de sidious vs kun

Revan's motives were different, but they were still not what Kant would consider "of good will or intent", and that is because the will and intent behind the action must result in a morally similar action. If you have a good intention to help your friend out of a well he has fallen into, but your actions result in you looking and not making much of an effort to save him, your actions (or inaction, a passive thing) aren't in alignment with your intent to help, and the result (Which is his ass being stuck down there, probably for awhile) is less then good.

But that is a very meek example. The point is, to kill in the name of saving lives is ridiculous. If your intent is to save lives, you will take none. Instead, as I said, you should work towards helping the suffering of others, since all lives pass. True, people should be willing to actively help one another. But you cannot stop death, and to champion one life over another begs for clarification: what makes one life worth more than another?

And to answer this, I ask... What makes life worth anything?

And it is that all life has instrinsic value, and value in its future and in its quality of said life. Touching a bit on the euthanasia issue, the quality of life of someone who is nonresponsive, on machines, and in a hospital bed for twelve years versus a small eight year old child in a reasonably average home or even in an abusive home from which he can survive... which is worth more? Well, life itself is said to have instrinsic value, of course. But in this particular case, the comatose person has next to no good quality of life, and the prospects of receiving a better quality of life are slim to none. So in this case, would you have to choose between a small child with the potential for a future (Good or bad) versus someone who will remain static and never enjoy life as we know it again, the wise choice is the child.

So my question to you, Fishy... Is what makes the lives of a million different people more valuable than the life of a child? Is each person's future worth more than the child's? Or does the issue of the future matter... is the issue more one of common morality, or one of simple, straightforward solutions? Is value in quantity rather than quality? Or is this a much harder question than any of us are making it out to be?

Interesring, if Kum and De Sidious use all of their powers, it'll be a hollow victory - I wonder what will be left from the galaxy...

Damn, Janus, you sound like Gandhi or somethin'. Still on that morality debate?

So my question to you, Fishy... Is what makes the lives of a million different people more valuable than the life of a child? Is each person's future worth more than the child's? Or does the issue of the future matter... is the issue more one of common morality, or one of simple, straightforward solutions? Is value in quantity rather than quality? Or is this a much harder question than any of us are making it out to be?

Numbers, thousands of Children die a year because of aids. Thousands of adults die a month because of aids. We don't know what this child will do in the future, we don't know what these people will do in the future, but what I do know is that killing that child now will save millions now and later.

No not one of those lives is more important then that of the child, and if it would be one person or that child I would let the child live. But we are talking about millions, and a responsibility to the world and to the child.

Now you have a few contradictions here, which makes this a hard thing to do.

Killing somebody is bad
That child has a life in front of him/her and its unfair to kill it.
But those thousands of children and thousands of adults do too, is it fair to let them die for the child?

You say you should try to stop the suffering of the others without killing that child, I say killing that child will actually achieve something, and that is not just stopping one disease its giving an entire continent hope. Nobody and I do mean nobody is so important that all those millions of people don't matter. Killing that child would be hard, but I can not put one person no matter how young or innocent above that of a million others.

You are right I wouldn't be morally pure if I kill the child, I would not be good in the way some people describe it. But it would be good in my eyes, and thats all that matters now isn't. You wouldn't kill that child because of your own moral objections, I would kill that child because I would feel its the right thing to do, and I wouldn't care about what other people say. Because I know that by killing one I saved millions.

Lets say you can kill somebody who is going to start a war in ten years, a war that will make the entire world suffer, without that person the war would never happen and nothing even close to that will happen. Would you let that person that is right now innocent live or would you save the millions in the future.

I think you are really missing the issue here, its not about whether killing that child or not is a nice thing to do, yeah it sucks yeah its rotten yeah it will hurt a lot of people. But I'm very simple here, Majority rules. Millions are more important then one. Let that one die if it saves millions. Thats just how I look at it.

Originally posted by Fishy
Numbers, thousands of Children die a year because of aids. Thousands of adults die a month because of aids. We don't know what this child will do in the future, we don't know what these people will do in the future, but what I do know is that killing that child now will save millions now and later.

