Home | Community | Message Board


Lil Shop Of Spores
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1
OfflineRiffSki
Fulltime stoner

Registered: 09/18/04
Posts: 117
Loc: Oslo, Norway
Last seen: 11 years, 7 months
A question of ethics
    #3411350 - 11/26/04 08:05 AM (12 years, 16 days ago)

Does the goal of your actions holify the methods?


--------------------
Arguing on the net is like competing in the special olympics. Even if you win you are still a retard.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineAlan Stone
Corpus

Registered: 11/23/02
Posts: 986
Loc: Ten feet up
Last seen: 11 years, 5 months
Re: A question of ethics [Re: RiffSki]
    #3411385 - 11/26/04 08:47 AM (12 years, 16 days ago)

Yeah, if the goal itself is noble.

Example:
- goal = to not cause harm to fellow beings
- means: basically anything that doesn't allow you to reach the polar opposite of the goal.


--------------------
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.

- Aristotle


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineNomad
Mad Robot

Registered: 04/30/02
Posts: 422
Last seen: 8 years, 11 months
Re: A question of ethics [Re: RiffSki]
    #3411393 - 11/26/04 08:57 AM (12 years, 16 days ago)

No, because the methods are in the present, but the goal is in the future. Something in the future cannot act on something in the present; it is cause and effect turned upside down. The method could holify the goal, but that doesn't make sense.

Also, to kill one human in order to save a hundred thousand is morally wrong, because each of these one hundred thousand humans only dies once, and there is no frame of reference - no objective observer - where you could stack up those deaths; that means that if you kill one person, then resurrect him, then kill him again, and do that a hundred thousand times, it is a hundred thousand times worse than killing him once; however, to kill a hundred thousand different humans is just as bad as killing one human. It's insane, but it is true.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 19,697
Re: A question of ethics [Re: Nomad]
    #3411402 - 11/26/04 09:08 AM (12 years, 16 days ago)

no separation
both must move as one or keep still


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineRiffSki
Fulltime stoner

Registered: 09/18/04
Posts: 117
Loc: Oslo, Norway
Last seen: 11 years, 7 months
Re: A question of ethics [Re: redgreenvines]
    #3411423 - 11/26/04 09:38 AM (12 years, 16 days ago)

nomad you are talking about timetravel
this is about desiding your own destiny


--------------------
Arguing on the net is like competing in the special olympics. Even if you win you are still a retard.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineNomad
Mad Robot

Registered: 04/30/02
Posts: 422
Last seen: 8 years, 11 months
Re: A question of ethics [Re: RiffSki]
    #3412668 - 11/26/04 04:38 PM (12 years, 15 days ago)

Exactly  :laugh:

The only acceptable case being when you send a killer robot machine back through time, to save mankind from an impending doom which has already happened.

In any other case, I don't think you can apply whatever means and get away with it. You may achieve your goal, and it may even be a good one, but ultimately, your methods will get back on you.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineRiffSki
Fulltime stoner

Registered: 09/18/04
Posts: 117
Loc: Oslo, Norway
Last seen: 11 years, 7 months
Re: A question of ethics [Re: Nomad]
    #3413015 - 11/26/04 06:25 PM (12 years, 15 days ago)

niot even that is acceptable
What about hitler?
killing him could make the nazis then get angry and they make a weapon killing every human


--------------------
Arguing on the net is like competing in the special olympics. Even if you win you are still a retard.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineAlan Stone
Corpus

Registered: 11/23/02
Posts: 986
Loc: Ten feet up
Last seen: 11 years, 5 months
Re: A question of ethics [Re: RiffSki]
    #3413243 - 11/26/04 07:39 PM (12 years, 15 days ago)

However, if you killed Hitler at age 4, you could possibly prevent a lot of deaths. If you could choose any moment in Hitler's life, why go to a period where he's amassed followers? History never should have mentioned him at all, if this was a rational universe.


--------------------
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.

- Aristotle


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineRiffSki
Fulltime stoner

Registered: 09/18/04
Posts: 117
Loc: Oslo, Norway
Last seen: 11 years, 7 months
Re: A question of ethics [Re: Alan Stone]
    #3413306 - 11/26/04 07:53 PM (12 years, 15 days ago)

then maybe another worse person would do it
if it meant to be it cannot be changed
maybe the jews kill us all?
but hitler was needed to reduce the trreaht


--------------------
Arguing on the net is like competing in the special olympics. Even if you win you are still a retard.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleHuehuecoyotl
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Registered: 06/14/04
Posts: 10,329
Loc: On the Border
Re: A question of ethics [Re: RiffSki]
    #3413359 - 11/26/04 08:10 PM (12 years, 15 days ago)

Hitler was a product of that period's politics in Germany. Without Hitler Germany would have still been vulnerable to facism.


