Mm, there's plenty of ways to judge without an objective system.
For example, Danzo has done more harm to more people by the standards of the people harmed (for brainwashing, counting from their pre-brainwashing selves).
Sasuke has really hurt very few people, judging by the standards of those people.
Originally posted by Nephthys
Oh? And who is it for to decide? Why is my opinion so unimportant?Azula only ever did one of those. And if you recall this was only after Aang murdered thousands of Fire Nation troops at the North Pole. I'd say that's pretty justifiable. For anyone except Aang, she's only ever captured them or had them captured. Aang is too dangerous to just capture and if you'll recall x 2 combo, Aang has already escaped capture numerous times by that point.
Pffft, what Azula said in that war meeting was a posturing off-hand comment. I've never taken it as a serious suggestion of hers. It was Ozai who was crazy enough to run with it. Sure, she didn't seem that broken up over it (she is still a villain) and seemed eager to perform it alongside dear old dad (hint hint), but Ozia still takes the blame in my mind.
And if Azula had let Aang walk away she would have been guilty of treason and gotten half her face burnt off. Aang is the biggest enemy of her nation, during wartime, who has already destroyed a huge fleet single-handed. What was she supposed to do, let him activate his Bullshit Uber Mode and get away? Or worse, kill [b]her
? [/B]
No one in here. It's in the hands of the law.
Aang would not have killed however many people he probably killed at the North Pole if the Fire Nation hadn't attacked them first. You are not allowed to use the excuse that Azula was just defending the Fire Nation from Aang when it's almost always the Fire Nation that is starting the conflict.
Yeah, you'd do that. Quit blatantly favoring Azula and trying to shift the blame onto Ozai. She said what she said and clearly wanted to be a part of scorching a continent to the ground. She is evil.
Azula started the fight so I'd have no problems with Aang killing her. The minute someone decides to try and kill another they have to except whatever consequences come to them during said engagement. When people enter a conflict, the one who started it all will be always be further in the wrong(imo) but afterwards both parties are still human.
Originally posted by dadudemon
It is impossible to justify your position as morally superior to Nephthys because they are all slices of arbitrary morality.Only the invocation of a deontological moral system can triumph in a moral discussion like this.
Basically, you cannot win this moral debate unless you leverage a Objective Truth system (that is capital O, baby) such as God. This is the bane and problem with all philosophical debates regarding morality. You are no more correct than Nephthys in you moral perspectives and no amount of arguing about it will change that. You can use all sorts of nice logic and reasoning but your argument will always fundamentally fall flat on its face.
Obviously, I agree with you, though. 😐
Of course I know that. I just don't like his opinion and want to criticize it openly. Neph can hate Sasuke for all time if he wants and I really wouldn't care. Seeing Sasuke as morally reprehensible isn't hard to do lol. But trying in any way to defend Azula on the grounds that she's fighting for her country is silly to me. It basically means you can get away with anything so long as it's for the good of your home country...which was the basis for the legal decisions of German courts after WWI.
Originally posted by AuraAngel
It basically means you can get away with anything so long as it's for the good of your home country...which was the basis for the legal decisions of German courts after WWI.
If I had my way, there would be no killing in this world. No wars, no rape, no molestation, no abuse, no torture, and no human-killing weapons (and if I could, no need to kill animals for food, but that is a question of technology that does not really exist, at the moment).
But that is not going to happen.
So we have to try and live with each other as best as we can.
So we agree on a set of moral conduct to which almost all humans can agree. The Geneva Conventions are some of those. Not all is fair in love and war. There are some things you do not do without becoming reprehensible to the vast majority of humanity. For example, mutilating the genitals and internal organs of Jewish females and then killing them (actually happened in WWII). If you can find me a single person that supports doing such things during wartime, I will find you a person that is so sick and twisted that they should probably be locked up and isolated from society until they are rehabilitated enough to rejoin.
But then we have this: is torturing and/or killing another human worth saving the lives of thousands of people? Would you throw away your morals to execute such a plan and save thousands? What is the greater sin: that you would be so self-righteous enough to assume your personal morals were worth more than the lives of thousands of people or would you rather all of humanity perish than to commit the thing you view as the greatest sin one human can commit to another?
