Freethought & Rationalism Archive

tronvillain · 07-26-2002, 07:27 PM

David Gould:

Quote:

Wouldn't do it.

I do not think the end justifies the means.

As an example, I would not sacrifice a child to a god to end a devastating famine or similar (assuming the god existed and had the power to end the famine).

I, on the other hand, would be perfectly willing to sacrifice a child to a god to end a devestating famine. To me, the results of inaction are as bad as the results of action, and in choosing to not sacrifice a single child one chooses to sacrifice countless others.

brighid:

Quote:

I really don’t think I could actually do it, not even for millions or billions of dollars. I would know and that knowledge would eat at my psyche forever and eventually it would drive me insane. I don’t like hurting other people if it can be avoided and I too would be thinking about the family and I would probably think what if that were my child (everyone is someone’s child) and some person murdered him and then I found out it was for no reason other then money? How can any moral person randomly kill a stranger for no other reason then personal financial gain?

Perhaps I answer differently because I do not experience anthing I would label "guilt." Oh, in retrospect there are things I would prefer not to have done, but as I understand the word I wouldn't say I feel "guilty" about having done them. Of course, I too do not like hurting other people, and have never actually done so.

fando:

Quote:

I would be tempted to do it for free just for the thrill of the kill, but probably wouldn't do it no matter the price. In my opinion, once the fear of consequences is removed, the only real thing holding a person back from commiting the crime is personal squeamishness. Ask your self if you would take the opportunity to cave in a cattle's head if it were destined for the slaughterhouse. How about hunting and killing a Deer? Now substitute an animal for a Human and ask yourself what the real difference is given that you will not be caught and punished.

I, on the other hand, would experience no such tempation. It is not squeamishness that holds me back, but empathy for the victim and the fact that I would take no pleasure in the act. I would not cave in a cow's head even if it were destiend for the slaughterhouse and hunting and killing a deer holds no appeal. It would only be for tangible benefits or self-preservation that I would kill.

southerhybrid:

Quote:

Sometimes you people scare me. I wouldn't kill anyone for money. I have too much empathy and compassion. Loving my life like I do, it would be impossible for me to end the life of an innocent, for money. It would be too much of an emotional burden to know that I had destroyed in another that which I embrace for myself. Sometimes money is not worth the price one must pay for it.

A perfectly reasonble answer, though I will point out that I love my life too.

Quote:

I doubt that one who would kill an innocent for money would use that money to benefit humanity. There are many ways, using one's time alone, that an individual can benefit humanity.

Well, doubt no longer, for you have found someone who would be perfectly willing to kill an innocent for money and then use that money to benefit humanity.

Quote:

So, Tron, Thanks for perpetuating the sterotype of the amoral, sinister atheist.

I am neither ammoral nor sinister. My morality simply differs from yours.

ManM

Quote:

I do not know the future, and I could be the one to be killed the very next day. Given my lack of knowledge, I would not be able to justify acting in a utilitarian manner and killing a person for money, even if I intended for that money to save others.

That assumes a connection between you killing and you being killed which is without any justification.

southernhybrid:

Quote:

Would you consider giving your own life, if it meant that many others might be saved, many others who you do not know? If not, why believe that it's okay to kill an annonymous person for the same end?

In some situations I would certainly consider giving my life to save others, though in many I would not. In any case, other people are not me, and hence are less important.

Quote:

Would you still accept the morality of the proposition ( end justifies means, using all or part of the money to benefit humanity ) if the randomly killed person turned out to be the person who means the most to you? Why not, you are willing to kill someone else who might be a young mother or beloved husband of someone.

Again, it comes down to the difference between me and other people: I am me and they are not. Still, if the odds were low enough and the pay off high enough I would probably accept the morality of the proposition.

Quote:

Where would the morality be if the randomly chosen person was on the brink of making some dramatic scientific discovery that would wipe out some disease or help alleviate world hunger? If you kill someone randomly, you have no idea what potential that individual may have for the benefit of humanity. The blood money you might use for charity, would only have a small temporary effect compared to the contributions of a significant scientific discovery.

Well, I would have to consider the personal benefits as well as the benefits to society a whole. In any case, the odds against it are so vanishly small that they are barely worth considering.

