anonymousj

viscousmemories,

If you think that calling myself a law-abiding citizen (in the post/context above) implies that I am suggesting that I have never exceeded the speed limit, then you will agree with my characterization of you as a liar, since you have undoubtedly told a fib or two in your life.

Are you a native speaker of english?

If you had had a point, what would have been the point of making that point here?

anonymousj

...

Interesting idea! You could then point out that he will die no matter what, and that if he agrees to die he will then be remembered as a hero.

Is it just me, or does this "certain man" remind one of a certain rabbi from first century Jerusalem who died a rather painful death by order of a certain Roman governor in order to ensure that us humans won't have to face a fairly hot afterlife?

viscousmemories

In fact I am a native speaker of English, Anonymousj. Thanks for asking. In fact I seem to have a better command of it than you, so let me help you out. Yes, to refer to yourself as "law-abiding" implies that you abide by laws. I would assume, since you did not clarify, that you mean that you "abide" (obey) all "laws" (laws). If you mean to suggest that you abide only most laws, then do us all a favor and be more specific.

The point I was making, which I have hopefully now made more clear, is that you should be more specific when making claims about your moral fortitude. And the point of making that point here, is that it was here where you first placed your foot into your mouth, so it is therefore here where I am offering to help you remove it.

Tom

anonymousj

viscousmemories,

I still need your help. Am I right in thinking that, on your analysis, I would be accurate in characterizing you as a liar (on the assumption that you have told a fib before).

And, am I right in thinking that on your analysis, when a dictionary tells us , it is saying that there is no albinism in jaguars.

In what might be a more relevant vein, could you explain what relevance you think my claim about my moral fortitude has to the topic of this thread.

anonymousj

viscousmemories

Glad to be of service, AnonymousJ.

Lets take a look at a couple of definitions to start with:
Well, based on this evidence it does indeed seem as though one who "fibs" can quite accurately be called a "liar". So, if your assumption that I have fibbed in my lifetime is correct (which, incidentally, it is) then yes, it would be accurate to say that I am a liar. In fact, in an effort to be honest with myself and others about my moral fiber, I would never claim otherwise.

I honestly can't tell you if there is albinism in Jaguars. What I can tell you, based on my limited experience, is that the publishers of dictionaries tend to generalize with their definitions in the interest of being concise. That is why dictionaries are not a good source of data when debating ethical and moral concerns.

However, and this brings us to your final question, in a discussion about morality in a public forum, I prefer it if the people with whom I am discussing the issues refrain from such generalizations and actually qualify their statements. You see, when you state a moral judgement about an act (killing a person to save humanity, for example) and use as your justification your own moral fortitude (for example, claiming that you are a law-abiding citizen, and all like you should be spared) I will ask you to state your assumptions and justify your claims. Such is the nature of debate.

Did I leave anything out?

edited to fix a damn typo.

Ensign Steve

Wow, I'm going to end all of my claims with this. It sure takes a lot less time and energy than arguing! Why didn't I think of it earlier?

As far as the original question, I do not think it would be morally right to kill that man, but I would still do it.

Jen

Ensign Steve

Let us assume that this person is a man whose life has been nothing at all like yours. He has broken a law or two. He is not a citizen of the United States. Then is it okay?

Jen

(sorry, my last two should have been all one post, but I messed up.)

tronvillain

Well, from my point of view it would be perfectly moral to kill him. Hell, I would be willing to kill him myself to save the world.

Ensign Steve

Tron, like I said, I'd be willing, too! I'd be willing to do all kinds of things I find immoral for the sake of saving the human race. You are all welcome!

anonymousj

JenniferD,

Same answer-- It is morally wrong to kill him. Anyone who disagrees is mistaken. Anyone who thinks he/she can show otherwise is mistaken. Of course, people will offer conflicting opinions, but what does that show?

You said you were going to end all of your claims with But then you said and you didn't end your claim with my ending (you must have been kidding) and you didn't provide an argument for your claim. What's up?

Concerning your implicit request for an argument, will you take the following argument:

1. It is always morally impermissible to sacrifice the life of one innocent person just to save the lives of other innocent people.

2. The instance starting the thread is an instance of sacrificing the life of one innocent person just to save the lives of other innocent people.
----
3. It is morally impermissible to sacrifice the life of the individual described in the opening passage of this thread.

If this is what you wanted, well and good; if this is not what you wanted, please give some direction/instruction/something so that one will have some idea of what will satisfy you.

anonymousj