397 réponses à ce sujet

[Dean_the_Young]

What a scumbag you are.

[Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

What a scumbag you are.

Just trying to be as honest as possible.

[sanadawarrior]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Again, I will contest the need or justification to personalize it like you insist on trying. As I already addressed, what affects me personally is a separate issue from the action itself, because of that personal connection. As an involved party, I can not be trusted or relied upon to be impartial, rational, or put others before myself. All three of these are character traits we want, demand, from people in every other decision making process, and I could not lay claim to any of them.

Would I like it? No. Would I fight it? Most likely. Does that make me right in opposing it? Not by some default formula of 'since I don't like it, it must be bad for everyone.' Empathy is a necessary tool for leadership and decisionmaking, but it must not be an overpowering or misdirected one.

Well, that's the general consensus of civilized societies. There are people who advocate a 'screw everyoneelse, I want what I want as it effects me and mine' position.

The need to personalize it is simple. People are always willing to sacrifice for the greater good as long as they are not the ones doing the actual sacrificing.

The fact that you would fight it only if it affected you is the exact point I was getting at. You see someone being killed for the greater good as "it's ok because it's not my family" I see it as "it's not ok because that is someones family".

And your societies thing no longer applies, cerberus or the private interest in my question is not part of an elected government with the ability for the majority to vote them out if they do not agree with their actions, they are self apointed advancers of the human race.

[Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams]

sanadawarrior wrote...

The need to personalize it is simple. People are always willing to sacrifice for the greater good as long as they are not the ones doing the actual sacrificing.

The fact that you would fight it only if it affected you is the exact point I was getting at. You see someone being killed for the greater good as "it's ok because it's not my family" I see it as "it's not ok because that is someones family".

And your societies thing no longer applies, cerberus or the private interest in my question is not part of an elected government with the ability for the majority to vote them out if they do not agree with their actions, they are self apointed advancers of the human race.

I understand them killing my family, I am just not going to let it happen.

[sanadawarrior]

Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams wrote...

sanadawarrior wrote...

The need to personalize it is simple. People are always willing to sacrifice for the greater good as long as they are not the ones doing the actual sacrificing.

The fact that you would fight it only if it affected you is the exact point I was getting at. You see someone being killed for the greater good as "it's ok because it's not my family" I see it as "it's not ok because that is someones family".

And your societies thing no longer applies, cerberus or the private interest in my question is not part of an elected government with the ability for the majority to vote them out if they do not agree with their actions, they are self apointed advancers of the human race.

I understand them killing my family, I am just not going to let it happen.

Then why let them kill someone elses? Especialy if you have the power to stop them.

Modifié par sanadawarrior, 30 juillet 2010 - 06:04 .

[Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams]

sanadawarrior wrote...

Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams wrote...

sanadawarrior wrote...

The need to personalize it is simple. People are always willing to sacrifice for the greater good as long as they are not the ones doing the actual sacrificing.

The fact that you would fight it only if it affected you is the exact point I was getting at. You see someone being killed for the greater good as "it's ok because it's not my family" I see it as "it's not ok because that is someones family".

And your societies thing no longer applies, cerberus or the private interest in my question is not part of an elected government with the ability for the majority to vote them out if they do not agree with their actions, they are self apointed advancers of the human race.

I understand them killing my family, I am just not going to let it happen.

Then why let them kill someone elses? Especialy if you have the power to stop them.

Because the attempt to save my own family is a result of putting my family's interests above that of humanity. I would be in the wrong. I am just admitting I would do it because I wouldn't want to see my family die. If emotion is taken out of the picture, the choice is obvious.

[sanadawarrior]

Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams wrote...

sanadawarrior wrote...

Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams wrote...

sanadawarrior wrote...

The need to personalize it is simple. People are always willing to sacrifice for the greater good as long as they are not the ones doing the actual sacrificing.

The fact that you would fight it only if it affected you is the exact point I was getting at. You see someone being killed for the greater good as "it's ok because it's not my family" I see it as "it's not ok because that is someones family".

And your societies thing no longer applies, cerberus or the private interest in my question is not part of an elected government with the ability for the majority to vote them out if they do not agree with their actions, they are self apointed advancers of the human race.

I understand them killing my family, I am just not going to let it happen.

Then why let them kill someone elses? Especialy if you have the power to stop them.