Personally, I would rather thousands of humans, nay, all of humanity to perish to utter extinction before I would commit such an act. When did I become God that I can decide the fate of so many people? One dies so others live? Why? What gives me the Objective (that is capital "O", not lowercase "o"😉 right to make that decision? No one has that answer without being God themselves (capital "G"😉.
But you are making a decision. You are making the decision not to act because your personal morals state that you do not have the right to make that choice.
Who says that you don't have the right to make that decision? Why is the concept of 'the right' even a question?
Personally, someone who says they would let thousands of people die because of some metaphysical question about 'rights' disgusts me to my core.
She advocated the genocide of an entire continent, she founded the idea, and wanted to take part in it.
Are you a ****ing retard?
Originally posted by dadudemon
If you can find me a single person that supports doing such things during wartime, I will find you a person that is so sick and twisted that they should probably be locked up and isolated from society until they are rehabilitated enough to rejoin.
Erm, well... 😮
Originally posted by Nephthys
But you are making a decision. You are making the decision not to act because your personal morals state that you do not have the right to make that choice.Who says that you don't have the right to make that decision? Why is the concept of 'the right' even a question?
You can't make an assertion of a negative like that. "You have the right to inaction." That's not how actionable moral behavior rules work.
Who says that the right thing to do is kill the person to save the thousands?
On top of that, that is slippery slope argument: justifying killing 1 to save thousands leads to justify 1 to save 1000, then 500, then 10, then 1, then killing 1 to stop the suffering of many, then killing 1 to stop the suffering on some, then killing 1 to stop the suffering of 1, then killing 1 because you don't like the outcome of something arbitrary.
You can't make those arguments. It is only if you appeal to a higher being with omniscience can you justify those positions...and people have done that throughout history.
This is the problem with these arguments: you cannot win them unless you inject God into the equation. And that injection is still not acceptable to almost all philosophers.
Obviously, the higher being I believe in says to turn the other cheek.
Originally posted by Nephthys
Personally, someone who says they would let thousands of people die because of some metaphysical question about 'rights' disgusts me to my core.
That's a strawman.
If you wanted to represent my argument, you would have worded it this way:
"Personally, someone who says they refuse to kill another to prevent the killing of thousands because that person believes killing someone for information is never justified, disgusts me to my core."
Now, this is not to say that I wouldn't beat the information out of the person (if my family was affected) or use psychological manipulation to get the information, but I wouldn't kill the person and I would even avoid causing permanent brain damage by avoiding blows to the head.
Originally posted by NemeBro
I can objectively prove my position.I am God after all.
FINALLY! We need to talk.
So what should I do about this major employment decision coming up? And don't answer in vague or general statements: I need specifics that only someone with truly Objective knowledge could provide.
Originally posted by NemeBro
She advocated the genocide of an entire continent, she founded the idea, and wanted to take part in it.Are you a ****ing retard?
I've already said that I don't believe she was serious. As for taking part in it, so did thousands of Fire Nation soldiers.
Originally posted by dadudemon
You can't make an assertion of a negative like that. "You have the right to inaction." That's not how actionable moral behavior rules work.
What are you talking about, of course you can. You are making the deliberate choice not to do anything based upon your morals. You are deciding that those people will die, through your deliberate inaction.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Who says that the right thing to do is kill the person to save the thousands?
Basic mathematics? 1000 people are more than 1 person. Or hell, you claimed you would rather let all of humanity die rather than kill 1 person. 6 billion human lives against 1. And you still wouldn't do it? How very ****ing noble of you. All of humanity will die out, but at least your hands are clean right? At least your soul is bound for salvation? I'm sure God will give you a big ol pat on the back for your incredible moral fortitude and you can spent your eternity in heaven reflecting on what a ****ing great guy you are.
Originally posted by dadudemon
On top of that, that is slippery slope argument: justifying killing 1 to save thousands leads to justify 1 to save 1000, then 500, then 10, then 1, then killing 1 to stop the suffering of many, then killing 1 to stop the suffering on some, then killing 1 to stop the suffering of 1, then killing 1 because you don't like the outcome of something arbitrary.You can't make those arguments. It is only if you appeal to a higher being with omniscience can you justify those positions...and people have done that throughout history.
What the ****? Now who's making a strawman? We're talking about a specific number. 1000+ lives versus 1 life.
Originally posted by dadudemon
This is the problem with these arguments: you cannot win them unless you inject God into the equation. And that injection is still not acceptable to almost all philosophers.Obviously, the higher being I believe in says to turn the other cheek.
