Ensign Steve

Aparently, it shows that they are mistaken.

I must have been kidding.

I think premise #1 begs the question. Aren't we trying to determine whether it is always morally impermissible to sacrifice the life of one innocent person just to save the lives of other innocent people?

You don't need to worry about trying to satisfy me. I'm easy! Concerning my implicit request for an argument, it wasn't there. I wasn't knocking you for not arguing your position. I hold the same opinion as you, and I would also find it very difficult to argue that position without resorting to begging the question. When I hold a position that I can't argue for, the last thing I want to do is decree that all who disagree with me are wrong.

Jen

anonymousj

JenniferD,

(my emphasis) I am not trying to determine whether it is always morally permissible to sacrifice the life of one innocent person just to save the lives of other innocent; I have already told you in pretty emphatic terms where I stand on the issue.

A couple of remarks which may or may not be relevant to your remarks.

i. I have argued for the immorality of sacrificing the innocent person in the scenario described. A clear way of justifying a claim about the morality/immorality of a particular act is to point out the moral principle which justifies it.

ii. Is it your view that it is morally impermissible to sacrifice the person in the thread opening scenario, but people who think that it is morally permissible to sacrifice the individual are not mistaken. If this is your view, then it wants some elaboration. It is hard for me to see how you can hold such a view and at the same time look for an argument to justify your view. If your view and the disagreeing (your characterization) view are both right, what on earth will count as justification for one of the views. I am genuinely puzzled.

iii. Is it that you are unsure about the permissibility of sacrificing the innocent in the scenario and are looking for an argument that will clear things up for you. If this is the case, then one would have to know a great deal more about you and your values before one could even begin attempt such an undertaking.

other?

anonymousj

Ensign Steve

You lost me. I have used sarcasm in my previous posts, but please take the questions in this post at face value, because now I am puzzled, and I would like to understand where you are coming from.

I thought that was the question of the original post. That's why I said we are trying to determine it. If you have already determined where you stand on the issue, great for you. Buy why would you go to a discussion forum and decree it as irrefutable fact without backing it up? True, I gave my opinion without backing it up, but I didn't say that all those who disagree with me are mistaken.

Is there a standard school of moral thought for this board? If everybody has already agreed that rights-based ethics holds all the correct moral principles, then I take back everything I have said. If that is the case, then it makes perfect sense for you to put for that moral principle as accepted fact in your first premise.

That is not my view at all. I agree that it is morally impermissible to sacrifice the person. Since that is my position, then it stands to reason that I think that anybody who disagrees with my position is mistaken. Unless I have no opinion on an issue, or if I suspend judgement, then I feel that everybody who disagrees with me on any topic is indeed mistaken. However, I think it is highly unlikely that I am right about everything, so if I don't have a good argument, I don't tell people that they are mistaken. Even if I do have a really good argument, I still don't. I give my argument, and hope they come to the same conclusion I did and realize their mistake on their own.
If you really feel that way, what is the point of a discussion board? People who disagree with me are mistaken, but I don't need to give any argument, I just need to say it, end of discussion. I can't argue my position to someone who is unsure of their position until I learn everything about them and their values, so until I learn all that about them, I shouldn't even attempt such an undertaking. So do we come on here only to talk to those who agree with us? I would say that is pretty boring, except that you and I hold the same position on the original issue, and this is pretty interesting.

Jen

Wiploc

Maybe this will help. I say it is morally wrong not to kill her. Anyone who disagrees is mistaken. Anyone who thinks (s)he can show otherwise is mistaken.

Now, anonymousej, in what sense is your position better, more justifiable, or more defensible than mine?
crc

VivaHedone

anonymousj, can you give logical reasons why it would be immoral to sacrifice the man, rather than just stating that it is so?

anonymousj

JenniferD, wiploc, Vivahedone,

I have stated my view that it is wrong to kill the person described, and I provided a defence of this view in the form of an argument. Apparently you think this defence is unsatisfactory in some way, but I sincerely do not know what it is that you are looking for.

So, perhaps the best way to proceed is to have one, or more, of you provide an actual example of the sort of justification/argument/logical reason you seek. I will then make an honest attempt to provide for my view on the opening scenario what you have provided.

In other words, create your own scenario around some action or other, which action is susceptible to a moral assessment that you can justify, provide an argument for, provide a logical reason for. Since you can choose whatever action your moral position is strongest and clearest on, presumeably your justification, argument, logical reason will not be susceptible to the kinds of 'objections' you have raised against my justification and will accomplish whatever it is that my justification has failed to accomplish.

anonymousj

anonymousj

viscousmemories,

Yes! you did omit something, and this will be my last comment on this silliness (a characterization I would say that you will surely accept, if I were sure that you understood what a characterization is). You omitted a definition of "characterization" and/or "characterize".

anonymousj

Strawberry

And now, to put the thread back on topic for those of us who are more interested in the ways that other members of this board would approach the situation given in the OP than in the various ways anonymousj should have presented her argument to make it more tenable...

dk

The scenario is impossible, so the hypothetical doesn't deserve an answer.

Tenpudo

I'm confused-- did anonymousj just fail the Turing test, or pass?