Welcome to Gaia! ::

Aporeia's avatar

Destructive Friend

Suicidesoldier#1
False Dichotomy
Suicidesoldier#1
False Dichotomy
Suicidesoldier#1
False Dichotomy
Worth more than anyone else.


All people are equal.

A person doesn't need to be "worth more" to be good.


That's a silly assertion.

Since we could all be equal at something, say equally good at physics, but that relative to knowledge on physics we could be bad, good etc. our relative capabilities are irrelevant. xp
If you had the ability to save the life of either 1 law abiding citizen, or 2 serial rapists, the other side will die, who would you save?


Well obviously the innocent person.

It's the right thing to do. xp
So its the right thing to let two people die so that one can live?


It's the right thing to help the person who deserves it the most.

As horrific and terrible as it is for any loss of life to occur, if the instigator is at fault, they brought it on themselves; it's not like I wake up in the morning and think about wanting to hurt people or kill people.


But if a person brings it on themselves by doing something horrific and awful, like rape or murder, or presumably threatening or hurting another person?

They give the other person no choice.


In the end, the sad reality is that I don't really have a choice.

If a person tries to kill me or someone else, or does something equally horrific, it's their will, not mine, and if they're going to choose to die or do it, then that's their issue.
No, you're going off on a tangent again. I'm not talking about any situation being brought upon by anything. If two serial rapists were about to die for reasons not of their own choosing, and if one law abiding citizen was about to die, also of no fault of their own, and you had to choose one group to save, you would choose the one person over the two.

Which means you're a liar. You think that the lives of serial rapists are worth less than half of a law abiding citizen.
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

False Dichotomy
Suicidesoldier#1
False Dichotomy
Suicidesoldier#1
False Dichotomy
If you had the ability to save the life of either 1 law abiding citizen, or 2 serial rapists, the other side will die, who would you save?


Well obviously the innocent person.

It's the right thing to do. xp
So its the right thing to let two people die so that one can live?


It's the right thing to help the person who deserves it the most.

As horrific and terrible as it is for any loss of life to occur, if the instigator is at fault, they brought it on themselves; it's not like I wake up in the morning and think about wanting to hurt people or kill people.


But if a person brings it on themselves by doing something horrific and awful, like rape or murder, or presumably threatening or hurting another person?

They give the other person no choice.


In the end, the sad reality is that I don't really have a choice.

If a person tries to kill me or someone else, or does something equally horrific, it's their will, not mine, and if they're going to choose to die or do it, then that's their issue.
No, you're going off on a tangent again. I'm not talking about any situation being brought upon by anything. If two serial rapists were about to die for reasons not of their own choosing, and if one law abiding citizen was about to die, also of no fault of their own, and you had to choose one group to save, you would choose the one person over the two.

Which means you're a liar. You think that one life is worth more than two based solely on the two being "bad people."


Saving one life over the other doesn't mean I think the other one has more value.

All life has value; all humans are equal.


But the other people made their choice; the other law abiding citizen, presumably didn't rape people, or isn't planning on going on to do it.

The only way to treat them as equals is to treat them for what their actions are, for who they are as people, and that means treating them according to what they've done.


Am I to spare people based solely on numerical value?

And what of the victims, and the future victims, of these two presumably serial rapists? Do we just assume they'll stop raping after today, that they'll repent, that all their victims will get over it? What about all the potential victims; when we talk about numerical value, and how many more people will be raped or killed then by sparing their lives?


Are two people worth the life of one man? No. Two lives are not worth the lives of one person; since all people have infinite value there's no way to being say 2 x infinity is anywhere near more.

All people deserve to live, whether killing 1 person saves 1000. But you do the best you can in the situation. That's all you can really do.
Aporeia's avatar

Destructive Friend

Suicidesoldier#1
False Dichotomy
Suicidesoldier#1
False Dichotomy
Suicidesoldier#1


Well obviously the innocent person.

It's the right thing to do. xp
So its the right thing to let two people die so that one can live?


It's the right thing to help the person who deserves it the most.

As horrific and terrible as it is for any loss of life to occur, if the instigator is at fault, they brought it on themselves; it's not like I wake up in the morning and think about wanting to hurt people or kill people.


But if a person brings it on themselves by doing something horrific and awful, like rape or murder, or presumably threatening or hurting another person?

They give the other person no choice.


In the end, the sad reality is that I don't really have a choice.