--------------------
"A warrior is a hunter. He calculates everything. That's control. Once his calculations are over, he acts. He lets go. That's abandon. A warrior is not a leaf at the mercy of the wind. No one can push him; no one can make him do things against himself or against his better judgment. A warrior is tuned to survive, and he survives in the best of all possible fashions." ― Carlos Castaneda


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleshroomydan
exshroomerite
 User Gallery

Registered: 07/04/04
Posts: 4,126
Loc: In the woods
Re: A question of ethics [Re: RiffSki]
    #3413416 - 11/26/04 08:24 PM (12 years, 15 days ago)

Quote:

RiffSki said:
Does the goal of your actions holify the methods?





The first precept of the moral law (Natural Law) is to do good and avoid doing evil.

It is a violation of this law, and therefore unjust, to perform an evil action to achieve a good end.

Let's say for example that a terrorist was holding one hundred people hostage and threatening to kill them. Lets also say that we were holding the terrorist's ten year old daughter. One might say that it would be OK for us to start torturing the little girl as a means of convincing the terrorist to give up; the pain she suffers is negligible compared to the value of the lives of the 100 people who will die otherwise. This however would not be acceptable because it would be using an evil means to a good end. It is also important to note as someone said earlier that we are bound by time and can only act in the now. We can look into the future and speculate that A will happen if we do B, but we cannot guarantee that this will be the case. Perhaps the terrorist will watch his little girl be tortured and still kill all the hostages.

There are however situations which arise where a given act will have both good and bad consequences. In these cases the act is morally acceptable provided that the evil consequences are not desired, but are merely tolerated, and also provided that the good consequences are proportionally greater than the evil consequences.


For example. A terrorist has hijacked a plane and has radioed his intention to fly it into a large office building where 10 thousand people work. An F-16 intercepts the hijacked plane and destroys it with a missile, killing the terrorist and two hundred passengers moments before it would have impacted the building.

This act is morally acceptable because the desired good is saving the lives of the ten thousand people in the building. The tolerated bad side effect is the destruction of the people on the plane. This bad side effect is tolerated, not intended; if there were any possible way to save the ten thousand in the building without killing the people on the plane, then that way would have been followed. However the F-16 pilot only had two choices: let the plane hit the building, or destroy it. The ten thousand lives saved are a proportionally greater good than the 201 and one lost. Therefore the act is morally good.

Actions like these are governed by the "Principle of the Double Effect" and the "Principle of Proportionality."

A common ethical error is to apply the principle of proportionality to allow for an evil means to a good end. This however violates the first precept of the moral law which says do good and avoid doing evil. The principle of proportionality only applies to situations already governed by the principle of the double effect.

Peace, Love and Shroomyness :smile: :heart: :mushroom2:


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineStrumpling
Neuronaut
Registered: 10/11/02
Posts: 7,571
Loc: Hyperspace
Last seen: 5 years, 6 months
Re: A question of ethics [Re: RiffSki]
    #3413463 - 11/26/04 08:40 PM (12 years, 15 days ago)

You're saking "Does the end justify the means?"

I don't believe it does.


--------------------
Insert an "I think" mentally in front of eveything I say that seems sketchy, because I certainly don't KNOW much. Also; feel free to yell at me.
In addition: SHPONGLE


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1

General Interest >> Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Ethical question:
( 1 2 all )
Mr. Mushrooms 1,404 23 04/18/09 03:46 PM
by Middleman
* Question for moral objectivists
( 1 2 all )
silversoul7 2,277 31 06/14/03 12:42 PM
by NewToTrippin
* Neutering (Castrating) and Declawing Pets, Ethical?
( 1 2 3 all )
DiploidM 6,973 59 11/05/06 09:08 AM
by fireworks_god
* Hitler and occult
( 1 2 3 all )
Jalruza 2,488 42 09/01/05 04:59 PM
by BlueCoyote
* Ethics: Music Pirates = Spammers
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all )
DiploidM 7,897 137 10/31/06 12:02 PM
by Veritas
* Answering 'Maybe' To A YES|NO Question
( 1 2 all )
DiploidM 1,729 21 11/02/06 06:42 AM
by Huehuecoyotl
* Ethics
( 1 2 all )
daimyo 2,359 23 03/24/06 11:30 PM
by Corporal Kielbasa
* Ethics of Hunting
( 1 2 all )
Dfekt 1,243 20 11/16/05 12:57 PM
by redgreenvines

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, CosmicJoke, Diploid, DividedQuantum
433 topic views. 1 members, 10 guests and 10 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:
FreeSpores.com
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2016 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.043 seconds spending 0.003 seconds on 14 queries.