Because the attempt to save my own family is a result of putting my family's interests above that of humanity. I would be in the wrong. I am just admitting I would do it because I wouldn't want to see my family die. If emotion is taken out of the picture, the choice is obvious.

So your argument is that you are selfish so its ok to kill for the greater good as long as those people aren't someone you care about?

[scotchtape622]

Another part of this of course, is with Cerberus's track record, the experiment will probably fail and it would all be for nothing

[Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams]

sanadawarrior wrote...

So your argument is that you are selfish so its ok to kill for the greater good as long as those people aren't someone you care about?

No. Is that what I said? It's always ok to kill for the greater good. I would, however, try to stop someone from killing my loved ones regardless of their motivations. I may not be behaving in the best way for humanity if I did that though.

[sanadawarrior]

Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams wrote...

sanadawarrior wrote...

So your argument is that you are selfish so its ok to kill for the greater good as long as those people aren't someone you care about?

No. Is that what I said? It's always ok to kill for the greater good. I would, however, try to stop someone from killing my loved ones regardless of their motivations. I may not be behaving in the best way for humanity if I did that though.

If it was ok to kill your family for the greater good then you wouldn't try to stop them. This is precisely why this sort of thing should not be allowed, if you arent willing to make the sacrifice then you sure as hell shouldn't be able to decide that I have to in your stead.

Btw, what scotchtape said is also correct. The experiment is something that is for the greater good, but it by no means is a guaranteed success.

Modifié par sanadawarrior, 30 juillet 2010 - 06:21 .

[Dean_the_Young]

sanadawarrior wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Again, I will contest the need or justification to personalize it like you insist on trying. As I already addressed, what affects me personally is a separate issue from the action itself, because of that personal connection. As an involved party, I can not be trusted or relied upon to be impartial, rational, or put others before myself. All three of these are character traits we want, demand, from people in every other decision making process, and I could not lay claim to any of them.

Would I like it? No. Would I fight it? Most likely. Does that make me right in opposing it? Not by some default formula of 'since I don't like it, it must be bad for everyone.' Empathy is a necessary tool for leadership and decisionmaking, but it must not be an overpowering or misdirected one.

Well, that's the general consensus of civilized societies. There are people who advocate a 'screw everyoneelse, I want what I want as it effects me and mine' position.

The need to personalize it is simple. People are always willing to sacrifice for the greater good as long as they are not the ones doing the actual sacrificing.

The fact that you would fight it only if it affected you is the exact point I was getting at. You see someone being killed for the greater good as "it's ok because it's not my family" I see it as "it's not ok because that is someones family".

And your societies thing no longer applies, cerberus or the private interest in my question is not part of an elected government with the ability for the majority to vote them out if they do not agree with their actions, they are self apointed advancers of the human race.

You reach an invalid conclusion: you assume that since I would not support something during a period of extreme duress, it would not happen and that I am a hypocrite.

However, as a rational person during rational states of mind, I can look forward and understand that, under duress, I may or may not be capable of maintaining the viewpoint needed for the consideration of others, just like as I enter a forest I can only see the trees and not the forest as a whole. Because I know that my perspective can/will shift under such circumstances, I canplan ahead for those times and prevent myself from letting shortsighted wants from over riding long term, objectively decided, priorities. And so I, and others like me, build systems we alone can not change even as our perspective does.

In school, they call this the system of checks and balances.

So it really doesn't matter what I would do in the personalization question. Whether I would or not is irrelevant: the system I help create and support would continue regardless, just as it was made to do. I don't need to sacrifice myself or my family (though in some senses I have already done the former): there are others who can stand ready to do it. And when they are the compromised party, they won't have to sacrifice themselves either. Objectivity can be maintained, because no one person has to be a universal constant.



Oh, and Cerberus was created, organization and goal both, by the elected representatives of humanity, with whom it at the very least retains strong ties and at most is still a partner of. It has more legitimacy than the Council or spectres to advance human interests.

Of course, we could also go into the philosophy that either all governments are self-appointed (and so have no legitimacy), or that they have legitimacy to act on others, even those outside their jurisdiction, because their participants agree to it. At which point we would have to come to terms of why Cerberus wouldn't have similar legitimacy when all of it's members agree it does as well.

[Dean_the_Young]

sanadawarrior wrote...
So your argument is that you are selfish so its ok to kill for the greater good as long as those people aren't someone you care about?