If a person tries to kill me or someone else, or does something equally horrific, it's their will, not mine, and if they're going to choose to die or do it, then that's their issue.
No, you're going off on a tangent again. I'm not talking about any situation being brought upon by anything. If two serial rapists were about to die for reasons not of their own choosing, and if one law abiding citizen was about to die, also of no fault of their own, and you had to choose one group to save, you would choose the one person over the two.

Which means you're a liar. You think that one life is worth more than two based solely on the two being "bad people."


Saving one life over the other doesn't mean I think the other one has more value.

All life has value; all humans are equal.


But the other people made their choice; the other law abiding citizen, presumably didn't rape people, or isn't planning on going on to do it.

The only way to treat them as equals is to treat them for what their actions are, for who they are as people, and that means treating them according to what they've done.
No, it isn't. The only way to treat them as equals is to stop focusing on their faults. Two lives are worth more than one.

Quote:
Am I to spare people based solely on numerical value?
If you believe all people are equal, then YES.

Quote:
And what of the victims, and the future victims, of these two presumably serial rapists? Do we just assume they'll stop raping after today, that they'll repent, that all their victims will go over it? What about all the potential victims; when we talk about numerical value, and how many more people will be raped or killed then by sparing their lives?
And what if the one you save ends up being a serial killer that nobody ever knew about? Why does it matter?

Their actions are not your own, but by saving two, you went with what is numerically the better option if you believe all lives are equal. You gave two people a chance at life, instead of only one.

Quote:
Are two people worth the life of one man? No. Two lives are not worth the lives of one person; since all people have infinite value there's no way to being say 2 x infinity is anywhere near equal.
You don't believe in this. If you save one person instead of two, for any reason, you value the sum of those two people less than a single individual.

Quote:
All people deserve to live, whether killing 1 person saves 1000. But you do the best you can in the situation. That's all you can really do.
And the best you can do in this situation is save two people, if you actually believe that all people are equal.
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

False Dichotomy
Suicidesoldier#1
False Dichotomy
Suicidesoldier#1
False Dichotomy
So its the right thing to let two people die so that one can live?


It's the right thing to help the person who deserves it the most.

As horrific and terrible as it is for any loss of life to occur, if the instigator is at fault, they brought it on themselves; it's not like I wake up in the morning and think about wanting to hurt people or kill people.


But if a person brings it on themselves by doing something horrific and awful, like rape or murder, or presumably threatening or hurting another person?

They give the other person no choice.


In the end, the sad reality is that I don't really have a choice.

If a person tries to kill me or someone else, or does something equally horrific, it's their will, not mine, and if they're going to choose to die or do it, then that's their issue.
No, you're going off on a tangent again. I'm not talking about any situation being brought upon by anything. If two serial rapists were about to die for reasons not of their own choosing, and if one law abiding citizen was about to die, also of no fault of their own, and you had to choose one group to save, you would choose the one person over the two.

Which means you're a liar. You think that one life is worth more than two based solely on the two being "bad people."


Saving one life over the other doesn't mean I think the other one has more value.

All life has value; all humans are equal.


But the other people made their choice; the other law abiding citizen, presumably didn't rape people, or isn't planning on going on to do it.

The only way to treat them as equals is to treat them for what their actions are, for who they are as people, and that means treating them according to what they've done.
No, it isn't. The only way to treat them as equals is to stop focusing on their faults. Two lives are worth more than one.

Quote:
Am I to spare people based solely on numerical value?
If you believe all people are equal, then YES.

Quote:
And what of the victims, and the future victims, of these two presumably serial rapists? Do we just assume they'll stop raping after today, that they'll repent, that all their victims will go over it? What about all the potential victims; when we talk about numerical value, and how many more people will be raped or killed then by sparing their lives?
And what if the one you save ends up being a serial killer that nobody ever knew about? Why does it matter?

Their actions are not your own, but by saving two, you went with what is numerically the better option if you believe all lives are equal. You gave two people a chance at life, instead of only one.

Quote:
Are two people worth the life of one man? No. Two lives are not worth the lives of one person; since all people have infinite value there's no way to being say 2 x infinity is anywhere near equal.
You don't believe in this. If you save one person instead of two, for any reason, you value the sum of those two people less than a single individual.

Quote:
All people deserve to live, whether killing 1 person saves 1000. But you do the best you can in the situation. That's all you can really do.
And the best you can do in this situation is save two people, if you actually believe that all people are equal.


