30 Pieces of Silver

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.

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 the LORD said to Samuel, "Do not consider his appearance or his height, for I have rejected him. The LORD does not look at the things man looks at. Man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart."

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The term "dignity" is defined as "the state of being worthy of honour or respect" (The Oxford Encyclopedic English Dictionary, New York, Clarendon Press, 1991, p. 403). When this concept is associated with the adjective "human", it is used to signify that all human beings possess inherent worth and deserve unconditional respect, regardless of age, sex, health status, social or ethnic origin, political ideas, religion, or criminal history. In other words, this respect is owed to every individual by the mere fact that he or she is a "member of the human family" (Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, Preamble). This intrinsic worthiness is widely recognized by international law as the source of all human rights. In this respect, both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) of 1966 affirm that human rights “derive from the inherent dignity of the human person”.

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.