I may not be able to 'win' this argument, but I can still expose you for the morally repugnant shitstain that you are coming across as.
The quote is: If someone slaps you on the right cheek, offer the other cheek also. Letting thousands die is not turning the other cheek, its standing by while someone savages another in front of you. To choose not to help that person, is repulsive. To act as if doing so makes you morally enlightened, is utterly monstrous.
Originally posted by dadudemon
That's a strawman.If you wanted to represent my argument, you would have worded it this way:
"Personally, someone who says they refuse to kill another to prevent the killing of thousands because that person believes killing someone for information is never justified, disgusts me to my core."
Now, this is not to say that I wouldn't beat the information out of the person (if my family was affected) or use psychological manipulation to get the information, but I wouldn't kill the person and I would even avoid causing permanent brain damage by avoiding blows to the head.
No, its the exact thing you said. You specifically said 'When did I become God that I can decide the fate of so many people?' You think its wrong because you don't think you have the right to make that decision.
That's not what you said. You mentioned torture as well as murder. So I guess you are willing to compromise yourself a little. Oh but be careful! It starts off as just torturing 1 person, but then it becomes 10, 100, a bazillion until you're all the way up to murder!
Well, you should go to your direct superior, pull down their pants, and **** them in the ass, first with your penis, and then with a hot cattle prod. You do this until they have died of blood loss or severe burns. Collect the scabs and blood, and consume them while at an altar raised in My Name and while stabbing the disembodied heart of a woman who was betrayed and murdered by her father after she ****ed a pig. After this, you must flay the skin of your direct superior, and sew it together with silver needles and thread made from the hair of a priest who was decapitated by a sickle wielded by an androgynous, pale boy with hair most fair. Wear the suit.
Now that you have taken your boss's place, the major employment decision is no longer your responsibility.
Originally posted by Nephthys
What are you talking about, of course you can. You are making the deliberate choice [b]not to do anything based upon your morals. You are deciding that those people will die, through your deliberate inaction. [/B]
What are you talking about? I don't have to make any choice at all and those thousands die. That's the problem with your reasons. And there are many others. Those choices have to be action choices, not inaction choices.
"I choose not to do anything regarding x." Then you didn't have to make a choice, to begin with. 🙂
Originally posted by Nephthys
Basic mathematics? 1000 people are more than 1 person. Or hell, you claimed you would rather let all of humanity die rather than kill 1 person. 6 billion human lives against 1. And you still wouldn't do it? How very ****ing noble of you. All of humanity will die out, but at least your hands are clean right? At least your soul is bound for salvation? I'm sure God will give you a big ol pat on the back for your incredible moral fortitude and you can spent your eternity in heaven reflecting on what a ****ing great guy you are.
1. Over 7 Billion people.
2. Please state, in Objective Truth, why those 1000 lives are more important than that 1 life, without adding anything at all to the scenario (you can't say that 1 of those 1000 could grow up to be the new Einstein...you can't add anything at all. You must justify, with as much genericness possible, why you believe that assertion, with an Objective Truth. Something that is impossible to do without omniscience, by the way. But, go ahead: you seem arrogant enough to think you can do that).
3. My soul has nothing to do with it. Not once did I mention that I would obtain salvation by not killing that person. In FACT, my religion says that if one of those 1000 are my family, I have sinned by not doing everything I could, that was not morally wrong, to save them (I can't sell drugs, for instance, to save them, but I would be justified in beating the shit out of a bad guy trying to harm my family or by killing someone trying to kill my family, IF necessary, in those instances) You are injecting things into the thought experiment to make it seem like you're right (and even then, you're still not right: it is impossible for you to ever be right).
4. I would still be better than you because I refused to kill a person for arbitrary reasons. 🙂 You'd go ahead and kill the person: what an ***hole you are. 🙂
Originally posted by Nephthys
What the ****? Now who's making a strawman? We're talking about a specific number. 1000+ lives versus 1 life.
No we are not. The argument; which I made, not you, so I cannot strawman myself; is a classic slippery slope argument which you'd probably run across as a humanities major, at one point.
Originally posted by Nephthys
I may not be able to 'win' this argument, but I can still expose you for the morally repugnant shitstain that you are coming across as.