I believe serial rapists deserve death. If I have the power to avoid it, I would.

But if I don't, then I don't save them. I'd just as soon kill two serial rapists to save the life of someone else than let that person get killed to save theirs.


The object rests on who's at fault. There lives aren't worth less because they're being taken.

They're being taken because they're the ones who deserve it; they'd go on to instigate more, and more. To take more lives and hurt more people. If it's to stop them, great. If it's on the same basis that they deserve it; sure.


You do what's in your power to avoid.

But if comes between the life of an innocent person and two serial rapists, yes, I'm saving the innocent person. Not because the other people possess less value. But because it's what's fair, and right. If I can save them all, that's what I'd do.


Your belief in this cut and dry understanding of the value of life is impairing you from understanding my belief.

A person having value as a life doesn't mean they don't deserve to die.
Aporeia's avatar

Destructive Friend

Suicidesoldier#1
False Dichotomy
Suicidesoldier#1
False Dichotomy
Suicidesoldier#1


It's the right thing to help the person who deserves it the most.

As horrific and terrible as it is for any loss of life to occur, if the instigator is at fault, they brought it on themselves; it's not like I wake up in the morning and think about wanting to hurt people or kill people.


But if a person brings it on themselves by doing something horrific and awful, like rape or murder, or presumably threatening or hurting another person?

They give the other person no choice.


In the end, the sad reality is that I don't really have a choice.

If a person tries to kill me or someone else, or does something equally horrific, it's their will, not mine, and if they're going to choose to die or do it, then that's their issue.
No, you're going off on a tangent again. I'm not talking about any situation being brought upon by anything. If two serial rapists were about to die for reasons not of their own choosing, and if one law abiding citizen was about to die, also of no fault of their own, and you had to choose one group to save, you would choose the one person over the two.

Which means you're a liar. You think that one life is worth more than two based solely on the two being "bad people."


Saving one life over the other doesn't mean I think the other one has more value.

All life has value; all humans are equal.


But the other people made their choice; the other law abiding citizen, presumably didn't rape people, or isn't planning on going on to do it.

The only way to treat them as equals is to treat them for what their actions are, for who they are as people, and that means treating them according to what they've done.
No, it isn't. The only way to treat them as equals is to stop focusing on their faults. Two lives are worth more than one.

Quote:
Am I to spare people based solely on numerical value?
If you believe all people are equal, then YES.

Quote:
And what of the victims, and the future victims, of these two presumably serial rapists? Do we just assume they'll stop raping after today, that they'll repent, that all their victims will go over it? What about all the potential victims; when we talk about numerical value, and how many more people will be raped or killed then by sparing their lives?
And what if the one you save ends up being a serial killer that nobody ever knew about? Why does it matter?

Their actions are not your own, but by saving two, you went with what is numerically the better option if you believe all lives are equal. You gave two people a chance at life, instead of only one.

Quote:
Are two people worth the life of one man? No. Two lives are not worth the lives of one person; since all people have infinite value there's no way to being say 2 x infinity is anywhere near equal.
You don't believe in this. If you save one person instead of two, for any reason, you value the sum of those two people less than a single individual.

Quote:
All people deserve to live, whether killing 1 person saves 1000. But you do the best you can in the situation. That's all you can really do.
And the best you can do in this situation is save two people, if you actually believe that all people are equal.


I believe serial rapists deserve death. If I have the power to avoid it, I would.
So you believe that serial rapists have no right to live, therefore their lives are worth less than others.

Ergo, you're a liar, and a hypocrite, and will continue to be so until you retract your false belief that all people are equal.

Quote:
The object rests on who's at fault. There lives aren't worth less because they're being taken.
NOBODY IS AT FAULT IN THIS SITUATION. THE SERIAL RAPISTS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE LAW ABIDING CITIZEN'S PERIL, NOR VICE VERSA.
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

False Dichotomy
Suicidesoldier#1
False Dichotomy
Suicidesoldier#1
False Dichotomy
No, you're going off on a tangent again. I'm not talking about any situation being brought upon by anything. If two serial rapists were about to die for reasons not of their own choosing, and if one law abiding citizen was about to die, also of no fault of their own, and you had to choose one group to save, you would choose the one person over the two.

Which means you're a liar. You think that one life is worth more than two based solely on the two being "bad people."


Saving one life over the other doesn't mean I think the other one has more value.

