|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:29 pm
DrasBrisingr LoBo_23 Last one... What goes in a toaster? OOH! OOH! I know this one. Toes. I guess if you can fit them in there... it would kind of hurt though confused
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:30 pm
ChiyuriYami I use the word Universal since they englob everything. Ok, so you mean "universal" as an...all-encompassing thing. Ok, that threw me a little bit. But how does that at all describe your moral beliefs? You say everyone would be better if they followed them, but you haven't said what "they" are. All you've said is that abortion is ok.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:31 pm
LoBo_23 DrasBrisingr LoBo_23 Last one... What goes in a toaster? OOH! OOH! I know this one. Toes. I guess if you can fit them in there... it would kind of hurt though confused I can fit my toes in a toaster. You must just have fat toes. Oh, and I almost forgot. Kidneys go in a toaster, too. But only on Tuesdays.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:36 pm
DrasBrisingr LoBo_23 DrasBrisingr LoBo_23 Last one... What goes in a toaster? OOH! OOH! I know this one. Toes. I guess if you can fit them in there... it would kind of hurt though confused I can fit my toes in a toaster. You must just have fat toes. Oh, and I almost forgot. Kidneys go in a toaster, too. But only on Tuesdays. Pfft, and splernges on splernge day, or so soon we forget? neutral
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:41 pm
LoBo_23 You've just been shot in the arm by an armed gunman. He has a switch in his hand, he will blow up every single person you love and care about, and you if you give him some vital information, but if you refuse to give him the information he will kill one hundred thousand people for every minute you delay. The vital information is a new mutated AIDS virus chemical composition that deteriorates your immune system to much that it actually dissolves in your system, giving you more pain than imaginable. There is no escape. What do you do? I have no right over other people's life so I can't take any of these two road. That crazy person have lost his right to his own life in taking such action toward other's right. You can either give up and leave, or try to kill him yourself. That he kill many or a lot of people isn't within your juridiction. Even if your action of trying to kill him result in having many many more people die, you aren't the one at fault.. he is. LoBo_23 Or... There is a raped girl, she hates herself for the rape, hates the person who raped her, hates the world, and is suicidal, but isn't quite fully convinced her child should die. She plans to commit suicide after the child is born, leaving an unknown child in the hospital to be later adopted and/or molested, but the girl will kill herself either way. What is the better moral decision? Abortion to end both lives now, or take the chance that the child may find love in life? Well that she want to kill herself is totaly withing her right since it's her life. That baby inside of her is only a part of her and not a real person yet so she can choose whatever to do with it. If she feel optimist enough, she'll let it live and grow up to be a person. If she is the oposite, she can just end "both" lives now. LoBo_23 You have one million dollars, what third world/poor country's homeless/poor do you donate it to, or do you choose to support something else? You have all the right over that money, do whatever you want with it. LoBo_23 You flip a coin... Choose, heads or tails? THE COIN IS FALLING FAST! scream Depend on the person, just totally up to your choice. There is no bad or good choice in there, both are valid to be taken. LoBo_23 Last one... What goes in a toaster? What ever you want as long as it no going over other people's right. That was really long to write so just don't skip over it...read it now..
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 5:46 pm
ChiyuriYami LoBo_23 You've just been shot in the arm by an armed gunman. He has a switch in his hand, he will blow up every single person you love and care about, and you if you give him some vital information, but if you refuse to give him the information he will kill one hundred thousand people for every minute you delay. The vital information is a new mutated AIDS virus chemical composition that deteriorates your immune system to much that it actually dissolves in your system, giving you more pain than imaginable. There is no escape. What do you do? I have no right over other people's life so I can't take any of these two road. That crazy person have lost his right to his own life in taking such action toward other's right. You can either give up and leave, or try to kill him yourself. That he kill many or a lot of people isn't within your juridiction. Even if your action of trying to kill him result in having many many more people die, you aren't the one at fault.. he is. LoBo_23 Or... There is a raped girl, she hates herself for the rape, hates the person who raped her, hates the world, and is suicidal, but isn't quite fully convinced her child should die. She plans to commit suicide after the child is born, leaving an unknown child in the hospital to be later adopted and/or molested, but the girl will kill herself either way. What is the better moral decision? Abortion to end both lives now, or take the chance that the child may find love in life? Well that she want to kill herself is totaly withing her right since it's her life. That baby inside of her is only a part of her and not a real person yet so she can choose whatever to do with it. If she feel optimist enough, she'll let it live and grow up to be a person. If she is the oposite, she can just end "both" lives now. LoBo_23 You have one million dollars, what third world/poor country's homeless/poor do you donate it to, or do you choose to support something else? You have all the right over that money, do whatever you want with it. LoBo_23 You flip a coin... Choose, heads or tails? THE COIN IS FALLING FAST! scream Depend on the person, just totally up to your choice. There is no bad or good choice in there, both are valid to be taken. LoBo_23 Last one... What goes in a toaster? What ever you want as long as it no going over other people's right. That was really long to write so just don't skip over it...read it now.. PERFECT. ABSOLUTELY PERFECT example of Self Interest at its best. gj
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 5:59 pm
I don't see that much as self interest... but as a guideline to what is right and what is wrong to do.