Quote:

Basically, you're saying that you would be willing to kill an innocent person for money. Perhaps many would do that. I don't see how you can justify this from a moral perspective.

It is trivially easy to justify it from a moral perspective. Specifically, it is trivially easy to justify from my moral perspective, though not from yours I suspect.

99Percent:

Quote:

Tronvillain's question stems from not knowing the fundamental meaning of money. Money represents human produced values, objective value. Money earned represents the accumulation of your own productive capacity. The unprovoked murder of a human being which could otherwise produce himself cannot possibly result in a human produced value, ie money.

So in effect to kill someone for money is a totally irrational action. And therefore immoral, objectively immoral, no matter how much subjectivist scream otherwise.

You never fail to amuse me with your "objective" morality 99Percent, consisting as it does of one unsupported assertion after another. Do you really want to get into this argument again? I can go find the old threads...

christ-on-a-stick:

Quote:

Interesting question... something I've thought about before.

For the most part my gut reaction is that I couldn't do it for any amount of money, in the case of it being a RANDOM person (lots of specific people would be no problem for varying amounts of $/assurance of not getting caught).

HOWEVER, the thought occurred to me that I would venture to guess that all of us here are, in comparison to many many many people in the world, not financially desperate, in the sense of not knowing where our next meal is coming from, or having a roof over our head or adequate clothing, etc. - heck we all have computers apparently. Anyway, my point is that it might be a lot more tempting for a totally destitute person, if given the opportunity, even if they normally wouldn't think of/want to hurt another human being, if their base needs were not being met it would be a heck of a lot harder for them to turn down being able to feed themselves or their family and easier for them to justify in their own minds. I guess what I am saying is that it is easier to eschew doing something immoral "just for money" when you HAVE enough money, at least enough to survive.

Yes, the value of money is extremely subjective. Were my basic needs or those of my family not being met, my price would fall rather sharpy.

RogerLeeCooke

Quote:

Well, you put me in the position of being "holier-than-thou," which I loathe. But honestly, there is no amount of money that I could enjoy under such circumstances. I could, I'm sure, kill people for other reasons, but not just for money.

Oh, I have no problem with you occupying that position. It is perfectly reasonable for you to consider yourself "morally superior" to me, just as it is for ethical vegitarians who frown on my consumption of animal flesh.

[ July 26, 2002: Message edited by: tronvillain ]</p>

Veil of Fire · 07-26-2002, 07:33 PM

Tron: What, no comments to me? Here I was thinking you had a job you needed someone to do...

fando · 07-26-2002, 07:54 PM

tronvillain: I consider feelings of empathy to be a form of squeamishness. I chose that word because it was the closest I could get to covering the constellation of 'kind hearted' reasons we wouldn't kill our fellow neighbor. Additionally, I believe that the connotations of squeamishness makes it an undesirable trait, so it's understandable that people would object to being labled as so.

MilitantModerate · 07-26-2002, 08:29 PM

There are plenty of people out there I would gladly knock-off for free. Further if they had maliciously hurt or killed one of my loved ones I would do it even if there was a certainty of getting caught. HOWEVER, I find the idea of killing a random (i.e. presumed innocent) person for any remuneration morally repugnant in the extreme. Indeed anyone committing such an act would then qualify for MY first list of people deserving of being offed for free (with the 'no getting caught' condition).

99Percent · 07-26-2002, 09:13 PM

LOL

You never fail to amuse me with your "objective" morality 99Percent, consisting as it does of one unsupported assertion after another. Do you really want to get into this argument again? I can go find the old threads.

Please do. I suspect you started this thread precisely and purely because of an old thread of ours. Go ahead and dig it out, so we can cut down to the chase.

fando · 07-27-2002, 01:39 AM

You know, it would be a lot more interesting if the random person you could kill also had the option of killing you and getting away with it. It will be like a game of Prisoner's Dilemma, but with a few twists.

southernhybrid · 07-27-2002, 05:08 AM

Quote:

I am neither ammoral nor sinister. My morality simply differs from yours. <http://iidb.org/ubb/rolleyes.gif>

The community would judge your morality that way, based on the results of the responses to your proposition. We are animals that live in communities and community morality supersedes individual morality. That's why the comment was made.

Quote:

It is trivially easy to justify it from a moral perspective.

Well since you seem believe your individual moral values are above any society or community moral values, perhaps. It's hardly convincing, however.

