How else to absolve the church of 2000 years of oppression?
USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
The Moral Dilemma Thread
- Thread starter Kepler
- Start date
Re: The Moral Dilemma Thread
It'll be something like burning fossil fuels in our cars. There will be a few among us who will be remembered as the abolitionists of our time, but you, me and the 90+% of the rest of us alive today will be neanderthals in the eyes of our descendants. There will be some guy flitting about in his hovercraft with one of these who will be considered a social pariah. Probably will be dating great, great, great granddaughter L'il Ms. Kep.
Not a chance. Not at least like you will be judged.
It'll be something like burning fossil fuels in our cars. There will be a few among us who will be remembered as the abolitionists of our time, but you, me and the 90+% of the rest of us alive today will be neanderthals in the eyes of our descendants. There will be some guy flitting about in his hovercraft with one of these who will be considered a social pariah. Probably will be dating great, great, great granddaughter L'il Ms. Kep.
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: The Moral Dilemma Thread
I assume they'll get us for cannibalism after it is scientifically verified that all life participates equally in the γαῖα Oversoul. The cow delegate to the United Nations in particular will have some choice things to say about us.
I assume they'll get us for cannibalism after it is scientifically verified that all life participates equally in the γαῖα Oversoul. The cow delegate to the United Nations in particular will have some choice things to say about us.
Re: The Moral Dilemma Thread
It's not about standards, it's about how generations view each other, and each new generation tends to take a dim view of each previous generation, without seeing the failures nearly as much in their own generation. It's just like people think they drive properly and everyone else goes too fast or too slow or whatever. This generation won't be viewed nearly as positively by future generations as it views itself.
Blood money? And it's a fee nothing more? Great lines! I think I was still in HS when it came out.
What do you want? Ben-Hur? She Wore a Yellow Ribbon?
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: The Moral Dilemma Thread
Show me some Sondheim and then we're talking.
For an intermission, my favorite Sondheim song of all time and, for my money, the greatest song in American musical history:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoXZSrV-rOk
Show me some Sondheim and then we're talking.
For an intermission, my favorite Sondheim song of all time and, for my money, the greatest song in American musical history:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoXZSrV-rOk
St. Clown
Ideas Posted are Likely Not My Own
unofan
Well-known member
Yes, because older generations never talk about how them young whipper snappers are causing the downfall of all civilization. There are no examples of that ever, let alone on this board or in this very thread.
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: The Moral Dilemma Thread
Children typically demonize their parents' generation and glorify their grandparents' generation. This is another reason I am looking forward to grandparenthood -- we and the grandkids are going to have a lot of fun at the expense of those ungrateful f-ckups in the middle!
Children typically demonize their parents' generation and glorify their grandparents' generation. This is another reason I am looking forward to grandparenthood -- we and the grandkids are going to have a lot of fun at the expense of those ungrateful f-ckups in the middle!
Re: The Moral Dilemma Thread
Since I sung it at summer camp, I'm partial to this one. But there is always West Side Story.
If you're interested - Camp Marist for Boys, Center Ossipee, NH 1965-67
Since I sung it at summer camp, I'm partial to this one. But there is always West Side Story.
If you're interested - Camp Marist for Boys, Center Ossipee, NH 1965-67
Last edited:
Re: The Moral Dilemma Thread
While the premise of this thread could be interesting, the initial "dilemma" that was posed seemed a bit, um, superficial.
Here is one variant of a moral dilemma that has an extensive literature in philosophy, called "the trolley car problem."
it comes with different variations and the moral implications change.
The basic version: Imagine you were out for an afternoon stroll and came upon a bridge that overlooked a train track. The track splits in two and upon one of the tracks five men are playing a game of cards and eating lunch. On the other track is a solitary man who appears to be sleeping. As you look down upon this peaceful scene your heart starts to race. A runaway trolley suddenly rounds a far corner of the tracks. It’s painfully obvious that is going to hit the five men playing cards, a fact that they are unfortunately oblivious to. They are too far away for you to call out to them. In your panic you look around for some way to alert the men when you see the track switch only a couple of feet away. It occurs to you that if you were to throw the switch you would successfully divert the trolley’s path onto the other track, the one upon which lays the sleeping man. He won’t know what hit him and you will have saved the lives of five men. So… do you throw the switch?
(If you act, you will be responsible for the death of one; if you do nothing, does that make you responsible for the death of the five due to your inaction?)
Then different variations are put forward. Rather than flip a switch to change tracks, you have to push someone in front of the trolley car instead. does this change your answer?
Someone turned it into a Q&A website here, which I have not explored very far.
http://www.philosophyexperiments.com/fatman/
Here is another take on the dilemma: http://www.philosophywalk.com/solution-trolley-problem/
I tried to find something on point in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (a truly remarkable resource! highly recommended), but I did not find anything specific in the 30 seconds I applied to their site search engine.
http://plato.stanford.edu/
While the premise of this thread could be interesting, the initial "dilemma" that was posed seemed a bit, um, superficial.