When did she ever say it was okay for her to be selfish? She just admitted that she was, and how she would react therein. That's neither a justification or a denial. It's a recognition of the human condition: she is human. She will react differently towards those she has strong ties than those she does not, regardless of the overall result.

Unless you're a sociopath of some sort, you're the same. I have little doubt you would or have given up some of your own food to help a friend who forgot his/her lunch or helped cover some such misfortune (give a drive to work? Let them copy homework?), but the fact you are here, on this forum, on the internet and having invested time and money into a video game, tells that you don't do that for everyone else, even though there are millions of starving people without cars.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 30 juillet 2010 - 06:27 .

[Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams]

sanadawarrior wrote...

If it was ok to kill your family for the greater good then you wouldn't try to stop them. This is precisely why this sort of thing should not be allowed, if you arent willing to make the sacrifice then you sure as hell shouldn't be able to decide that I have to in your stead.

Btw, what scotchtape said is also correct. The experiment is something that is for the greater good, but it by no means is a guaranteed success.

Yes. I would. Because I love my family and do not want to see them die. In doing so, I should also be killed for the greater good. It's not a complicated viewpoint.

[Dean_the_Young]

Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams wrote...

sanadawarrior wrote...

If it was ok to kill your family for the greater good then you wouldn't try to stop them. This is precisely why this sort of thing should not be allowed, if you arent willing to make the sacrifice then you sure as hell shouldn't be able to decide that I have to in your stead.

Btw, what scotchtape said is also correct. The experiment is something that is for the greater good, but it by no means is a guaranteed success.

Yes. I would. Because I love my family and do not want to see them die. In doing so, I should also be killed for the greater good. It's not a complicated viewpoint.

For others looking in, I'd just like to point out that there are two different ideas contrasting here.

Sanada seems to be arguing a position that each person should follow universally held beliefs and ideals: no discrimination or favoritism towards any party. The fact that others would not be universal in their positions is a mark of hypocrisy, and that their positions are therefor invalid.

A few brief points in consideration of this include points that humans are social and emotional creatures who do form bonds, that people do treat friends/family different from strangers, the necessity of doing and enforcing things that we do not like, and that age old rule that there are no universal rules*.


Ash here is taking a position that, despite the human condition, we can subscribe to ideals we couldn't universally uphold, so long as others could step in as we fail to meet them. This view accepts human ties and connections, recognizes them, and takes them into consideration during the decision process. We can recognize what is best while also realizing why we will not do it: we also recognize why we will be overturned as well despite our objections.

Taken to it's own extreme, this viewpoint can turn authoritarian, and can make reform/discretion hard or even impossible as any objection can be viewed as short-sighted emotional impulses, which the philosophy of impartiality is made to avoid.



It should be obvious that I am closer to the second point than the first, but I thought marking the two distinct points would be helpful to keep civil debate going.


*Joke intended.

[mosor]

sanadawarrior wrote...


If it was ok to kill your family for the greater good then you wouldn't try to stop them. This is precisely why this sort of thing should not be allowed, if you arent willing to make the sacrifice then you sure as hell shouldn't be able to decide that I have to in your stead.

Nonsense. People have been killing others for far less vital matters since the dawn of time. Religion, land, money, adultery, being an albino ect ect ect. Not wanting to hurt your family is natural and human even if there are bigger things at stake. People sacrificing others not related to them, whether to steal a  goat, grab their women, steal their gold is sad, but it's also the natural state of affairs. If you are strong and have power, then you are able to decide to sacrifice others and spare your family for the greater good. This happens all the time. Rich powerful people got their sons out of the draft or sent to national guard duty, instead of fighting in Vietnam with the poor and minorities.

[Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

For others looking in, I'd just like to point out that there are two different ideas contrasting here.

Sanada seems to be arguing a position that each person should follow universally held beliefs and ideals: no discrimination or favoritism towards any party. The fact that others would not be universal in their positions is a mark of hypocrisy, and that their positions are therefor invalid.

A few brief points in consideration of this include points that humans are social and emotional creatures who do form bonds, that people do treat friends/family different from strangers, the necessity of doing and enforcing things that we do not like, and that age old rule that there are no universal rules*.


