| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Diomedes
464 Posts
On May 30 2009 04:35 Wohmfg wrote: That's different because it's their fault they need an organ donor, rofl! Anyway, even if this is true that doesn't mean they deserve to be murdered by not killing me for their benefit. you shouldn't have to give up your organs for someone else because their body is broken. That's why someone has to kill me. | ||
|
eMbrace
United States1300 Posts
| ||
|
Wohmfg
United Kingdom1292 Posts
On May 30 2009 05:20 Diomedes wrote: rofl! Anyway, even if this is true that doesn't mean they deserve to be murdered by not killing me for their benefit. That's why someone has to kill me. Wouldn't they be murdering the person they took the organ from? Especially seeing as the person with the healthy organ wasn't going to die in the first place whereas they were. And it is a fault in their body that causes their organ to fail or be unhealthy, so what's so "rofl!" about it? | ||
|
Night[Mare
Mexico4793 Posts
On May 30 2009 04:38 King K. Rool wrote: Again the problem is we don't see animals in the same light as you, and again this is comparison between animals and humans, not humans and humans. i wonder what your stance on the nazi party is then. | ||
|
Diomedes
464 Posts
On May 30 2009 05:47 Wohmfg wrote: Wouldn't they be murdering the person they took the organ from? A third person would. The one given the dilemma. That's how the dilemma is set up. And it isn't like it isn't realistic. Especially seeing as the person with the healthy organ wasn't going to die in the first place whereas they were So? Do you even understand the dilemma. You either kill one and save many. Or you kill many by not killing one. And it is a fault in their body that causes their organ to fail or be unhealthy, so what's so "rofl!" about it? How are they responsible for the disease they happen to have? That's so absurd. It's idiotic. Especially considering the consequences. Apparenty you had some atom bomb example in your mind. It's like saying the people that get killed by the atom bomb have only themselves to blame because they did out of their own free will choose to live in that place that is about to get nuked.. And because of that it's ok that they get nuked. It's their fault so we aren't going to save them by murdering one person. You don't understand the arguments at all. Read back and think more. It's not that there aren't any arguments against the reductio ad absurdum I am making. Actually, you can even argue it's not that absurd. This dilemma is a famous example for the whole ethical issue that is being debated. But still one can make arguments. Yet on one managed to make any good points. People, learn to read and learn to think before you post. | ||
|
Wohmfg
United Kingdom1292 Posts
On May 30 2009 06:13 Diomedes wrote: A third person would. The one given the dilemma. That's how the dilemma is set up. And it isn't like it isn't realistic. So? Do you even understand the dilemma. You either kill one and save many. Or you kill many by not killing one. How are they responsible for the disease they happen to have? That's so absurd. It's idiotic. Especially considering the consequences. Apparenty you had some atom bomb example in your mind. It's like saying the people that get killed by the atom bomb have only themselves to blame because they did out of their own free will choose to live in that place that is about to get nuked.. And because of that it's ok that they get nuked. It's their fault so we aren't going to save them by murdering one person. You don't understand the arguments at all. Read back and think more. It's not that there aren't any arguments against the reductio ad absurdum I am making. Actually, you can even argue it's not that absurd. This dilemma is a famous example for the whole ethical issue that is being debated. But still one can make arguments. Yet on one managed to make any good points. People, learn to read and learn to think before you post. A fault in their body. I didn't say responsible. The fault is what causes the organ to fail. A fault in their body. A fault. Another word for a failing or defect would be a fault. Do you understand? My whole point was to highlight the differences in the two examples of 1 vs 1 million and the faulty organs. They are different as the deaths of millions by whatever method is separate from the 1 million and one people involved. The people with the failing organs shouldn't have the privilege of someone killing another healthy person to get organs. The million people should have that privilege because they are all on level terms to begin with. That's why my gut instinct when I was first presented with this problem (a long time ago, I do understand the problem) was that I couldn't murder someone to harvest their organs for unwell people, but I would without hesitation kill one person to save millions. It's only when details are given that you can make up your mind because the situations are entirely different. | ||
|
D10
Brazil3409 Posts
| ||
|
foeffa
Belgium2115 Posts
 The way some animals are treated is extremely inhumane, though. | ||
|
King K. Rool
Canada4408 Posts
On May 30 2009 05:51 Night[Mare wrote: i wonder what your stance on the nazi party is then. What about it? I think they're wrong, but if you're trying to draw an analogy between Nazis + humans and me + animals, then this analogy fails. | ||
|
Tsagacity