Here is one variant of a moral dilemma that has an extensive literature in philosophy, called "the trolley car problem."
it comes with different variations and the moral implications change.
The basic version: Imagine you were out for an afternoon stroll and came upon a bridge that overlooked a train track. The track splits in two and upon one of the tracks five men are playing a game of cards and eating lunch. On the other track is a solitary man who appears to be sleeping. As you look down upon this peaceful scene your heart starts to race. A runaway trolley suddenly rounds a far corner of the tracks. It’s painfully obvious that is going to hit the five men playing cards, a fact that they are unfortunately oblivious to. They are too far away for you to call out to them. In your panic you look around for some way to alert the men when you see the track switch only a couple of feet away. It occurs to you that if you were to throw the switch you would successfully divert the trolley’s path onto the other track, the one upon which lays the sleeping man. He won’t know what hit him and you will have saved the lives of five men. So… do you throw the switch?
(If you act, you will be responsible for the death of one; if you do nothing, does that make you responsible for the death of the five due to your inaction?)
Then different variations are put forward. Rather than flip a switch to change tracks, you have to push someone in front of the trolley car instead. does this change your answer?
Someone turned it into a Q&A website here, which I have not explored very far.
http://www.philosophyexperiments.com/fatman/
Here is another take on the dilemma: http://www.philosophywalk.com/solution-trolley-problem/
I tried to find something on point in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (a truly remarkable resource! highly recommended), but I did not find anything specific in the 30 seconds I applied to their site search engine.
http://plato.stanford.edu/
Last edited:
Re: The Moral Dilemma Thread
The philosophers make a key distinction about deliberately causing a person's death...if you do not switch the trolley, maybe the five people can still get out of the way in time (maybe the track will rumble as the trolley gets closer, maybe someone will notice it), and no one will die: to some people, causing death by deliberate action is a higher moral transgression than allowing death to occur through inaction.
The experimental literature is quite fascinating: a lot more people will switch the trolley to kill one and save five, than will push a person in front of the trolley to kill one to save five: even if the two are "equivalent" at one level, they are not "the same" at a different level.
Notice that one also could rephrase the same dilemma thusly: "a person believes that late-term abortions are exactly the same thing as murder." *
Based on the reasoning that you yourself just presented, killing the abortion doctor is the right thing to do, since 5 > 1.
* let's take Gosnell case as an example, as he actually was convicted in court of multiple counts of murder because he tried to perform late-term abortions, yet pulled the infants entirely out of the womb before he killed them rather than kill them when they were only halfway out.
PPS I do not believe that killing abortion doctors is justified, even Gosnell.
The philosophers make a key distinction about deliberately causing a person's death...if you do not switch the trolley, maybe the five people can still get out of the way in time (maybe the track will rumble as the trolley gets closer, maybe someone will notice it), and no one will die: to some people, causing death by deliberate action is a higher moral transgression than allowing death to occur through inaction.
The experimental literature is quite fascinating: a lot more people will switch the trolley to kill one and save five, than will push a person in front of the trolley to kill one to save five: even if the two are "equivalent" at one level, they are not "the same" at a different level.
Notice that one also could rephrase the same dilemma thusly: "a person believes that late-term abortions are exactly the same thing as murder." *
Based on the reasoning that you yourself just presented, killing the abortion doctor is the right thing to do, since 5 > 1.
* let's take Gosnell case as an example, as he actually was convicted in court of multiple counts of murder because he tried to perform late-term abortions, yet pulled the infants entirely out of the womb before he killed them rather than kill them when they were only halfway out.
PPS I do not believe that killing abortion doctors is justified, even Gosnell.
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: The Moral Dilemma Thread
I had to read this three times to assure myself it wasn't mookie.
I had to read this three times to assure myself it wasn't mookie.
Re: The Moral Dilemma Thread
Yes, well, consider the source - people who deliberately choose not to operate in or reflect upon the real world.
No, one could not. Well, one could, but that person would be an idiot. Your argument is really that we can't apply Simple Math to your facile, artificial scenario because it wouldn't apply to this other, not even remotely related, scenario? Premeditated, pre-planned killing of an abortion doctor because he performs legal medical procedures is first degree murder, period. If there's an abortion doctor who's performing illegal medical procedures, then killing him would be even worse, since there would be legal remedies to prevent him from doing so. Neither of those are remotely related to just happening to be in a situation not of your own design where you are thrust into a position of making 1 vs 5 life-and-death choices. Your lack-of-thought experiment does not shed any light - none at all - on the immorality of killing abortion doctors, which I clearly also agree is not justified.
Re: The Moral Dilemma Thread
Absolutely. Nothing wrong with TAKING money. GIVING money to them, on the other hand....