All life has value; all humans are equal.


But the other people made their choice; the other law abiding citizen, presumably didn't rape people, or isn't planning on going on to do it.

The only way to treat them as equals is to treat them for what their actions are, for who they are as people, and that means treating them according to what they've done.
No, it isn't. The only way to treat them as equals is to stop focusing on their faults. Two lives are worth more than one.

Quote:
Am I to spare people based solely on numerical value?
If you believe all people are equal, then YES.

Quote:
And what of the victims, and the future victims, of these two presumably serial rapists? Do we just assume they'll stop raping after today, that they'll repent, that all their victims will go over it? What about all the potential victims; when we talk about numerical value, and how many more people will be raped or killed then by sparing their lives?
And what if the one you save ends up being a serial killer that nobody ever knew about? Why does it matter?

Their actions are not your own, but by saving two, you went with what is numerically the better option if you believe all lives are equal. You gave two people a chance at life, instead of only one.

Quote:
Are two people worth the life of one man? No. Two lives are not worth the lives of one person; since all people have infinite value there's no way to being say 2 x infinity is anywhere near equal.
You don't believe in this. If you save one person instead of two, for any reason, you value the sum of those two people less than a single individual.

Quote:
All people deserve to live, whether killing 1 person saves 1000. But you do the best you can in the situation. That's all you can really do.
And the best you can do in this situation is save two people, if you actually believe that all people are equal.


I believe serial rapists deserve death. If I have the power to avoid it, I would.
So you believe that serial rapists have no right to live, therefore their lives are worth less than others.

Ergo, you're a liar, and a hypocrite, and will continue to be so until you retract your false belief that all people are equal.

Quote:
The object rests on who's at fault. There lives aren't worth less because they're being taken.
NOBODY IS AT FAULT IN THIS SITUATION. THE SERIAL RAPISTS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE LAW ABIDING CITIZEN'S PERIL, NOR VICE VERSA.


I believe they have a right to live, but that they deserve death, and much worse.

If it comes between their lives and another, I would take theirs, instead.


Based on what's right, and fair.

Not based on the value of their lives itself.


Believe it or not, life is more complex than black and white's.
Aporeia's avatar

Destructive Friend

Suicidesoldier#1
False Dichotomy
Suicidesoldier#1
False Dichotomy
Suicidesoldier#1


Saving one life over the other doesn't mean I think the other one has more value.

All life has value; all humans are equal.


But the other people made their choice; the other law abiding citizen, presumably didn't rape people, or isn't planning on going on to do it.

The only way to treat them as equals is to treat them for what their actions are, for who they are as people, and that means treating them according to what they've done.
No, it isn't. The only way to treat them as equals is to stop focusing on their faults. Two lives are worth more than one.

Quote:
Am I to spare people based solely on numerical value?
If you believe all people are equal, then YES.

Quote:
And what of the victims, and the future victims, of these two presumably serial rapists? Do we just assume they'll stop raping after today, that they'll repent, that all their victims will go over it? What about all the potential victims; when we talk about numerical value, and how many more people will be raped or killed then by sparing their lives?
And what if the one you save ends up being a serial killer that nobody ever knew about? Why does it matter?

Their actions are not your own, but by saving two, you went with what is numerically the better option if you believe all lives are equal. You gave two people a chance at life, instead of only one.

Quote:
Are two people worth the life of one man? No. Two lives are not worth the lives of one person; since all people have infinite value there's no way to being say 2 x infinity is anywhere near equal.
You don't believe in this. If you save one person instead of two, for any reason, you value the sum of those two people less than a single individual.

Quote:
All people deserve to live, whether killing 1 person saves 1000. But you do the best you can in the situation. That's all you can really do.
And the best you can do in this situation is save two people, if you actually believe that all people are equal.


I believe serial rapists deserve death. If I have the power to avoid it, I would.
So you believe that serial rapists have no right to live, therefore their lives are worth less than others.

Ergo, you're a liar, and a hypocrite, and will continue to be so until you retract your false belief that all people are equal.

Quote:
The object rests on who's at fault. There lives aren't worth less because they're being taken.
NOBODY IS AT FAULT IN THIS SITUATION. THE SERIAL RAPISTS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE LAW ABIDING CITIZEN'S PERIL, NOR VICE VERSA.


I believe they have a right to live, but that they deserve death, and much worse.

If it comes between their lives and another, I would take theirs, instead.