Ash here is taking a position that, despite the human condition, we can subscribe to ideals we couldn't universally uphold, so long as others could step in as we fail to meet them. This view accepts human ties and connections, recognizes them, and takes them into consideration during the decision process. We can recognize what is best while also realizing why we will not do it: we also recognize why we will be overturned as well despite our objections.

Taken to it's own extreme, this viewpoint can turn authoritarian, and can make reform/discretion hard or even impossible as any objection can be viewed as short-sighted emotional impulses, which the philosophy of impartiality is made to avoid.



It should be obvious that I am closer to the second point than the first, but I thought marking the two distinct points would be helpful to keep civil debate going.


*Joke intended.

This is very well stated. Thank you Dean.

[sanadawarrior]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

You reach an invalid conclusion: you assume that since I would not support something during a period of extreme duress, it would not happen and that I am a hypocrite.

Actualy that is the definition of hypocricy, the duress is caused because it affects you. If its ok to sacrifice my family because it does not affect you then that is quite the double standard.

Dean_the_Young wrote...
However, as a rational person during rational states of mind, I can look forward and understand that, under duress, I may or may not be capable of maintaining the viewpoint needed for the consideration of others, just like as I enter a forest I can only see the trees and not the forest as a whole. Because I know that my perspective can/will shift under such circumstances, I canplan ahead for those times and prevent myself from letting shortsighted wants from over riding long term, objectively decided, priorities. And so I, and others like me, build systems we alone can not change even as our perspective does.

In school, they call this the system of checks and balances.

The long term is that your family is now dead to fuel an experiment that may or may not have yielded anything useful. If you are ok with that then please let us know.

Dean_the_Young wrote...
So it really doesn't matter what I would do in the personalization question. Whether I would or not is irrelevant: the system I help create and support would continue regardless, just as it was made to do. I don't need to sacrifice myself or my family (though in some senses I have already done the former): there are others who can stand ready to do it. And when they are the compromised party, they won't have to sacrifice themselves either. Objectivity can be maintained, because no one person has to be a universal constant.

It matters alot, do you have the willpower to run a fatal experiment on your child to help humanity? If you dont then you sure as hell shouldn't say my child has to in your childs place.

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Oh, and Cerberus was created, organization and goal both, by the elected representatives of humanity, with whom it at the very least retains strong ties and at most is still a partner of. It has more legitimacy than the Council or spectres to advance human interests.

Of course, we could also go into the philosophy that either all governments are self-appointed (and so have no legitimacy), or that they have legitimacy to act on others, even those outside their jurisdiction, because their participants agree to it. At which point we would have to come to terms of why Cerberus wouldn't have similar legitimacy when all of it's members agree it does as well.

Oh so does the human goverment hold elections to see if the Illusive man should continue to be in charge of cerberus? Can the populace write their congressman to protest and shut down cerberus? I doubt it.

Modifié par sanadawarrior, 30 juillet 2010 - 06:49 .

[sanadawarrior]

mosor wrote...

sanadawarrior wrote...


If it was ok to kill your family for the greater good then you wouldn't try to stop them. This is precisely why this sort of thing should not be allowed, if you arent willing to make the sacrifice then you sure as hell shouldn't be able to decide that I have to in your stead.

Nonsense. People have been killing others for far less vital matters since the dawn of time. Religion, land, money, adultery, being an albino ect ect ect. Not wanting to hurt your family is natural and human even if there are bigger things at stake. People sacrificing others not related to them, whether to steal a  goat, grab their women, steal their gold is sad, but it's also the natural state of affairs. If you are strong and have power, then you are able to decide to sacrifice others and spare your family for the greater good. This happens all the time. Rich powerful people got their sons out of the draft or sent to national guard duty, instead of fighting in Vietnam with the poor and minorities.

Just because it happens does not make it right, or that it should happen. Or do you believe just because someone is a senator it is ok for their child to get passed over for the draft?

[mosor]

sanadawarrior wrote...

mosor wrote...

sanadawarrior wrote...


If it was ok to kill your family for the greater good then you wouldn't try to stop them. This is precisely why this sort of thing should not be allowed, if you arent willing to make the sacrifice then you sure as hell shouldn't be able to decide that I have to in your stead.

