Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Whether you're Jewish, Christian, Buddhist, Marxist, Atheist, Misc...whatever your noodles dictates.

Tell me.

Betrayal is justified?

You feel that betraying someone for a greater good is acceptable?

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Whether you're Jewish, Christian, Buddhist, Marxist, Atheist, Misc...whatever your noodles dictates.

Tell me.

Betrayal is justified?

You feel that betraying someone for a greater good is acceptable?

i should say so yes...the attempted assassination of hitler for example

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Whether you're Jewish, Christian, Buddhist, Marxist, Atheist, Misc...whatever your noodles dictates.

Tell me.

Betrayal is justified?

You feel that betraying someone for a greater good is acceptable?


Title was a bit misleading, as Judas wasn't doing it for what he thought was a "greater good."

But yes, if the person you're betraying isn't worthy and especially if it for the greater cause. Jaden gave a perfect example above.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Whether you're Jewish, Christian, Buddhist, Marxist, Atheist, Misc...whatever your noodles dictates.

Tell me.

Betrayal is justified?

You feel that betraying someone for a greater good is acceptable?

It can be.

It depends on what 'greater good' you're speaking of.

Assassinating/Double-Crossing a kind leader for all thier wealth and for the greater good=betraying for the wrong reason

Assassinating/Double-Crossing a sadistic leader for all thier wealth and for the greater good=betraying for the right reason.

Hmmm, it's a difficult one...loyalty is a commodity but then again if the person is evil...it really depends but that doesn't contribute at all does it....

Ummm

I think that sometimes staying loyal to a person, through thick and thin is of the utmost importance. Even if its just to try and limit the damage they could do...should they be evil.

Sometimes betrayal is justified. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

relative to situation so there is no absolute answer.

Originally posted by chithappens
relative to situation so there is no absolute answer.

Originally posted by Mindship
Sometimes betrayal is justified. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

but greater good is still stuck to a particular paradigm which, i'm sure you can see, complicates matters

Sometimes betrayal is justified. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
Originally posted by chithappens
but greater good is still stuck to a particular paradigm which, i'm sure you can see, complicates matters Yup. That's why I wrote "Sometimes..."

Originally posted by Sol Valentine
It depends on what 'greater good' you're speaking of.

Assassinating/Double-Crossing a kind leader for all thier wealth and for the greater good=betraying for the wrong reason

Assassinating/Double-Crossing a sadistic leader for all thier wealth and for the greater good=betraying for the right reason.

Killing a good leader for the greater good would likely have the same effects as killing a bad leader for the greater good.

Now anyways, if the good caused by somebody his dead outweighs the damage caused by that person his or her dead then yes it is justified. Perhaps not something that you should like but nevertheless justified, at least if you can justify it for yourself. Personally I would say the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the many -1.

I threw into the discussion the point of "the greater good" to make the topic more hard. Mwhahahaha.

This encompasses a wide range. What sort of betrayal? There is also the greater good of self as "to thyn own self be true."

Betrayal is a point of view. In the Hitler situation it may be a good idea, but if his second in command is a worse lunatic than he is then it would be a bad Betrayal, as he would take over and cause more calamity.

For example, Saddam has been executed in Iraq, but is it a safer peacefuller place without him?

Originally posted by Fishy
Not true, in extreme cases where you have to choose between two things that you love that will tear you apart, no decision is the right one and no decision is the wrong one. Or perhaps both are right and both are wrong. It's still betrayal though. To yourself, to your friends to your family or your country. That doesn't matter it's still treason. Even if the reasons for doing so are right.

Yes, but if you are into a situation where this "greater good" is much greater than the reason why you are betraying, then maybe your betrayal can be justified somehow. Like if you were being forced to it... I mean, maybe its not just a matter of choice.

But I agree that sometimes there is no right and wrong, so this could be more a problem of chosing what side you wanna be.

Originally posted by Atlantis001
Yes, but if you are into a situation where this "greater good" is much greater than the reason why you are betraying, then maybe your betrayal can be justified somehow. Like if you were being forced to it... I mean, maybe its not just a matter of choice.

But I agree that sometimes there is no right and wrong, so this could be more a problem of chosing what side you wanna be.

You are right it can be justified. But many things are.

Betraying your best friend by getting involved with his girlfriend because she loves you and you love her would be treason to him. If not it would be betraying yourself and her for him. Not doing anything would seem the noble cause but you would hurt yourself deeply and perhaps her as well.

Two many people happy is greater then one, is it worth it?

The greater good is vague and so is betrayal. But betrayal is always justified in the eyes of the one doing it.

Originally posted by Fishy
You are right it can be justified. But many things are.

Betraying your best friend by getting involved with his girlfriend because she loves you and you love her would be treason to him. If not it would be betraying yourself and her for him. Not doing anything would seem the noble cause but you would hurt yourself deeply and perhaps her as well.

Two many people happy is greater then one, is it worth it?

The greater good is vague and so is betrayal. But betrayal is always justified in the eyes of the one doing it.

So maybe betrayal is not always wrong. Maybe betrayal must happen when we have a choice to make, and not necessarily there is a right choice..... I mean, it is just a decision.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Whether you're Jewish, Christian, Buddhist, Marxist, Atheist, Misc...whatever your noodles dictates.

Tell me.

Betrayal is justified?