The reverse is true: the argument is not winnable but you are clearly a repugnant shitstain that should not be involved in any governing decisions because you'd violate not only the Geneva Conventions, but many other international and national laws that govern what is okay to do and what is not okay. Seriously, dude, you are one sick ****er.
You should never ever serve in the government as anymore than a janitor. You should never ever serve in any armed forces. Steer clear of all of those. It is people like you who perpetuated things such as the Crusades and the War Crime committed in WWII. There is a reason doing things like justifying killing 1 to save 1000 is ILLEGAL. It is a slippery slope.
Originally posted by Nephthys
The quote is: If someone slaps [b]you on the right cheek, offer the other cheek also.[/B]
That's not the quote.
"38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also.
41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away."
Originally posted by Nephthys
Letting thousands die is not turning the other cheek, its standing by while someone savages another in front of you.
Wrong: the 1000 are people you want to save (Nephthys, you). I refuse to save them it if requires killing anyone. It is not that I don't want to save them: I do. I turn the other cheek, instead, and would allow another 1000, nay, 1000 1000 die. I allow the evil to happen so I don't commit the same evil. You arbitrarily assign degrees and I refuse to assign degrees and become a monster by justifying my degree of evil is less: it is all reprehensible and evil.
You shouldn't save them by killing anyone. The scenario is not fleshed out enough to really make a genuinely good decision.
What if there is a possibility of saving the 1000 without killing the 1? Do you try that? Of course you should even if there is a very very small chance.
Originally posted by Nephthys
To choose not to help that person, is repulsive. To act as if doing so makes you morally enlightened, is utterly monstrous.
That's another strawman: one is not choosing not to help someone. Rather, they are choosing not to kill someone. You don't know the circumstances surrounding this: only that it is a generic scenario.
We can quickly change the scenario to get me to kill that person. You will only entertain "24" type scenarios, me thinks.
Originally posted by Nephthys
No, its the exact thing you said. You specifically said 'When did I become God that I can decide the fate of so many people?' You think its wrong because you don't think you have the right to make that decision.
No it's not. Even the out-of-context quote you just tried to pull (which is another strawman which is the only type of arguing you are capable of, apparantly) is not "exactly what" I said.
I don't think I have the right, when no other information is known, to take another's life to save 1000. If that is it, forget about it: the 1000 die.
Originally posted by Nephthys
That's not what you said. You mentioned torture as well as murder. So I guess you are willing to compromise yourself a little. Oh but be careful! It starts off as just torturing 1 person, but then it becomes 10, 100, a bazillion until you're all the way up to murder!
But that's true! You can't just mock the argument and then pretend you're right. The moment you justify torturing one person, the same exact logic can be used to torture 2, 3, and so forth. "Nope! 3 is enough, man! That's where I draw the line!" Just doesn't cut it.
Anyway, I already knew you were a sick disgusting and perverse ***hole, Nephthys. There's no reason you have to continue to prove it.
Originally posted by NemeBro
Well, you should go to your direct superior, pull down their pants, and **** them in the ass, first with your penis, and then with a hot cattle prod. You do this until they have died of blood loss or severe burns. Collect the scabs and blood, and consume them while at an altar raised in My Name and while stabbing the disembodied heart of a woman who was betrayed and murdered by her father after she ****ed a pig. After this, you must flay the skin of your direct superior, and sew it together with silver needles and thread made from the hair of a priest who was decapitated by a sickle wielded by an androgynous, pale boy with hair most fair. Wear the suit.Now that you have taken your boss's place, the major employment decision is no longer your responsibility.
1. You said "My Name" which made me lol. Authenticity is key.
2. I want to continue to work for many decades. If I do all of that, there is no way I can continue to work for many decades.
3. You had better provide a perfect plan to avoid all trouble regarding the sacrifices involved. That other stuff is doable ...but will be difficult.
Originally posted by NemeBro
I would kill that one person, then kill the other thousand afterwards.
You're a very dumb god. I would at least get my jollies with the attractive ones before killing them. No need to waste the goods. And then you'd need a giant freezer to store all of that meat.
Originally posted by NemeBro
Edit: Jesus Christ man, I'm God, not a step-by-step self-help pamphlet. You work out the details for yourself, I can't hold your hand every step of the way.But do not worry, my son. Your Holy Father is looking out for you.
You had better hold my hand every step of the way: I just don't have the strempf needed to do it all, Lort Almeaty!