No not one of those lives is more important then that of the child, and if it would be one person or that child I would let the child live. But we are talking about millions, and a responsibility to the world and to the child.

Now you have a few contradictions here, which makes this a hard thing to do.

Killing somebody is bad
That child has a life in front of him/her and its unfair to kill it.
But those thousands of children and thousands of adults do too, is it fair to let them die for the child?

You say you should try to stop the suffering of the others without killing that child, I say killing that child will actually achieve something, and that is not just stopping one disease its giving an entire continent hope. Nobody and I do mean nobody is so important that all those millions of people don't matter. Killing that child would be hard, but I can not put one person no matter how young or innocent above that of a million others.

You are right I wouldn't be morally pure if I kill the child, I would not be good in the way some people describe it. But it would be good in my eyes, and thats all that matters now isn't. You wouldn't kill that child because of your own moral objections, I would kill that child because I would feel its the right thing to do, and I wouldn't care about what other people say. Because I know that by killing one I saved millions.

Lets say you can kill somebody who is going to start a war in ten years, a war that will make the entire world suffer, without that person the war would never happen and nothing even close to that will happen. Would you let that person that is right now innocent live or would you save the millions in the future.

I think you are really missing the issue here, its not about whether killing that child or not is a nice thing to do, yeah it sucks yeah its rotten yeah it will hurt a lot of people. But I'm very simple here, Majority rules. Millions are more important then one. Let that one die if it saves millions. Thats just how I look at it.

No, I just think you missed the point I touched on and that Nai touched on as well. For one, if there is ever a situation where you are in direct responsibility of the life of a child who is the difference between the eventual death or life of a million people, it would seem that you had to make the choice, to give all those people a chance. It certainly seems a lot easier to deal with, of course. But when will there ever be a point in life where you must kill a child to save the world? A disease doesn't make sense; you can just as easily quarantine a diseased child, even indefinately. So let me propose another situaton, and perhaps then you will understand a bit better.

During a travel tour, a bus full (Think, thirty people) of tourists are visiting the magnificent seaside caves in some faraway land. All is well until a shifting of the earth's plates traps them, leaving open only a small opening, which is the only way out. The water is rising at this point, and eventually all in this cave, all thirty, will die. One of the tourists, a heavy man, was the first to make it to the opening. He is caught and caught good. He cannot go forward out into the open or back into the cave. One of the tourists proposes to blow the opening up farther, using a small pack of explosives he has on hand (Imagine this for the sake of the argument, if nothing else). Of course, this will kill the heavyset man, but it will open the side of the cave most likely, and allow the others to freedom. So, do you blow up a man who is helpless and for most intents innocent of any wrongdoing just to save the group of tourists? Or do you let him live, and consider other options?

Not everyone likes to apply morality in everyday life... at least, not objective morality. Subjective morality (In which it's always open to debate, whether it's the time or place, etc.) is more popular because people can console themselves with the delusion that morality isn't objective and that it 'changes' from time to place, situation circumstances, etc. Even from person to person. And the other reason for this is that following an objective, moral standard can literally get you or others killed.

So it falls into two categories- those who believe in something beyond our frail mortal shells, and who believe in moral purity as being a goal worth trying to attain if nothing else; and those who believe we live and learn and then die, and in this case morality is just a social tool, occassionally reflective of feelings. Nothing more.

Originally posted by Fishy
Lets say you can kill somebody who is going to start a war in ten years, a war that will make the entire world suffer, without that person the war would never happen and nothing even close to that will happen. Would you let that person that is right now innocent live or would you save the millions in the future.

That's stupid, Fishy. Imagine somebody would have killed Hitler in 1929. What would have happened ? Do you really think their would have never been a second World War ? Do you really think the Holocaust would never have happend. The problem here is that Hitler himself could only be sucessful because of the circumstances:

- Germans feeling used because they alone were said to be guilty of the first World War
- a great nationalistic movement in all European countries (aided by Darwins theories used on societies)
- a wave of prejudices against Jewish people (basically developed from medieval times on in Europe)

Now...what would have happened if somebody killed Hitler ? The same war could have been started by Stalin and it could have even been worse than that what Hitler started. Or even worse: Central Europe could have stayed like this until the invention of the Nuclear Bomb and than their could have been a Nuclear War - point is: You'll never know and therefore killing somebody can't be "right" as simple as you look at it.