You feel that betraying someone for a greater good is acceptable? Anything for the greater good.

Originally posted by Atlantis001
So maybe betrayal is not always wrong. Maybe betrayal must happen when we have a choice to make, and not necessarily there is a right choice..... I mean, it is just a decision. A decision that must be made called betrayal by others because we need words to convey actions.

Originally posted by Mindship
Sometimes betrayal is justified. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

You Utilitarianism bastard, that or you're a Wrath of Khan fan, like me.

Everything in history has betrayal written all over it. From Lords and Ladies, to conquer-ship and overthrownment of dictatorships. Betrayal is needed to grow. Betrayal of self is the worst yet.

Everything?

Okay, almost. But every decision would conflict with other opinions. In otherwords, betrayal to other views.

Originally posted by Robtard
You Utilitarianism bastard, that or you're a Wrath of Khan fan, like me.

Unitarians are great people. Aren't they accepting of all?

If someone is pretty strong on "trust" then that person can't really be in favor of betrayal. One of the many features of betrayal is deceit and lying.

Self contradiction?

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Whether you're Jewish, Christian, Buddhist, Marxist, Atheist, Misc...whatever your noodles dictates.

Tell me.

Betrayal is justified?

You feel that betraying someone for a greater good is acceptable?

The ends never justify the means. Never. If they do, then restrains are lifted, bars are set aside. Man can do as he pleases as long as his motives are good. This is a form of absolute. This is a principle that can not be made subjective. If it is, then who is to decide what occurs to whom? Imagine if I say I need to kill my neighbor to rid the world of one more racist snob. And he justifies killing me to defend his own life. Both causes are good. How do we decide who kills who?

Originally posted by AOR
The ends never justify the means. Never. If they do, then restrains are lifted, bars are set aside. Man can do as he pleases as long as his motives are good. This is a form of absolute. This is a principle that can not be made subjective. If it is, then who is to decide what occurs to whom? Imagine if I say I need to kill my neighbor to rid the world of one more racist snob. And he justifies killing me to defend his own life. Both causes are good. How do we decide who kills who?

We could argue that we decide by means of society (i.e. a social contract)

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
We could argue that we decide by means of society (i.e. a social contract)

Then how do people have the authority to decide? We are not discussing the worth of the person, or the authority that may imply, we are discussing if the means justify the ends. If they do, then there are none who could answer the above scenario simply because with good motives anyone can do anything. But the law does not recognize the intention as so much the crime committed. A person who kills someone (outside of self-defense) is always punished with something. ALWAYS. Because it's not whether or not you meant to do it, it's that you did.

What I am saying is that Justice recognizes that if we ruled by intentions none would be found guilty. Not to mention we would have no way of proving if their intentions were truly good. So we judge on the fact and God judges on our intentions.

But to not leave your response hanging, society defines justice. But it's more of a collective conscious that defines the society. That the norms are universal norms that seem to transcend the reality of man's single "moral" norm. What I'm trying to say is men, not man alone, dictated that it is the action performed, not the intentions behind it, that bears the fruit of our works. And so justice (and logic) both agree that the means do not justify the ends.

Originally posted by King of Blades
The ends never justify the means. Never. If they do, then restrains are lifted, bars are set aside. Man can do as he pleases as long as his motives are good. This is a form of absolute. This is a principle that can not be made subjective. If it is, then who is to decide what occurs to whom? Imagine if I say I need to kill my neighbor to rid the world of one more racist snob. And he justifies killing me to defend his own life. Both causes are good. How do we decide who kills who?

You kill your neighbor because he has different opinions. He kills you because you are a murderer, or about to become one willingly. His cause is more justified. Would you kill him to save a young kid from being killed then that would be more justified. It's quite easy. One live is simply worth more then others. Some actions simply make you more credit then others.

The tough thing is finding out where the turning point lies. Absolute numbers on things like this are impossible, especially when you consider the impact people could have on society for good or for bad.

Oh and by the way, if the end never justifies the means then that means you can't have laws a police force or whatever.

Originally posted by Fishy
You kill your neighbor because he has different opinions. He kills you because you are a murderer, or about to become one willingly. His cause is more justified. Would you kill him to save a young kid from being killed then that would be more justified. It's quite easy. One live is simply worth more then others. Some actions simply make you more credit then others.

The tricky thing about that is proving that he was about to kill you.

"No, seriously, I stabbed him because he was gonna stab me. No, he didn't have a knife in his hand, he was gonna do it tonight... for realz."

Originally posted by Fishy
You kill your neighbor because he has different opinions. He kills you because you are a murderer, or about to become one willingly. His cause is more justified. Would you kill him to save a young kid from being killed then that would be more justified. It's quite easy. One live is simply worth more then others. Some actions simply make you more credit then others.

The tough thing is finding out where the turning point lies. Absolute numbers on things like this are impossible, especially when you consider the impact people could have on society for good or for bad.

Oh and by the way, if the end never justifies the means then that means you can't have laws a police force or whatever.

Who has the right to make that decision? Whose one life is greater the another's one life? Is life not priceless, without value. If you get one priceless life compared to another you get no equal value. Because there is no value to something priceless. It's like infinity times infinity raised to the infinite level is still infinity. If if an infinite amount of infinities ganged up one infinity the result would still be equal to one infinity. There is no turning point. No compromise.

