sound like Clandestine now...only less complex)
Are they all English or British? Or are some of them Slave labour immigrants who are completely cut off from their families but the one person has a huge family that they see every day with out fail and take care of?
So many what if factors about the people...if it is purely numbers, your at a distance so all you can see is how many they are and not who they are, i dont know, i guess eventually i would decide to sacrifice the one person for the many, but not for just five or 10...unless they were mega hot gorgeous sexy busty women!
Again i reiterate that utilitarian arguments are ultimately a moral dodge for those feel they have the right to intervene in situations for which they have no sufficient knowledge.