@Janus:
When you have a look at the SW universe from Kants point of view you won't find a single being that pocesses moral integrity because they all lie, manipulate or kill people because they think they have to do so.

Originally posted by Nai Fohl
That's stupid, Fishy. Imagine somebody would have killed Hitler in 1929. What would have happened ? Do you really think their would have never been a second World War ? Do you really think the Holocaust would never have happend. The problem here is that Hitler himself could only be sucessful because of the circumstances:

- Germans feeling used because they alone were said to be guilty of the first World War
- a great nationalistic movement in all European countries (aided by Darwins theories used on societies)
- a wave of prejudices against Jewish people (basically developed from medieval times on in Europe)

Now...what would have happened if somebody killed Hitler ? The same war could have been started by Stalin and it could have even been worse than that what Hitler started. Or even worse: Central Europe could have stayed like this until the invention of the Nuclear Bomb and than their could have been a Nuclear War - point is: You'll never know and therefore killing somebody can't be "right" as simple as you look at it.

@Janus:
When you have a look at the SW universe from Kants point of view you won't find a single being that pocesses moral integrity because they all lie, manipulate or kill people because they think they have to do so.

Hm. Well, I was thinking... Kant also said we can't use human beings as means, only as ends. Killing a child is basically using them as a means to an end. But you're right... Characters in Star Wars are morally ambiguous in many ways, even though good and evil are absolute. No one character conforms to Kant's ideals, for sure. But then, that's absolutism.

You people are looking at this as if it would happen.

No you couldn't qaurentee the child becuase then the disease wouldn't be stopped. This is a what if situation that will never ever happen. Think of it like this

God appears in front of you and tells you to kill that child or let millions die later on.

And Nai, on your Hitler thing. Thats again realisitcly speaking i'm not talking about realism here am I? I'm talking about a very simple choice, one or a million. Thats the choice you have to make the thing is you will be directly responsible for the dead of the one. Think about god appearing and telling you what will happen if you do and don't. Then make the choice. You and maybe Janus as well are looking at this as if it could happen, it can't.

@ Janus and the guy in the cave.

I would place the dynamite, start looking for another option come back when the time runs out, if we haven't found anything i'd blow the guy away. If we do find something then we are in luck. Simple as that. If there is another option I would of course take it, but if not? Well I would not let 29 people die just to make 1 die anyways.

Originally posted by Fishy
You people are looking at this as if it would happen.

No you couldn't qaurentee the child becuase then the disease wouldn't be stopped. This is a what if situation that will never ever happen. Think of it like this

God appears in front of you and tells you to kill that child or let millions die later on.

And Nai, on your Hitler thing. Thats again realisitcly speaking i'm not talking about realism here am I? I'm talking about a very simple choice, one or a million. Thats the choice you have to make the thing is you will be directly responsible for the dead of the one. Think about god appearing and telling you what will happen if you do and don't. Then make the choice. You and maybe Janus as well are looking at this as if it could happen, it can't.

@ Janus and the guy in the cave.

I would place the dynamite, start looking for another option come back when the time runs out, if we haven't found anything i'd blow the guy away. If we do find something then we are in luck. Simple as that. If there is another option I would of course take it, but if not? Well I would not let 29 people die just to make 1 die anyways.

Anything could happen in life, Fishy. But the reason for debating this is to get closer to the truth in life, and the truth about morality and how people see it and deal with it.

That hardly deals with anything that I said...

I'm talking about certainty's you think i'm talking about possibility's.

I just want to know one thing

If god himself came up to you right now and told you that if you killed a Random child within 24 hours aids would dissapear for good and not be replaced with anything else, would you or would you not do it?

I wouldn't. No moral god would advocate the death of a child, even for the lives of many. Things are good because they are instrinsically good, not because god advocates them. If whatever god wanted to be good was good, then good would be inconstant and couldn't be measured or valued for what it is, since it could lose value at any time, or even for all time.