Imagine if you are a doctor and you found a cure that could save 10,000 people. But to save them you must kill 1,000 people. As a doctor you have a duty to reject such a cure. A DUTY. No man can transcend the law written, oath taken, or protocol establish for a supposed "greater good". Even policemen must follow the laws they enforce, and their job is ABOUT protecting people.

Originally posted by Fishy
One live is simply worth more then others. Some actions simply make you more credit then others.
I find this, above all mentioned, to be utterly ignorant and fallacious. The eye can not say to the ear that it is not needed, nor the ear to the foot it is not necessary. The parts of the whole can not give value introspectively but look at the whole produced and give a value there. As the saying goes, that's like the tea kettle telling the pot its black.

Originally posted by King of Blades
Who has the right to make that decision? Whose one life is greater the another's one life? Is life not priceless, without value. If you get one priceless life compared to another you get no equal value. Because there is no value to something priceless. It's like infinity times infinity raised to the infinite level is still infinity. If if an infinite amount of infinities ganged up one infinity the result would still be equal to one infinity. There is no turning point. No compromise.

Imagine if you are a doctor and you found a cure that could save 10,000 people. But to save them you must kill 1,000 people. As a doctor you have a duty to reject such a cure. A DUTY. No man can transcend the law written, oath taken, or protocol establish for a supposed "greater good". Even policemen must follow the laws they enforce, and their job is ABOUT protecting people.

You like saying infinity don't you? But it's false a human being is not worth an infinite amount of something. Every life can be classified in many ways, the easiest of which is money. It's not an entirely fair system, but if you were to look at a large community it's the only system that would really work. Some people make more money and thus pay more taxes, ergo more important. Some people save lives and can therefor make other people pay taxes and thus is more important then a hobo living on a street. It's simple mathematics.

And policemen are enforcing the law for the greater good. Something you just said should never happen. To serve and to protect is the end they are looking for. And I thought you believed the ends never justify the means?



And yet I can perfectly easy say that my life is more important then that of somebody who is going to die of some terrible disease tomorrow. Why? Because I have a far larger chance of living longer and will put more money into this community and have a far larger chance of ever making myself useful to this world. Something that the person that will die tomorrow can't.

Also the doctor that could save 10.000 people and would have to kill a 1.000 to get the cure, should do it. He would just have saved 9.000 lives.

true indeed that there is many ways to classify how valuable a person in to society...and clearly the most important is how many friends you have on social networking sites....

Originally posted by jaden101
true indeed that there is many ways to classify how valuable a person in to society...and clearly the most important is how many friends you have on social networking sites....

That might be even more important then money or real friends...

Originally posted by Fishy
You like saying infinity don't you? But it's false a human being is not worth an infinite amount of something. Every life can be classified in many ways, the easiest of which is money. It's not an entirely fair system, but if you were to look at a large community it's the only system that would really work. Some people make more money and thus pay more taxes, ergo more important. Some people save lives and can therefor make other people pay taxes and thus is more important then a hobo living on a street. It's simple mathematics.

And policemen are enforcing the law for the greater good. Something you just said should never happen. To serve and to protect is the end they are looking for. And I thought you believed the ends never justify the means?



And yet I can perfectly easy say that my life is more important then that of somebody who is going to die of some terrible disease tomorrow. Why? Because I have a far larger chance of living longer and will put more money into this community and have a far larger chance of ever making myself useful to this world. Something that the person that will die tomorrow can't.

Also the doctor that could save 10.000 people and would have to kill a 1.000 to get the cure, should do it. He would just have saved 9.000 lives.

Humans are not investments. I kill you before the sick man. Boom bad investment on your part. You don't yield more value then that sick man because just before he dies he could have found the cure, and saved himself and made far more money then you ever will. Why? Oh yeah, that's cause your dead. Your playing God. Something you are not. Your value does not exceed mine. Not then, not now, not ever. Your a human being, susceptible to weakness, illness, betrayal, death. Just like the poorest of the poor and richest of the rich. It's not your input in society that determines who you are or your value, it's an inherent pricelessness.

The example with the policeman was that he can not break the law to enforce the law. Nor can he justify that he is enforcing the law to transcend it. A police officer is still susceptible to the law. The measure that which you measure, will also be measured unto you. So for one to say "I protect all human lives regardless of race, color, ethnicity, gender, etc." can not go and kill human lives to protect others. Even if it is 1,000 lives to save 10,000. That's hypocrisy and lying. The law of non-contradiction. Taking away an innocent life still makes you a murderer. Regardless of motives or intentions.

Originally posted by King of Blades
Humans are not investments. I kill you before the sick man. Boom bad investment on your part. You don't yield more value then that sick man because just before he dies he could have found the cure, and saved himself and made far more money then you ever will. Why? Oh yeah, that's cause your dead. Your playing God. Something you are not. Your value does not exceed mine. Not then, not now, not ever. Your a human being, susceptible to weakness, illness, betrayal, death. Just like the poorest of the poor and richest of the rich. It's not your input in society that determines who you are or your value, it's an inherent pricelessness.

You can never be absolutely sure, you can still however make a calculated guess. The chances of something like that happening are slim, the chances of me living more then one day are far larger. Therefor the chances that I will contribute to society is larger, where as for him the chance hardly exists. Ergo easy decision.