United States2124 Posts
On May 30 2009 04:26 Night[Mare wrote: so that gives the humanity the right to torture animals for consumption? you must be fucked in the brain to think that. We being 'superior' to the animals would mean we would treat them fairly, not abuse them for the sole purpose of consumption. actually i think you're just trolling if you cant feel a little empathy. I despise people who belive them superior to other beings. It's just the same shit the nazi did. Was not the arian race superior to everything? Would you be raising latin american people for food consumption because they're are inferior (just as an example of arian race being superior)?\ Did you just say that thinking we as humans are superior to animals is similar to the nazis thinking they were superior to other humans? Other races of humans are still humans. Animals are not humans. It's a biological thing >.< | ||
|
Osmoses
Sweden5302 Posts
And so am I. | ||
|
Whiplash
United States2929 Posts
![[image loading]](http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/images/bigpot6.jpg) I have this shirt. | ||
|
Frits
11782 Posts
HI THIS HAS BEEN POSTED ALREADY IN THIS THREAD AND EVERYONE ON THE INTERNET READ THIS ARTICLE LIKE 3 YEARS AGO ALREADY ANYWAY PLEASE STOP POSTING IT ITS NOT CLEVER ITS JUST ANNOYING THANK YOU | ||
|
DeathSpank
United States1029 Posts
| ||
|
Diomedes
464 Posts
Now you say it's their body's fault because it's a 'fault in their body'. Yeah, it's the same word. So? Do you understand words? Second, someone brought up the idea it would be ok to murder 100 chimps to save one human. I said that if you murder 1 person to save 100 million people it is as immoral as just killing 1 person for whatever other reason. Then people countered by bringing up that if you don't save 100 million by killing one you are killing 100 million. And if you are going to counter that, then try that. What you are doing now is silly. The millions are on 'level terms' and 'receive privileges' while the people requiring donor organs don't? I don't even understand what that can mean. Dude, this is just random stuff you made up. Address the actual issue. But you don't seem to understand it. Anyway, even if you have a valid point you can make it disappear by changing the dilemma. Then you can no longer ignore the dilemma like you do now and address the actual consequences of claiming not killing 1 to save many is to kill many. And yes, this is completely different from either saving 1 and letting many die, letting 1 die and save many. And no, you aren't killing some criminal or terrorist because then the moral point isn't addressed. No, you kill an innocent or a random person. Blackmail is a good setting for such an analogy. But you can also have different ones. Like you know someone is about the detonate an atom bomb, you people like that scenario for some reason, and you know his name is Dave and he has a red car. But you have a list of 10 people named 'Dave' that own red cars. So either you kill the terrorist, along with 9 people, or the bomb goes off. In the end if you have the position that every life is worth 1 point and killing one to save 2 or more is the moral thing to do, because otherwise you would murder those you refuse to save, then you have to go along with killing the guy whose organs are needed to kill more than 1. And I can see why you people like the atom bomb. It kills so many, you can appeal to emotion and try to ignore the morality behind it because of the large numbers. So let's go back to the Dave&bomb example. Let's say he has a normal bomb. Then you can input any number, or a probability distribution, for the casualties. Where do you draw the line if it's bad to kill 1 to save 4 in need of organs? Because then it would be bad to kill 10 Daves to save 40 deaths in the blast. Then 40 is not enough. So what is the math then? It's ok to kill 1 innocent to save 20? What's the price? I have this shirt. http://www.amazon.com/Three-T-Shirt-Available-Various-Sizes/dp/B000NZW3IY | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
Don't discuss societies actions. Discuss your actions. You are responsible for your self, not for society | ||
|
konadora
Singapore66358 Posts
It certainly makes me think twice about choosing to eat meat. If only they did the proper procedures then I wouldn't care, but abusing them like is just... The standard of which the animals are bred is definitely a no-go. No wonder all these 'swine flu' and 'bird flu' keep appearing. | ||
|
Skullz
Canada5 Posts
It certainly makes me think twice about choosing to eat meat. If only they did the proper procedures then I wouldn't care, but abusing them like is just... U seem to think that its the farmers that are forcing this upon us but its not, its us that forcing on them the demand for mass amounts of meat. if everyone decided to eat not as much meat then the "correct procedures" would be followed. But i love meat and can't go a a day without it so i guess i shouldnt be saying this, but i just wanna point it out ps. first post =) | ||
|
King K. Rool
Canada4408 Posts
This entire argument is way too philosophical for me to carry on with. | ||
|
Skullz
Canada5 Posts
| ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
CranKy Ducklings
Sparkling Tuna Cup
PiGosaur Cup
Replay Cast
Kung Fu Cup
Replay Cast
The PondCast
CranKy Ducklings
WardiTV Team League
Replay Cast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