True self interest for the first situation:
The guy/girl will choose to save the people he/she know since they have more value to him/her than people he/she doesn't know.
True self interest for the second situation:
If she want to kill herself this badly, she wouldn't care at all for her baby and die with it now.
True self interest for the third situation:
Just keep the cash all for yourself., don't even think the sliglest thought about giving it to others.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 7:08 pm
ChiyuriYami I don't see that much as self interest... but as a guideline to what is right and what is wrong to do. True self interest for the first situation: The guy/girl will choose to save the people he/she know since they have more value to him/her than people he/she doesn't know. True self interest for the second situation: If she want to kill herself this badly, she wouldn't care at all for her baby and die with it now. True self interest for the third situation: Just keep the cash all for yourself., don't even think the sliglest thought about giving it to others. I find it to be so, because when one understands self interest then they learn to respect anothers' self interest. It's not about being selfish at all. It's about doing what "YOU" think is right, not what OTHER people think is right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 9:11 pm
I'd say LoBo has come across an idea that I had long ago... and thus have said multiple times that, for example, Mother Theresa was selfish. There is self interest, and enlightened self interest. Self interest- I'll go [some action], 'cause I wanna! Enlightened self interest - I'm going to help you [~], knowing that later on you'll likely feel an obligation to help me [~]. If you don't, then I'll not bother helping you in the future, but that probably wont be a problem... you know the rules of the game too, after all. LoBo_23 You've just been shot in the arm by an armed gunman. He has a switch in his hand, he will blow up every single person you love and care about, and you if you give him some vital information, but if you refuse to give him the information he will kill one hundred thousand people for every minute you delay. The vital information is a new mutated AIDS virus chemical composition that deteriorates your immune system to much that it actually dissolves in your system, giving you more pain than imaginable. There is no escape. What do you do? Utilitarian response: give them the info. It will hurt to know you caused the deaths of those you cared for, but it is for the good. the good being the overall happiness. More people will be made happy by your family dying, than the thousands who would be killed by your delay. If you know the chemical composition, you could also create a "counter-virus" or a vaccine. Kantian response: Give the information. The big reason this is even a question is due to your own emotional ties. You have the information, and it makes even less sense for the others to die, when they don't have to. Likewise, you could help to develop a cure for it, and then begin immunizations so that it will not be an issue. Conclusion: Invalid scenario. Aside from high improbability, in every case a cure could be developed in time. It wouldn't just be raining SOOPER AIDS, so a high percentage could be immunized before it was a real threat. LoBo_23 Or... There is a raped girl, she hates herself for the rape, hates the person who raped her, hates the world, and is suicidal, but isn't quite fully convinced her child should die. She plans to commit suicide after the child is born, leaving an unknown child in the hospital to be later adopted and/or molested, but the girl will kill herself either way. What is the better moral decision? Abortion to end both lives now, or take the chance that the child may find love in life? Unitarian response: If she dies no matter what, then she should let the child live. The odds of the child enjoying at least some aspects of life greatly outweigh the right of the mother to abort the child. Every happiness/joy/pleasure felt by the child would have to be measured against every sadness. The child will have the right to live, as it will have a net positive. Kantian response: Depends on the basis of reasoning for the mother. Is the mother trying to think of what will happen to the child if it is allowed to live? Will it have a good or bad quality of life? If it will fair poorly, then it may be better to die beforehand. If it will fair well, it should live. No good answer from the Kantians. Conclusion: Highly likely scenario. Good job. It is left to the mother to decide, but there is a guarantee a large portion of society will hate her anyway she goes. LoBo_23 You have one million dollars, what third world/poor country's homeless/poor do you donate it to, or do you choose to support something else? Unitarian: who needs it most? That's where it goes. Kantian: Why are you considering giving it away? Is that million all the money you have? If so, there is logical contradiction to giving away everything... it places you in a position to give nothing else away, assuming the reason you donate is logical, not emotional. conclusion: Happens daily. Corporations and the rich will do what they will do. Their answer depends on how they view the world.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 2:55 am
LoBo_23 learn to respect anothers' self interest. well in my case I didn't have much of a choice to begin with.. I understand now what you ment by Self interest... stil I don't like the words you used for it... cause confusion easily... one thing I would like to say to seperare your self interest and my Universal Morals... you said that Self interest is about doing what "YOU" think is right. What is right and what is wrong is different in each person view... what is right for you might be wrong for someone else. In Universal Morals you remove any possible road that lead to doing something Wrong then leave you with the choices left which are all Right. Personnal belief of what is wrong and what is right MUST NOT be refered to when using Universal Morals since personnal belief of what is wrong and right for an individual have high probability of been uncomplete, having flaws and also to be totally wrong..