And it is my output to society that decides how much I am worth and is that same output that decides if I am more worthy of my life then others. This may sound cold but it's not. In the end it's just math.



I don't think you understand the law in and of it self is a means to an end. You just said that should never happen. It's impossible for that to never happen, so you are basically just a hypocrite willing to accept some means for some ends but automatically refusing others.

Originally posted by Fishy
You can never be absolutely sure, you can still however make a calculated guess. The chances of something like that happening are slim, the chances of me living more then one day are far larger. Therefor the chances that I will contribute to society is larger, where as for him the chance hardly exists. Ergo easy decision.

And it is my output to society that decides how much I am worth and is that same output that decides if I am more worthy of my life then others. This may sound cold but it's not. In the end it's just math.



I don't think you understand the law in and of it self is a means to an end. You just said that should never happen. It's impossible for that to never happen, so you are basically just a hypocrite willing to accept some means for some ends but automatically refusing others.



Believe what you may, but you are wrong. No human being is "worth more" than another.

Also I am not a hypocrite. I believe that there is NO EXCEPTION to this rule. None, nada, zip. I no sooner take preference to the doctor than I would to the police man. It is not enforcing the law if you have to break it. Nor do the ends become good if the means aren't also good. What you are saying is ridiculous.

Originally posted by King of Blades
Believe what you may, but you are wrong. No human being is "worth more" than another.

Also I am not a hypocrite. I believe that there is NO EXCEPTION to this rule. None, nada, zip. I no sooner take preference to the doctor than I would to the police man. It is not enforcing the law if you have to break it. Nor do the ends become good if the means aren't also good. What you are saying is ridiculous.

The very existing of the law and the very fact that you agree with the law proves that you think that the ends justify the means.

There is no need to argue about it, it's a simple fact. Therefor you are a hypocrite.

You saying that you would not rate one life as more important then the other just makes you a person incapable of making though decisions that involve human beings.

Originally posted by Fishy
The very existing of the law and the very fact that you agree with the law proves that you think that the ends justify the means.

There is no need to argue about it, it's a simple fact. Therefor you are a hypocrite.

You saying that you would not rate one life as more important then the other just makes you a person incapable of making though decisions that involve human beings.

What you are saying doesn't make sense. I believe in that the means don't justify the ends. I believe this because the ends of an actions are separate from the means by which you achieve said ends. This is because it would be hypocritical of a person to say "I save peoples lives" and then kill people to save said lies. Not only is it hypocritical of the person but it is self defeating. This contradiction makes the ends worth nothing since you'd be better off doing nothing if you think your goal justifies the means to attain it.

With this being said your comment on rating humans on a scale is fallacious. Every human being is born (and I'd go so far back as conceived) with dignity. Every single one. Before we can tell of their social input, race, color, gender, religion, etc. they are all equal. When one twin makes a million dollars and the other barely gets by on scraps, the fact that they both have dignity still remains. They are inherently equal. Since they are inherently equal one can never be greater then the other. ER-FREAKING-GO you can not "coldly" some up a human with numbers and/or make some valuable then others.

I have presented my argument logically, clearly, and truthfully. I reserved nothing, contradicted nothing, and stood by all. I am, by no means, a hypocrite. Why don't you focus on the conversation at hand, and quite attacking my character (argumentum ad hominem). If you can't defend your point and must resort to childish name calling, then consent or this debate it over.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Whether you're Jewish, Christian, Buddhist, Marxist, Atheist, Misc...whatever your noodles dictates.

Tell me.

Betrayal is justified?

You feel that betraying someone for a greater good is acceptable?

No, betrayal is wrong. Unless you are really feel that your betrayal is to help others, but not for your own personal gain.

Originally posted by King of Blades
What you are saying doesn't make sense. I believe in that the means don't justify the ends. I believe this because the ends of an actions are separate from the means by which you achieve said ends. This is because it would be hypocritical of a person to say "I save peoples lives" and then kill people to save said lies. Not only is it hypocritical of the person but it is self defeating. This contradiction makes the ends worth nothing since you'd be better off doing nothing if you think your goal justifies the means to attain it.

If you don't believe that the ends justify the means no matter what then you are a hypocrite. Because the existing of the law is basically a means to an end. It's that simple. Ergo you want to live in anarchy but even then you would still be allowing certain means to create a certain end.



Sure you can, for instance you have two children both three years old. You have the chance to save one of them. The one will cure cancer in twenty years saving millions of life, the other will become a mass murderer or rapists. Easy decision if you ask me.

Now let's make a less absurd comparison. There are two people, both need a kidney to live on. One is 80 the other is 12 who do you give it to? In this case it would be the 12 year old, simply because he or she has a far longer life ahead of them, at least it's more likely that they do. You judge life all the time during situations like this. Why do you think boats used to have the rule "woman and children first"? Why do you think hospitals give organs to younger and more fit people without problems before giving them to old people or people with other diseases or mental issues? Because the quality of life and therefor the value of the life of the first group is rated higher then the value of the life of the second group.



Does that ever even work in an argument? Saying you did things logically and you made no mistakes? Saying it doesn't always make it true you know... And definitely not in this situation.



I am defending my point, and one of my points makes you a hypocrite simply because you support upholding of the law. Which is a means to an end. The end being peace or stability or whatever, the means being the justice system and everything that comes with it.