Based on what's right, and fair.

Not based on the value of their lives itself.
Why is it right and fair?
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

False Dichotomy
Suicidesoldier#1
False Dichotomy
Suicidesoldier#1
False Dichotomy
No, it isn't. The only way to treat them as equals is to stop focusing on their faults. Two lives are worth more than one.

If you believe all people are equal, then YES.

And what if the one you save ends up being a serial killer that nobody ever knew about? Why does it matter?

Their actions are not your own, but by saving two, you went with what is numerically the better option if you believe all lives are equal. You gave two people a chance at life, instead of only one.

You don't believe in this. If you save one person instead of two, for any reason, you value the sum of those two people less than a single individual.

And the best you can do in this situation is save two people, if you actually believe that all people are equal.


I believe serial rapists deserve death. If I have the power to avoid it, I would.
So you believe that serial rapists have no right to live, therefore their lives are worth less than others.

Ergo, you're a liar, and a hypocrite, and will continue to be so until you retract your false belief that all people are equal.

Quote:
The object rests on who's at fault. There lives aren't worth less because they're being taken.
NOBODY IS AT FAULT IN THIS SITUATION. THE SERIAL RAPISTS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE LAW ABIDING CITIZEN'S PERIL, NOR VICE VERSA.


I believe they have a right to live, but that they deserve death, and much worse.

If it comes between their lives and another, I would take theirs, instead.


Based on what's right, and fair.

Not based on the value of their lives itself.
Why is it right and fair?


They deserve it, based on their actions, what they would continue to do, what they've done etc.

I'd spare their lives if it was in my power, but if not, it is their fault for their death.


Don't go around raping people. xp
Aporeia's avatar

Destructive Friend

Suicidesoldier#1
False Dichotomy
Suicidesoldier#1
False Dichotomy
Suicidesoldier#1


I believe serial rapists deserve death. If I have the power to avoid it, I would.
So you believe that serial rapists have no right to live, therefore their lives are worth less than others.

Ergo, you're a liar, and a hypocrite, and will continue to be so until you retract your false belief that all people are equal.

Quote:
The object rests on who's at fault. There lives aren't worth less because they're being taken.
NOBODY IS AT FAULT IN THIS SITUATION. THE SERIAL RAPISTS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE LAW ABIDING CITIZEN'S PERIL, NOR VICE VERSA.


I believe they have a right to live, but that they deserve death, and much worse.

If it comes between their lives and another, I would take theirs, instead.


Based on what's right, and fair.

Not based on the value of their lives itself.
Why is it right and fair?


They deserve it, based on their actions, what they would continue to do, what they've done etc.

I'd spare their lives if it was in my power, but if not, it is their fault for their death.


Don't go around raping people. xp
It isn't their fault for their deaths. You're a hypocrite, this conversation is over.
Knobist's avatar

Hilarious Prophet

Suicidesoldier#1
False Dichotomy
Suicidesoldier#1
False Dichotomy
Suicidesoldier#1
False Dichotomy
There are no good people.


Perfect =/= Good.
And no one is either.


Right, right, according to what definition would you define "good"? xp
Worth more than anyone else.


All people are equal.
Is that what they teach you in public school?
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

False Dichotomy
Suicidesoldier#1
False Dichotomy
Suicidesoldier#1
False Dichotomy
So you believe that serial rapists have no right to live, therefore their lives are worth less than others.

Ergo, you're a liar, and a hypocrite, and will continue to be so until you retract your false belief that all people are equal.

NOBODY IS AT FAULT IN THIS SITUATION. THE SERIAL RAPISTS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE LAW ABIDING CITIZEN'S PERIL, NOR VICE VERSA.


I believe they have a right to live, but that they deserve death, and much worse.

If it comes between their lives and another, I would take theirs, instead.


Based on what's right, and fair.

Not based on the value of their lives itself.
Why is it right and fair?


They deserve it, based on their actions, what they would continue to do, what they've done etc.

I'd spare their lives if it was in my power, but if not, it is their fault for their death.


Don't go around raping people. xp
It isn't their fault for their deaths. You're a hypocrite, this conversation is over.
+

I'm not a hypocrite at all.

If a serial killer accidentally falls off a cliff, and I don't save him, it's not murder.


He's a serial killer, for the life of the victim's, and their pain, the serial killer deserves death.

I would save them if I had the power.


But if it came between me saving them or another human? Let's take away two, and just say one.