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 6:46 am
Khalida Nyoka I'd say LoBo has come across an idea that I had long ago... and thus have said multiple times that, for example, Mother Theresa was selfish. There is self interest, and enlightened self interest. Self interest- I'll go [some action], 'cause I wanna! Enlightened self interest - I'm going to help you [~], knowing that later on you'll likely feel an obligation to help me [~]. If you don't, then I'll not bother helping you in the future, but that probably wont be a problem... you know the rules of the game too, after all. LoBo_23 You've just been shot in the arm by an armed gunman. He has a switch in his hand, he will blow up every single person you love and care about, and you if you give him some vital information, but if you refuse to give him the information he will kill one hundred thousand people for every minute you delay. The vital information is a new mutated AIDS virus chemical composition that deteriorates your immune system to much that it actually dissolves in your system, giving you more pain than imaginable. There is no escape. What do you do? Utilitarian response: give them the info. It will hurt to know you caused the deaths of those you cared for, but it is for the good. the good being the overall happiness. More people will be made happy by your family dying, than the thousands who would be killed by your delay. If you know the chemical composition, you could also create a "counter-virus" or a vaccine. Kantian response: Give the information. The big reason this is even a question is due to your own emotional ties. You have the information, and it makes even less sense for the others to die, when they don't have to. Likewise, you could help to develop a cure for it, and then begin immunizations so that it will not be an issue. Conclusion: Invalid scenario. Aside from high improbability, in every case a cure could be developed in time. It wouldn't just be raining SOOPER AIDS, so a high percentage could be immunized before it was a real threat. LoBo_23 Or... There is a raped girl, she hates herself for the rape, hates the person who raped her, hates the world, and is suicidal, but isn't quite fully convinced her child should die. She plans to commit suicide after the child is born, leaving an unknown child in the hospital to be later adopted and/or molested, but the girl will kill herself either way. What is the better moral decision? Abortion to end both lives now, or take the chance that the child may find love in life? Unitarian response: If she dies no matter what, then she should let the child live. The odds of the child enjoying at least some aspects of life greatly outweigh the right of the mother to abort the child. Every happiness/joy/pleasure felt by the child would have to be measured against every sadness. The child will have the right to live, as it will have a net positive. Kantian response: Depends on the basis of reasoning for the mother. Is the mother trying to think of what will happen to the child if it is allowed to live? Will it have a good or bad quality of life? If it will fair poorly, then it may be better to die beforehand. If it will fair well, it should live. No good answer from the Kantians. Conclusion: Highly likely scenario. Good job. It is left to the mother to decide, but there is a guarantee a large portion of society will hate her anyway she goes. LoBo_23 You have one million dollars, what third world/poor country's homeless/poor do you donate it to, or do you choose to support something else? Unitarian: who needs it most? That's where it goes. Kantian: Why are you considering giving it away? Is that million all the money you have? If so, there is logical contradiction to giving away everything... it places you in a position to give nothing else away, assuming the reason you donate is logical, not emotional. conclusion: Happens daily. Corporations and the rich will do what they will do. Their answer depends on how they view the world. That post was freaking awesome. biggrin
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 6:58 am
ChiyuriYami LoBo_23 learn to respect anothers' self interest. well in my case I didn't have much of a choice to begin with.. I understand now what you ment by Self interest... stil I don't like the words you used for it... cause confusion easily... one thing I would like to say to seperare your self interest and my Universal Morals... you said that Self interest is about doing what "YOU" think is right. What is right and what is wrong is different in each person view... what is right for you might be wrong for someone else. In Universal Morals you remove any possible road that lead to doing something Wrong then leave you with the choices left which are all Right. Personnal belief of what is wrong and what is right MUST NOT be refered to when using Universal Morals since personnal belief of what is wrong and right for an individual have high probability of been uncomplete, having flaws and also to be totally wrong.. I find with intense thought on the matter the logical decision will come to a fairly proper solution. With intense thought and self interest I could have come to the same solution you did with the problems I presented. The Universal Law you're talking about has a lot in common with my self interest scenerio solution thinking skill, but hey; whatever that gets you to make what seems the most fitting choice for the matter at hand. 3nodding
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 10:48 am
Yes I can't denie that your Self interest theory is a lot like my Universal Morals.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 6:31 pm
I don't believe in universal morals. All morals are subjective. They are all bound to clash with one another. Which is partially the reason I don't have any.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 6:56 pm
Milendil I don't believe in universal morals. All morals are subjective. They are all bound to clash with one another. Which is partially the reason I don't have any.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