And if you want to end this debate then go ahead, not my problem. Crawling in the a corner and calling yourself a victim of name calling or simply declaring yourself to be the one that is right here doesn't make it so, and it certainly doesn't mean you are right.

Considering that money can buy everything. I wouldnt have a problem betraying a friend, especially if i can blame my actions on his nefarious behaviour. I could just buy a new friend

Originally posted by Fishy
If you don't believe that the ends justify the means no matter what then you are a hypocrite. Because the existing of the law is basically a means to an end. It's that simple. Ergo you want to live in anarchy but even then you would still be allowing certain means to create a certain end.


Do not make assumptions. You seem to be misunderstanding the topic here. This is do the means justify the ends. So allow me to take your example of government and apply it as such. If anything the purpose in life is to reach a certain order or harmony. It may not be for you, but it will be for this example. So we have the laws to establish such harmony. So yes we now have a means (laws) and the ends (harmony). But when I say "the ends do not justify the means" I am not saying that the end is good because I follow the laws. No it means that I can't achieve the ends by however means I wish to follow the laws. Example:

A man argues that humanity is inherently evil, ignorant, and chaotic. To achieve his goal of harmony he must eradicate the human race. With the eradication of the human race there is peace and harmony.

A second man sees that, though man has committed great atrocities in his past, is not inherently evil. Therefore, he chooses to seek the peace and harmony by bringing out the good in all people, and thus peace and harmony is assured.

Your arguing that because both men achieved the same goal, both means by which the end was accomplished are acceptable (the ends do justify the means). But anybody (if not everyone) will tell you that the second man is better then the first and that the means do not justify the ends.
Originally posted by Fishy

Sure you can, for instance you have two children both three years old. You have the chance to save one of them. The one will cure cancer in twenty years saving millions of life, the other will become a mass murderer or rapists. Easy decision if you ask me.

That has nothing to do with the conversation, and is an entirely different philosophical argument to be discussed later. Your action is saving one of their lives, not letting the other die. That one of the negative effects of neutral/positive actions occurs is in by no means your fault. But like I said an entirely different conversation. Not to mention merely speculation and "what ifs". I can equally argue speculation and we'd go no where.

Originally posted by Fishy

Now let's make a less absurd comparison. There are two people, both need a kidney to live on. One is 80 the other is 12 who do you give it to? In this case it would be the 12 year old, simply because he or she has a far longer life ahead of them, at least it's more likely that they do. You judge life all the time during situations like this. Why do you think boats used to have the rule "woman and children first"? Why do you think hospitals give organs to younger and more fit people without problems before giving them to old people or people with other diseases or mental issues? Because the quality of life and therefor the value of the life of the first group is rated higher then the value of the life of the second group.


First off I don't make that decision, we have a list of people waiting for a kidney. Whoever happens to be on the list first gets the kidney first. Of course natural inclination would give it to the boy. But once again you are not making a point in regards to the means justifying the ends. And because the boy gets it first speaks nothing to his value. If anything to add to the above reference of speculation, the old man could have given up his kidney to the 12 year old.

We give the kidney to the boy not because we see a difference in value, but a sense of logic and practicality. It'd be a waste of a kidney to give it to an old man who may be seeing the end very soon, then to a boy who is merely beginning the journey of life. Notice that practicality does not imply a shift or deter in the human value, and by no means substitutes my claim of "the means not justifying the ends".

Originally posted by Fishy

Does that ever even work in an argument? Saying you did things logically and you made no mistakes? Saying it doesn't always make it true you know... And definitely not in this situation.


Yes. If I just came in here with pure speculation and personal opinions founded no where within the realm of reason, you would no sooner dismiss me and my point of view then you would dismiss the three year old predestined rapist/murder. Also because, assuming my argument is logic and presented clearly, then you would have to accept my premises as valid. However, that does not mean that because my argument is valid, that it is sound which is why we are debating in the first place: to discover a sound argument.

Originally posted by Fishy

I am defending my point, and one of my points makes you a hypocrite simply because you support upholding of the law. Which is a means to an end. The end being peace or stability or whatever, the means being the justice system and everything that comes with it.


Again you misunderstand, the purpose of the argument is if doing something bad for a good cause is justified. Not that the means in general are justified by the ends.

Originally posted by Fishy

And if you want to end this debate then go ahead, not my problem. Crawling in the a corner and calling yourself a victim of name calling or simply declaring yourself to be the one that is right here doesn't make it so, and it certainly doesn't mean you are right.

I would like this to end with a mutual understanding between us both. I am, once again put aside your assumptions, by no means "looking for a loop hole that I may seem the one who is right." Calling me a hypocrite was both: a) unfounded making no claim at all to the reasoning behind such a name calling and b) completely unnecessary seeing how little you are defending the current point now that you must find it necessary to undercut me with such a false title. Again I present ever retort to you with logic, and no name calling. I'd expect at least the latter to be returned to me in kind.

Originally posted by King of Blades
Do not make assumptions. You seem to be misunderstanding the topic here. This is do the means justify the ends. So allow me to take your example of government and apply it as such. If anything the purpose in life is to reach a certain order or harmony. It may not be for you, but it will be for this example. So we have the laws to establish such harmony. So yes we now have a means (laws) and the ends (harmony). But when I say "the ends do not justify the means" I am not saying that the end is good because I follow the laws. No it means that I can't achieve the ends by however means I wish to follow the laws. Example:

A man argues that humanity is inherently evil, ignorant, and chaotic. To achieve his goal of harmony he must eradicate the human race. With the eradication of the human race there is peace and harmony.