One serial killer, or one innocent person. It would be the innocent person.


They may not have chose their death, but they chose how they lived their life. That influences what *should* happen to them.

So if justice prevails, even by sheer accident? Yes, they have no-one to blame but themselves.
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

Jacque De Molay
Suicidesoldier#1
False Dichotomy
Suicidesoldier#1
False Dichotomy
And no one is either.


Right, right, according to what definition would you define "good"? xp
Worth more than anyone else.


All people are equal.
Is that what they teach you in public school?


It's what I know. xp
False Dichotomy
Suicidesoldier#1
False Dichotomy
Suicidesoldier#1
False Dichotomy
So you believe that serial rapists have no right to live, therefore their lives are worth less than others.

Ergo, you're a liar, and a hypocrite, and will continue to be so until you retract your false belief that all people are equal.

NOBODY IS AT FAULT IN THIS SITUATION. THE SERIAL RAPISTS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE LAW ABIDING CITIZEN'S PERIL, NOR VICE VERSA.


I believe they have a right to live, but that they deserve death, and much worse.

If it comes between their lives and another, I would take theirs, instead.


Based on what's right, and fair.

Not based on the value of their lives itself.
Why is it right and fair?


They deserve it, based on their actions, what they would continue to do, what they've done etc.

I'd spare their lives if it was in my power, but if not, it is their fault for their death.


Don't go around raping people. xp
It isn't their fault for their deaths. You're a hypocrite, this conversation is over.
Why are you asking questions if all you're going to do is scream "No! No! No! No!" He gave a perfectly legitimate answer. He doesn't value either life more, he simply would prefer if the innocent would live out their life as oppose to two criminals. What's so hard to understand about that?
Aporeia's avatar

Destructive Friend

l_Shamrock_l
False Dichotomy
Suicidesoldier#1
False Dichotomy
Suicidesoldier#1
False Dichotomy
So you believe that serial rapists have no right to live, therefore their lives are worth less than others.

Ergo, you're a liar, and a hypocrite, and will continue to be so until you retract your false belief that all people are equal.

NOBODY IS AT FAULT IN THIS SITUATION. THE SERIAL RAPISTS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE LAW ABIDING CITIZEN'S PERIL, NOR VICE VERSA.


I believe they have a right to live, but that they deserve death, and much worse.

If it comes between their lives and another, I would take theirs, instead.


Based on what's right, and fair.

Not based on the value of their lives itself.
Why is it right and fair?


They deserve it, based on their actions, what they would continue to do, what they've done etc.

I'd spare their lives if it was in my power, but if not, it is their fault for their death.


Don't go around raping people. xp
It isn't their fault for their deaths. You're a hypocrite, this conversation is over.
Why are you asking questions if all you're going to do is scream "No! No! No! No!" He gave a perfectly legitimate answer. He doesn't value either life more, he simply would prefer if the innocent would live out their life as oppose to two criminals. What's so hard to understand about that?
Because valuing one person over two more is not equality.

He claimed he believes all lives are equal, and has clearly demonstrated he does not. If you value the life of one over the lives of two, under any circumstances, you do not believe all lives are equal.
False Dichotomy
l_Shamrock_l
False Dichotomy
Suicidesoldier#1
False Dichotomy
Why is it right and fair?


They deserve it, based on their actions, what they would continue to do, what they've done etc.

I'd spare their lives if it was in my power, but if not, it is their fault for their death.


Don't go around raping people. xp
It isn't their fault for their deaths. You're a hypocrite, this conversation is over.
Why are you asking questions if all you're going to do is scream "No! No! No! No!" He gave a perfectly legitimate answer. He doesn't value either life more, he simply would prefer if the innocent would live out their life as oppose to two criminals. What's so hard to understand about that?
Because valuing one person over two more is not equality.

He claimed he believes all lives are equal, and has clearly demonstrated he does not. If you value the life of one over the lives of two, under any circumstances, you do not believe all lives are equal.
I don't think you're interpreting it correctly because you already have your mind made up. You're thinking their actions are the same as their lives.

Their lives are equal, but their actions are not. Based on their actions, he would prefer to save the innocent person over two criminals. This does not subtract from the value of life. He had admitted that, given the chance, he would save the criminals as well. Your theoretical situation, however, did not leave room for that. I think your proposed situation operates under the pretense that two lives should be worth twice as much as one life rather than what they are doing with their lives.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games