So no, to answer your question, I still wouldn't kill a human child on god's orders to save the lives of any number of human beings. Their fates are their own, not mine. I am not working actively to kill anyone, and for god to even suggest it strikes me as either being a moral test or being something other than a god who is good.

Oh you do so like taking this out of context don't you...

Its not a test its just a mission for you take it or leave it.

But I need all that I want to know, just one thing. When you say no I won't, you are condemning a million people to their death, you are killing them in a way. No you did not put the gun to their head and pulled the trigger but you are the reason they will not survive. No matter how you turn it. Its like when you give somebody the Death Penalty, you may not execute the order but you are giving it.

"Off topic" doesn't even begin to describe this. . .

Not really no, but I think the topic got a lot better with it, so I don't care.

Originally posted by Fishy
Oh you do so like taking this out of context don't you...

Its not a test its just a mission for you take it or leave it.

But I need all that I want to know, just one thing. When you say no I won't, you are condemning a million people to their death, you are killing them in a way. No you did not put the gun to their head and pulled the trigger but you are the reason they will not survive. No matter how you turn it. Its like when you give somebody the Death Penalty, you may not execute the order but you are giving it.

No, you have taken it totally out of context. Your analogy is incorrect.

In the million person situation, something else or someone else has become the agent of destruction. Not me. I am not killing anyone. I am not wishing death on anyone.

But in the case of the death sentence, if it was me signing the death sentence notice, it would be me wishing death to someone, for whatever reason. And beause of that it's an incorrect analogy.

And back to this, no, I'm not a murderer or an amoral person for saving the child, even if it does mean the death of a million people. Again, moral actions are formed like this:

Intent - Action - Consequence

For an action to be morally good, the intent and the action must be good.

So, operating under a moral standard, such as what Kant uses (Which relies on rational thought) we have to conclude that we cannot use human beings as means, but only as ends. Human beings have intrinsic value. If they didn't, we couldn't respect them any more than we could respect a rock or a wolf. And in this situation, we have what is called a moral dillemma; we have two instrinsically valuable units to choose from. Since one cannot furnish imformation on which is more valuable with any degree of accuracy, you must conclude that both are equally valuable. Sounds wrong? Well, prove to me how millions of lives, with all the variables therein, are worth more than a single baby child!

You cannot act as some holy judge and decree a million lives worth more than one, unless you advocate utilitarianism, and that hackjob of a moral theory doesn't hold water. Again, quantity should not override quality.

And since I am not directly causing the death of the million, nor am I in any way wishing it (However, I would be wishing and directly causing the death of the hapless child) the argument looks like this:

Harm No one (Good) ... That's the intent.

Abstain from killing the child (Good) ... the action.

Unfortunately, such a morally good action lead to the deaths of others by some other agent of death, and under circumstances that are variables at best. (Bad) ... the consequence.

It's just like if a doctor operates in surgery. His intent is good, but the result can be out of his hands, and thuis bad can happen. And it is not his fault.

Originally posted by Fishy
God appears in front of you and tells you to kill that child or let millions die later on.

In this situation I would say: "Sorry god, I can't do this...it's against my philosophical view on life". Now god or the desease or whatever kills the millions. Am I responsible for this ? No. I'm not. Why ? Because it wasn't my action that let the people die. That's like saying anyone who participated in the Manhatten project is personal responsible for the death of all people killed in Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

And Nai, on your Hitler thing. Thats again realisitcly speaking i'm not talking about realism here am I? I'm talking about a very simple choice, one or a million. Thats the choice you have to make the thing is you will be directly responsible for the dead of the one. Think about god appearing and telling you what will happen if you do and don't. Then make the choice. You and maybe Janus as well are looking at this as if it could happen, it can't.

I still won't kill anybody because it's not within my competence to decide over the life or death of another human being. See...if god wants Hitler dead he should kill him. If god wants Hitler alive Hitler should live. It's not my decission.
Even if god commands me to kill Hitler (or the child) I still won't do it because god (if he exists) gave me this little thing called "free will" and therefore I can decide what I want to do and I can't be punished for my decission unless I'm breaking a rule.

