10
   

The Watchmen Dilemma

 
 
Night Ripper
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Jul, 2010 04:00 am
@Sentience,
Sentience wrote:

While I agree we both have moral absolutes, it differs immensely, in that by not initiating violence violence to occur, and the violence ends negatively. What is the point of not initiating violence but to not initiate hurt, so what is the point of not initiating violence if by doing so you get people hurt. It's counter-productive.


The point of not initiating violence is to not initiate violence. If someone gets hurt then it won't be because I initiated it. It will be someone else's guilt. We all die anyways. Why not die with honor?
Sentience
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Jul, 2010 08:43 am
@Night Ripper,
So you're idea is inherently selfish, in that you believe that by not initiating violence you have not stained your moral name, even if others had died and there's no one to notice it. Personally, I think that itself is a stain on your moral name.
Night Ripper
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Jul, 2010 12:26 pm
@Sentience,
Sentience wrote:

So you're idea is inherently selfish, in that you believe that by not initiating violence you have not stained your moral name, even if others had died and there's no one to notice it. Personally, I think that itself is a stain on your moral name.


So, you're saying I should sacrifice my sense of morality to serve my sense of morality? That doesn't make sense.
Sentience
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Jul, 2010 09:47 pm
@Night Ripper,
I believe that your sense of morality is flawed, because in your current one you would perform an immoral action in order to serve your sense of morality. Note the key word, sense.
Night Ripper
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Jul, 2010 09:52 pm
@Sentience,
Sentience wrote:

I believe that your sense of morality is flawed, because in your current one you would perform an immoral action in order to serve your sense of morality. Note the key word, sense.


I don't consider it an immoral action, obviously.
Sentience
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Jul, 2010 10:03 pm
@Night Ripper,
...And I do. Both are opinions, and we have reached an impasse. Your concept of 'let someone else do the dirty work' is selfish and arrogant, and I pray you will never be given such a choice, as you would doom all of humanity so you would not have to bear the guilt.
Night Ripper
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Jul, 2010 10:08 pm
@Sentience,
Sentience wrote:

...And I do. Both are opinions, and we have reached an impasse. Your concept of 'let someone else do the dirty work' is selfish and arrogant, and I pray you will never be given such a choice, as you would doom all of humanity so you would not have to bear the guilt.


Well, now all we can do is posture at each other. You can take your high road of pushing innocent people in harms way to save others and I'll take my high road of not initiating violence. We're all going to die anyways. I'll do so knowing that my life was more than one side of a happiness equation.
0 Replies
 
playnow254
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Sep, 2010 06:21 pm
@Sentience,
you won't read this, but they'll all die later anyway. KILL THEM!!!
0 Replies
 
theelous3
 
  0  
Reply Sun 26 Sep, 2010 12:37 pm
@Reyn,
You are a coward.
0 Replies
 
HexHammer
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Oct, 2010 05:22 pm
@Sentience,
I'm it's a very faulty anology, just because your weapon are much more powerful, doesn't mean that others are less powerful en masse. It's only if you can counter other's weapons of mass destruction that it becomes a clear advantage.

Your anology would describe a knife v an automatic rifle, that doesn't mean that soldiers doesn't have a knife for combat and survival, it's just a matter of outsmarting a man with a rifle, when all you have is a knife.
HexHammer
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Oct, 2010 10:42 pm
@HexHammer,
HexHammer wrote:

I'm it's a very faulty anology, just because your weapon are much more powerful, doesn't mean that others are less powerful en masse. It's only if you can counter other's weapons of mass destruction that it becomes a clear advantage.

Your anology would describe a knife v an automatic rifle, that doesn't mean that soldiers doesn't have a knife for combat and survival, it's just a matter of outsmarting a man with a rifle, when all you have is a knife.
Allow me to repharse my caffein chock babble post.
I belive it's a very faulty anology, just because your weapon are much more powerful, doesn't mean other countrie's weapon are less powerful en masse. Only if you can nullify other's weapons of mass descrution, that you have a clear advantage.

A well trained soldier can still take out another soldier with a better weapon with a knife vs a machinegun, it's all about outthinking your enemy, with timing, tactics and strategy.
Too many leaders have thought themselves invinsible and being utterly defeated, because they thought their army would crush the enemy in a swift blow ..just look at recent Iraq/Afghan war, the mighty USA sufferd a humiliating defeat, Greco wars, Sun Tzu, Alexander, Hannibal ..etc, all have fought hopelessly outnumberd against a powerful enemy.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

is there a fundamental value that we all share? - Discussion by existential potential
The ethics of killing the dead - Discussion by joefromchicago
Theoretical Question About Extra Terrestrials - Discussion by failures art
What is your fundamental moral compass? - Discussion by Robert Gentel
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
The Trolley Problem - Discussion by joefromchicago
Keep a $900 Computer I Didn't Buy? - Question by NathanCooperJones
Killing through a dungeon - Question by satyesu
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/03/2021 at 11:36:24