A second man sees that, though man has committed great atrocities in his past, is not inherently evil. Therefore, he chooses to seek the peace and harmony by bringing out the good in all people, and thus peace and harmony is assured.

And yet this is only from a certain point of view. For Osama bin Laden for instance killing Americans was not killing humans, it was just killing something inferior to save the lives of good people. Like humans killing pigs to have food, or killing lions or wolfs to ensure they can build a society. It's a point of view difference that determines how important a life is and which one is more important. Seeing as not all humans are judged equally you could hardly say that the way that saves most life is necessarily the best way. At least not to all humans.



In such a hugely extreme case perhaps, however when Hitler ordered the deaths of the Jews, many people did not see it as an extermination of people but of lesser things who needed to be removed like animals needed to be removed to give humans a better life. They found it more human to kill all the Jews and give all Aryans a good life, then living together with the Jews. Because they thought that inferior beings would be given rights that they do not deserve. Kinda like having pigs own a house for instance, you just don't do it.



It has to do with the value of human life, something you brought up in the first place. Something you said was impossible to judge, it is very easy to judge.



The old man needed a kidney he could hardly give it away... Now that list puts a value on human life, it's not an exact science that's because human beings are variables instead of statistic numbers. But you can still make a good guess on which variable will turn out to be more useful. That that variable might cause more harm is irrelevant in this case because we assume that humans will do good instead of bad, and most do. So it's an easily calculation to make. Young person > old person.



But you don't get it do you? The quality of their life is the very definition of value. The young boy will be more beneficial to society. So he gets the kidney, the old men will likely not be so he won't get the kidney. We value the kid his life more. But you could bet your ass off that if that old guy was very close to finding a cure for cancer he would get the kidney just so he could have a chance to complete his miracle cure. The one kid would be a worthwhile sacrifice, simply because the lives of many are worth more then the life of one.



Fine talk around it, if that's what you want to do. Thing is though you clearly don't see where I am coming from. You say that the boy has more life ahead of him therefor he deserves it, I say that directly relates to his possible value to humanity. You refuse to see it like that, when in the end the decision can easily be seen as a simple economical decision if nothing else. Woman and children first for instance is a principle that guarantees the continuation of society. Pregnant woman for instance get the same kind of treatment, why because they have life in them. They have the ability to make more. Making them worth more to humanity then other people.



Then define bad and good without going overboard. It's a point of view perspective. And from a certain point of view doing something bad to do something good isn't really bad at all. It would be worse to not do the bad thing in the first place.



Calling you a hypocrite was wrong, but that is because there was a mis-communication between the two of us. You think that upholding the law is not a bad thing and therefor does not play into this discussion. Whereas I think it's a Point of view directly related to what the majority of a country thinks, and therefor still means that the ends justify the means. Simply because there are people who would disagree and for them the law is a bad thing, and the government is basically declaring (in their view) that the end does justify the means.

Not to mention that not all laws are there for our good and a lot of them go way overboard.

Originally posted by Fishy
Thing is though you clearly don't see where I am coming from.


Fine then lets take a different path to understanding one another.

Do you believe that all things are relative to a persons perspective (i.e. all things are subjective)?

Originally posted by King of Blades
Fine then lets take a different path to understanding one another.

Do you believe that all things are relative to a persons perspective (i.e. all things are subjective)?

Yes.

Originally posted by Fishy
Yes.

How can something be objectively subjective?

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Whether you're Jewish, Christian, Buddhist, Marxist, Atheist, Misc...whatever your noodles dictates.

Tell me.

Betrayal is justified?

You feel that betraying someone for a greater good is acceptable?

Of course there are exceptions, but I believe that most people who betray somebody else for "the greater good" care more for their own gain.

Originally posted by ragesRemorse
Considering that money can buy everything. I wouldnt have a problem betraying a friend, especially if i can blame my actions on his nefarious behaviour. I could just buy a new friend

That's exactly what I mean!

Originally posted by King of Blades
How can something be objectively subjective?

Oh that trick again? Really, that the best you can come up with? That would be like me asking you, how you know what is good or not? How
can you be sure about it?

Now how can everything be subjective in my mind except for the fact that everything is subjective?

Easy, I don't know.

And as long as you don't know, you can't be sure. You can't judge other opinions. Because for all you know they are good and yours are wrong, or perhaps they are equally valid because there is no higher power to judge us, and our morale views come simply from society has told us they should be and then again perhaps not. Perhaps God thinks our western morales are just and right and perhaps god exist. But as long as you don't know, as long as you aren't sure judging people who think differently is just claiming yourself to be superior to them without any real reason for it. Except for your own personal subjective view of the world perhaps.

Originally posted by Fishy
Oh that trick again? Really, that the best you can come up with? That would be like me asking you, how you know what is good or not? How
can you be sure about it?

Now how can everything be subjective in my mind except for the fact that everything is subjective?

Easy, I don't know.