Killing somebody would make me a killer no matter if other people would think I'm a hero because I saved their lifes by taking another.

So his definition is suddenly law?

The intent of killing the girl is good, the action is bad the consequence is good.

For me the end justifies the means. For you it doesn't. For me I'm saving a million lives and you are sentencing millions to an early dead.

You on the other think i'm killing one and you are not.

The end justifies the means, IMO. Debating this is very useless really. Its not like either one of our oppinions will change.

So if the end justifies the means, can I torture someone to find out information?

If the end justifies the means, can I subjugate every nation in this world under my power to ensure my own gun bought peace?

If the end justifies the means, can I kill you to get a better parking space?

If the end justifies the means, there is no morality. Period. Anything can be good or bad, depending on the viewpoint and the goals of the person making this subjective decision. So you'r arguing this as morality? No, it doesn't hold up.

And you should consider reading Kant before you dispel it as a credible philosophy. For one, he relies more on rational thought than anyone save for Ayn Rand. Two, he's the foundation of western moral thought for the last two hundred years for a good reason. And three, his methods (even at their simplest levels) are more rationally convincing then "the end justifies the means." Because the latter is not ethical morality; it's a selfish, egocentrical philosophy which would spell the end of our civilization if it were in common practice everywhere, by all people.

Originally posted by Fishy
The intent of killing the girl is good, the action is bad the consequence is good.

See...that's the problem here. The intent to kill a person can never be good so this would result in bad intent, bad action and - probably - a better outcome than not killing the girl.

For me the end justifies the means. For you it doesn't. For me I'm saving a million lives and you are sentencing millions to an early dead.

Another problem. If the end justifies the means you can do what you want by arguing in a certain way. You can basically kill everybody you like by arguing like this:

- they might be bad persons because everybody has some kind of egoism in them and egoism is bad
- if they can be egoistic than they might be able to become criminals
- if they might be able to become criminals they might be able to kill somebody
- if they might be able to kill somebody killing them means probably saving somebodies live

That would finally result in a philosophy were you're going to extinct mankind to save mankind because you kill anybody since anybody might possibly do something "bad" or "evil" at a certain time in their lives. Of course this is exagerated but that's it what it might lead to when people start to justify killing somebody with a good intent. The death penalty also might have some "good intent" (from your point of view) but it's still wrong because the intention is "killing somebody" and not "saving lifes".

You on the other think i'm killing one and you are not.

You would kill the child because you think it's the right thing. Still the fact remains that you have killed the child then. Does it matter WHY you did it ? No. Now...the person that won't kill the child simply won't kill anybody. People might die, yes, but still the person isn't killing anybody directly while you would have done so.

- they might be bad persons because everybody has some kind of egoism in them and egoism is bad
- if they can be egoistic than they might be able to become criminals
- if they might be able to become criminals they might be able to kill somebody
- if they might be able to kill somebody killing them means probably saving somebodies live

Wrong here, because this is a sure case... Not a possibility, the kid could be the child of god. I don't know, all I know is that in this case the outcome will be good therefor, for me its worth doing.

In other situations everything would change, I would not be sure of the outcome so I would not be able to make the choice like this.

And the Death Penalty sucks ass from my POV. Killing people sucks, but if it saves lives then it might just be worth it. In this case it saves a lot of lives so its worth it. Its a sure deal to save millions, not a could be not a maybe.

You would kill the child because you think it's the right thing. Still the fact remains that you have killed the child then. Does it matter WHY you did it ? No. Now...the person that won't kill the child simply won't kill anybody. People might die, yes, but still the person isn't killing anybody directly while you would have done so.

Actually it does matter why I did it, I had my reason and that reason was to save a million people. Now you say you are not directly responsible for killing the million people if you don't, but if you see a person falling down a cliff and you don't catch him when you can. Then you are not responsible for his death, afterall he was the one that fell down but on the other hand you are because you didn't prevent it when you could.

I personally could not live with myself knowing that every 3 minutes or something a person would die when I could have stopped that.