Quote:

Well, doubt no longer, for you have found someone who would be perfectly willing to kill an innocent for money and then use that money to benefit humanity.

So you say, and yet I am remain skeptical. Still, I'm glad you're not living in my neighborhood, just in case, I'm wrong.

Perhaps you're just trying to convince us that you can live up to your screen name.

tronvillain · 07-27-2002, 03:20 PM

southernhybrid:

Quote:

The community would judge your morality that way, based on the results of the responses to your proposition. We are animals that live in communities and community morality supersedes individual morality. That's why the comment was made.

Some of the community might reasonably judge me sinister and immoral, but not amoral. Now, does community morality supersede individual morality? Only in the sense that individuals may enforce commonly morals.

Quote:

Well since you seem believe your individual moral values are above any society or community moral values, perhaps. It's hardly convincing, however.

Everyone believes that their individual moral values are above any society or community moral values. When there are differences, it is only fear of negative consequences that restrains the individual. Anyway, I will now justify such an action under my moral system: I value a hundred thousand dollars more than I value a random human life. Simple enough?

Quote:

So you say, and yet I am remain skeptical. Still, I'm glad you're not living in my neighborhood, just in case, I'm wrong.

I fail to see why you would care if I lived in your neighborhood, since the odds against such a situation ever arising are astronomical. You might as well live in fear or being hit by a meteorite.

tronvillain · 07-27-2002, 03:22 PM

99Percent:

Quote:

Please do. I suspect you started this thread precisely and purely because of an old thread of ours. Go ahead and dig it out, so we can cut down to the chase.

Well, your suspicions are unfounded, since I had forgotten about your position until you responded. I was simply interested in people's responses.

Anyway, here is one of the threads I was thinking of, to which you never responded:
<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=52&t=000161&p=" target="_blank">Why Murder is Objectively Wrong</a>

RogerLeeCooke · 07-29-2002, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tronvillain:
<strong>David Gould:

Oh, I have no problem with you occupying that position. It is perfectly reasonable for you to consider yourself "morally superior" to me, just as it is for ethical vegitarians who frown on my consumption of animal flesh.

[ July 26, 2002: Message edited by: tronvillain ]</strong>

Actually, I think you and I agree on that. There isn't any objective sense in which one person is morally superior to another. And we certainly agree about the vegetarians and PETA people, who seem to think they are proclaiming absolute moral laws that the rest of us wretches are flouting. I didn't mean that I think I'm morally superior, only that an honest statement of my sentiments might be perceived that way.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-26-2002, 07:33 PM	#32
Veil of Fire Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: South Carolina Posts: 451	Tron: What, no comments to me? Here I was thinking you had a job you needed someone to do...

07-26-2002, 07:54 PM	#33
fando Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Los Angeles Area Posts: 1,372	tronvillain: I consider feelings of empathy to be a form of squeamishness. I chose that word because it was the closest I could get to covering the constellation of 'kind hearted' reasons we wouldn't kill our fellow neighbor. Additionally, I believe that the connotations of squeamishness makes it an undesirable trait, so it's understandable that people would object to being labled as so.

07-26-2002, 08:29 PM	#34
MilitantModerate Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Edmonton, AB Posts: 603	There are plenty of people out there I would gladly knock-off for free. Further if they had maliciously hurt or killed one of my loved ones I would do it even if there was a certainty of getting caught. HOWEVER, I find the idea of killing a random (i.e. presumed innocent) person for any remuneration morally repugnant in the extreme. Indeed anyone committing such an act would then qualify for MY first list of people deserving of being offed for free (with the 'no getting caught' condition).

07-26-2002, 09:13 PM	#35
99Percent Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: my mind Posts: 5,996	LOL You never fail to amuse me with your "objective" morality 99Percent, consisting as it does of one unsupported assertion after another. Do you really want to get into this argument again? I can go find the old threads. Please do. I suspect you started this thread precisely and purely because of an old thread of ours. Go ahead and dig it out, so we can cut down to the chase.

07-27-2002, 01:39 AM	#36
fando Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Los Angeles Area Posts: 1,372	You know, it would be a lot more interesting if the random person you could kill also had the option of killing you and getting away with it. It will be like a game of Prisoner's Dilemma, but with a few twists.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.