And as long as you don't know, you can't be sure. You can't judge other opinions. Because for all you know they are good and yours are wrong, or perhaps they are equally valid because there is no higher power to judge us, and our morale views come simply from society has told us they should be and then again perhaps not. Perhaps God thinks our western morales are just and right and perhaps god exist. But as long as you don't know, as long as you aren't sure judging people who think differently is just claiming yourself to be superior to them without any real reason for it. Except for your own personal subjective view of the world perhaps.

The fact that you fell for it only proves the weakness of your argument. You hide behind logical fallacies believing that such bulwarks will hold your opposition at bay. But I assure you, objective realities are the premise of many if not all philosophical ideas that surface in the world of man. Take away such foundations, and it's like walking on a ground that moves at the same speed you do. You go no where. It is clear that you can not bring to this argument anything resolute, claiming universal subjectivism to be your one and only defense. Find me a post where you've used something more then your own opinion backed by something other then your beliefs and practicality, and I may be inclined to believe that something you say makes sense.

You can't keep claiming that because we "don't know" we "can't be sure". Obviously there are sure fire things other then science out in the world. And there are objective realities that we as a people live by. Practicality, forgive my redundancy, is practical and efficient and you are correct in saying that it's not fair. Obviously if it isn't fair, then there must be something we compare the fairness too. Something we know is greater then it that we strive for, something we KNOW exists. We wouldn't call it an "unfair system" unless we knew the fair system in the first place. Do I deny that people use the "unfair system"? Of course not. In fact, I admit that I am one personally to use it at times (though that doesn't mean that it's right or my point is invalid). All I am saying is that surly something that both exists and is fair is something we should try to achieve. One of the sureties of this "fair system" is that everyone is treated equal. On what grounds come this equality? On the grounds that humans are born with dignity. A dignity from which stem our inalienable right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. A right that denies slavery (though slavery existed at times). A right that denies injustice (although injustice exists in the world). You're not a man who would deny a human his right? Then if so, how can you claim that one man is "worth" more then another?

It is logically contradicting to believe that a man who has rights and innate dignity (both these things are considered universal truths) and yet has different worth. If you still contest these basic premises then what hope do I have in saying that the ball will hit the ground if the ground moves away from it?

Originally posted by Mindship
Sometimes betrayal is justified. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

I have been, and always shall be, your friend. Shaz-bot, na-nu na-nu.

Originally posted by King of Blades
The fact that you fell for it only proves the weakness of your argument. You hide behind logical fallacies believing that such bulwarks will hold your opposition at bay. But I assure you, objective realities are the premise of many if not all philosophical ideas that surface in the world of man. Take away such foundations, and it's like walking on a ground that moves at the same speed you do. You go no where. It is clear that you can not bring to this argument anything resolute, claiming universal subjectivism to be your one and only defense. Find me a post where you've used something more then your own opinion backed by something other then your beliefs and practicality, and I may be inclined to believe that something you say makes sense.

You can't keep claiming that because we "don't know" we "can't be sure". Obviously there are sure fire things other then science out in the world. And there are objective realities that we as a people live by. Practicality, forgive my redundancy, is practical and efficient and you are correct in saying that it's not fair. Obviously if it isn't fair, then there must be something we compare the fairness too. Something we know is greater then it that we strive for, something we KNOW exists. We wouldn't call it an "unfair system" unless we knew the fair system in the first place. Do I deny that people use the "unfair system"? Of course not. In fact, I admit that I am one personally to use it at times (though that doesn't mean that it's right or my point is invalid). All I am saying is that surly something that both exists and is fair is something we should try to achieve. One of the sureties of this "fair system" is that everyone is treated equal. On what grounds come this equality? On the grounds that humans are born with dignity. A dignity from which stem our inalienable right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. A right that denies slavery (though slavery existed at times). A right that denies injustice (although injustice exists in the world). You're not a man who would deny a human his right? Then if so, how can you claim that one man is "worth" more then another?

It is logically contradicting to believe that a man who has rights and innate dignity (both these things are considered universal truths) and yet has different worth. If you still contest these basic premises then what hope do I have in saying that the ball will hit the ground if the ground moves away from it?

The facts we have are on science, not on personal opinions. I'm talking about morale issues here not scientific one's. You are confusing the two. Or perhaps you just really badly want to mix the two together so you can win another stupid argument on the internet.

The fact is if God exist we don't know what God believes and if God or heaven does not exist then what we do here doesn't matter in the first place, at least not beyond this life.

So no matter which one is true it doesn't change a damned thing. You don't know if an opinion is right or wrong, you don't know if what Hitler did was evil or good in the grand scheme of things (assuming God exists that is). He might have been a prophet for all you know. And if God didn't exist then Hitler still did what he believed is right, that you believe otherwise or that the majority of the world believes otherwise doesn't automatically make it right.

Democracy's are only for deciding how people should be governed and the laws, not deciding objective truths. If there is such a thing in the first place.

Originally posted by Fishy
The facts we have are on science, not on personal opinions. I'm talking about morale issues here not scientific one's. You are confusing the two. Or perhaps you just really badly want to mix the two together so you can win another stupid argument on the internet.

The fact is if God exist we don't know what God believes and if God or heaven does not exist then what we do here doesn't matter in the first place, at least not beyond this life.

So no matter which one is true it doesn't change a damned thing. You don't know if an opinion is right or wrong, you don't know if what Hitler did was evil or good in the grand scheme of things (assuming God exists that is). He might have been a prophet for all you know. And if God didn't exist then Hitler still did what he believed is right, that you believe otherwise or that the majority of the world believes otherwise doesn't automatically make it right.

