random question on ethics

<blink>

hehehe, 'blink'.

Please elaborate. Really strange thread, might have a point, but I can't tell what units we're working in...

What do you mean when you say "why would they be mad for him nuking the city?", is it not obvious why they would "be mad for him".

The police would have to believe what he was saying, and why would they not comply after having herd that, especially in this day and age.

The police would have to base their assumption on whether the person was telling the truth based on their impression of him.

Do you think that the police would be more likely to believe that person if he was from the middle east?

sorry i had to rush the post, basically i was trying to find out where any human gets the right to harm or imprison any other human, but as usual it was an empty question. they dont have the right at all.(they just force their actions on other people)

on reading the post again though..


a twist, the us gov't says it will not negotiate with terrorists, well , what happens if the guy then says "free me or now i nuke L.A. next?

do you think they would keep that man in custody? or submit to his "will" and let him free with the knowledge any interaction with him could quickly lead to destruction of their entire country?

would the gov't aquiesce in front of the entire world to the will of one man in order to maintain it survival? or would its "ego" lead them to keep him in custody and deal with annihilation of its citizens?

i dont think governments will be able to last for much longer, i mean i know ms-13's they are like, i cant explain it. well, world terrorists.
if i was a rich white boy i would be frightened as ****, but i mean, they are, ruthless. its just not a pretty picture.

pretty soon, or maybe already, it is my belief hispanic/latin gangs and terrorists will begin to control government officials through use of extortion and kidnapping. and i do not care who you are, when someone has someone you love at the end of a gun, you do exactly what they say.

jesus christ, i mean if you all knew about the underworld, i mean REALLY knew, you would never leave your house. i dont know if its this fuckin city or what but everywhere i look i see corruption,

the other day i was walking by the courthouse and i see a judge gettin a sack of coke from a car pulled up RIGHT OUT THE FRONT DOORS. i was like wtf? wtf?!?! is he serious?i need to stop thinking about this whole issue, i mean police in vegas control more drugs than gangs!

oh yeah, i was assuming they would not comply with the first request for realease. which in reality they wouldn't.. buit now im on a diff angle lol so damnit, this is what happens when i try to disentangle different questions and consolidate them into one easy to read format, which it still isn't.

ill require more self reflection so i can ask the question the proper way.

lol, on hindsight, im realising more and more there are not distinctions between groups who use violence to ensure their ends are met, the us gov't being on the top of that list.

Maybe i should accept the survival of the fittest mentality, and give in to me predatorial urges to achieve dominant status in the eyes of other humans.

lol, damn buddhism, havent killed a roach since i was like 9 lol.

im just a pussy who refuses to accept violence is the way of the world, and its senseless at that, i cant even understand it. i refuse to murder my neighbhor and take his land, and for that i am doomed to fail in this society.

i guess i just had to say it out loud. wierd though my best talents are all related to combat and tactics. duality? bleh.

according to Kantian ethics, the police would have been right to keep them.

however, utilitarian ethics would say the opposite.

it depends on whether you approach it with a consequentialist or deontological attitude.

what are kantian ethics?

kantian ethics come from the ethical theory of Emmanuel Kant.

he says that it is our duty to do the right thing ourselves, rather than considering the consequences, however this can lead to some harsh situations.

for example, if a man were to ask you where the nearest school was because he wanted to rape a child, it is more important for you to fulfill your duty and tell the truth than for you to consider the consequence.

this is just a basic summary.

oh ok ive heard his name before , i was working so i kept my history but i returned all the philosophy i checke dout from the library. no time.

i need to get my ass on amazon so i can keep the books forever, o rjust find an online archive of ebooks, theres like a million.

btw, has anyone thought freud was just a repressed sex freak or something and he projected his own beleifs all throughout his work?

i skimmed over one of his books and i was like, if i use his own observations he is the biggest weirdo of all time. but its not a real opinion yet just sorta stuck out at me i need to really read his material. so far ive been through just aristotle plato all the classical **** i need to modernize yo.

No doubt in my mind that you're right about Freud. His own reports of his childhood and formation explain his theories and his thinking. However, there are enough people out there (in here?) who function as he did that his ideas can be useful.