Democracy's are only for deciding how people should be governed and the laws, not deciding objective truths. If there is such a thing in the first place.

Wow lets project our own intentions into other people's agendas, shall we? I have absolutely no problem in "losing" this argument over the internet. In fact the internet has nothing to do with it. Hell WINNING HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS. What a stupid red herring. I have mentioned time and time before that the point of my debate was to further expound on the truth I (and I suppose you) am trying to find. Not impose beliefs and philosophies on another as you so seem so fixed to do. Science, if anything, has nothing to do in regards to this. If anything science argues SPECIFICALLY AGAINST YOU! Science recognizes every human being with fundamental equal origins, anatomies, and mental structures. From PHILOSOPHY does your point stem, not science. Don't try so hard to mix the two unless you want to win another stupid argument over the internet.

If God exists we know enough about him to understand what it is he wants. And one of the major things that we know God to be is orderly. Because like every creator of some magnificent piece of artwork, he puts a little of himself into his creation. We see order in his creations. We see balance, beauty, intelligence, complexity, etc. If anything, we know a lot about God. But I agree with you that if God doesn't exist, not much of what we do matters. Hitler's a freaking saint, and your a raving lunatic because there'd be no truth.

You can tell me that a line is curved because you've seen a straight one. I can correct a wrong opinion because I know the right answer. We judge ACTIONS from being bad and good because we have some standard by which to compare them to. We can determine absolutes because absolutes exist. THEY DO EXIST. All realms of logic, perception, thinking, etc accept this as gospel truth. Universal subjectisim is a logically flawed argument and way of thinking. If nothing can be true, or known, then all things proven and existent are wrong. Science, the bulwark from which you hide behind, would be wrong.

Democracy's are for demonstrating a collective conscience. Universal truths and goals, wants and needs that are shared and need not be taught or mentioned to be known. Objective truth isn't "found" as one finds lost keys. It is discovered as one finally realizing why a wall is built, or why the apple falls from the tree. However truths can be twisted, ideas corrupted, and philosophies distorted. Persevere through veils of deception and you'll see the light of truth.

Originally posted by King of Blades
Wow lets project our own intentions into other people's agendas, shall we? I have absolutely no problem in "losing" this argument over the internet. In fact the internet has nothing to do with it. Hell WINNING HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS. What a stupid red herring. I have mentioned time and time before that the point of my debate was to further expound on the truth I (and I suppose you) am trying to find. Not impose beliefs and philosophies on another as you so seem so fixed to do. Science, if anything, has nothing to do in regards to this. If anything science argues SPECIFICALLY AGAINST YOU! Science recognizes every human being with fundamental equal origins, anatomies, and mental structures. From PHILOSOPHY does your point stem, not science. Don't try so hard to mix the two unless you want to win another stupid argument over the internet.

Huh? What? I don't want to mix science and philosophy, in fact the two can be completely separated if you really believe "I think therefor I am"



No we assume we know what God wants. Now are assumptions could be true, but that's what they said during the Inquisition the crusades, the recent Muslim extremists attacks on the western world. All claim to know what God wants and what God believes. Our image of a peaceful and merciful God is the one I would want to be true, and in that case a lot of people are doing a lot of things wrong but who knows perhaps the earlier Christian Popes were right in thinking that is what God wanted, perhaps Mohamed was right perhaps Osama Bin Laden still is. Or perhaps they were all right for a limited time and things have changed and God with it. This is something I personally believe, but that does not make it true. Because I simply can not prove that God exists. Therefor it is a possibility that I am wrong and Hitler wasn't wrong, or at least not morally speaking because there is no larger governing body to say what is right or not.



I do not hide from science, I'm merely saying that what it has proven seems logical and therefor true to us (me included) but doesn't necessarily have to be so. Besides science gives no real moral guidelines. Absolutes especially morale absolutes are based on something. We could say that our natural instincts are the most true, or just less likely to be false and even they give us strange issues to deal with. Homosexuality, pedophilia, bestiality for instance. All go against what most people would say are our most basic natural urges, but are they any less natural then normal heterosexuality? Science thinks that they are urges, religion (or a lot of them at least) think they are wrong evil morally twisted. Which is right? Or perhaps both, perhaps they are natural things but God does not like them anyway, because the Devil screwed things up.

The thing is as long as we don't know the answer I'm not ready to say my way is the only way. You may very well be right, in fact I hope you are. But I don't know.



Democracy's are the collective idea's of a majority of the country, not objective truths. Idea's might very well change in ten to 50 or even a hundred years. What we once believed as a certain truth will then be seen as a the idea's of atheists or perhaps the uneducated. The overall morale viewpoints on this planet have changed dozens of times and will likely do so again over time.

Now if we are advancing in our morale views as we would like to believe and that would bring us closer to what God wants us to be like then that would be great. But until I talk to God or somebody else does who can deliver His/Her or It's message clearly I don't see a reason to state that we are right above all else and there is no point in discussion.

(This does not mean I think things like murder, rape, pedophilia bestiality or crap like that should happen, I think that as long as you live in a country with laws you should abide those laws, move away or try to change them in a way according with those laws and not act against the law until you have changed it.)