Nonsense. People have been killing others for far less vital matters since the dawn of time. Religion, land, money, adultery, being an albino ect ect ect. Not wanting to hurt your family is natural and human even if there are bigger things at stake. People sacrificing others not related to them, whether to steal a  goat, grab their women, steal their gold is sad, but it's also the natural state of affairs. If you are strong and have power, then you are able to decide to sacrifice others and spare your family for the greater good. This happens all the time. Rich powerful people got their sons out of the draft or sent to national guard duty, instead of fighting in Vietnam with the poor and minorities.

Just because it happens does not make it right, or that it should happen. Or do you believe just because someone is a senator it is ok for their child to get passed over for the draft?

I'm not an idealist with fuzzy wuzzy paragon beliefs. I'm a realist, and the reality is life isn't fair .Thinking otherwise is naive. Having power means you get to make choices. Sparring friends and especially family when other choices are available is one of the perks of having power.

Modifié par mosor, 30 juillet 2010 - 06:53 .

[sanadawarrior]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams wrote...

sanadawarrior wrote...

If it was ok to kill your family for the greater good then you wouldn't try to stop them. This is precisely why this sort of thing should not be allowed, if you arent willing to make the sacrifice then you sure as hell shouldn't be able to decide that I have to in your stead.

Btw, what scotchtape said is also correct. The experiment is something that is for the greater good, but it by no means is a guaranteed success.

Yes. I would. Because I love my family and do not want to see them die. In doing so, I should also be killed for the greater good. It's not a complicated viewpoint.

For others looking in, I'd just like to point out that there are two different ideas contrasting here.

Sanada seems to be arguing a position that each person should follow universally held beliefs and ideals: no discrimination or favoritism towards any party. The fact that others would not be universal in their positions is a mark of hypocrisy, and that their positions are therefor invalid.

A few brief points in consideration of this include points that humans are social and emotional creatures who do form bonds, that people do treat friends/family different from strangers, the necessity of doing and enforcing things that we do not like, and that age old rule that there are no universal rules*.


Ash here is taking a position that, despite the human condition, we can subscribe to ideals we couldn't universally uphold, so long as others could step in as we fail to meet them. This view accepts human ties and connections, recognizes them, and takes them into consideration during the decision process. We can recognize what is best while also realizing why we will not do it: we also recognize why we will be overturned as well despite our objections.

Taken to it's own extreme, this viewpoint can turn authoritarian, and can make reform/discretion hard or even impossible as any objection can be viewed as short-sighted emotional impulses, which the philosophy of impartiality is made to avoid.



It should be obvious that I am closer to the second point than the first, but I thought marking the two distinct points would be helpful to keep civil debate going.


*Joke intended.

That was a good summary of where we stand at I believe, thanks for doing that.

[sanadawarrior]

mosor wrote...

sanadawarrior wrote...

mosor wrote...

sanadawarrior wrote...


If it was ok to kill your family for the greater good then you wouldn't try to stop them. This is precisely why this sort of thing should not be allowed, if you arent willing to make the sacrifice then you sure as hell shouldn't be able to decide that I have to in your stead.

Nonsense. People have been killing others for far less vital matters since the dawn of time. Religion, land, money, adultery, being an albino ect ect ect. Not wanting to hurt your family is natural and human even if there are bigger things at stake. People sacrificing others not related to them, whether to steal a  goat, grab their women, steal their gold is sad, but it's also the natural state of affairs. If you are strong and have power, then you are able to decide to sacrifice others and spare your family for the greater good. This happens all the time. Rich powerful people got their sons out of the draft or sent to national guard duty, instead of fighting in Vietnam with the poor and minorities.

Just because it happens does not make it right, or that it should happen. Or do you believe just because someone is a senator it is ok for their child to get passed over for the draft?

I'm not an idealist with fuzzy wuzzy paragon beliefs. I'm a realist, and the reality is life isn't fair .Thinking otherwise is naive. Having power means you get to make choices. Sparring friends and especially family when other choices are available is one of the perks of having power.

That does not answer the question. Just because you are a realist does not mean you can not diferentiate between something being right or wrong.

[mosor]

sanadawarrior wrote...

mosor wrote...

sanadawarrior wrote...

mosor wrote...

sanadawarrior wrote...


If it was ok to kill your family for the greater good then you wouldn't try to stop them. This is precisely why this sort of thing should not be allowed, if you arent willing to make the sacrifice then you sure as hell shouldn't be able to decide that I have to in your stead.

Nonsense. People have been killing others for far less vital matters since the dawn of time. Religion, land, money, adultery, being an albino ect ect ect. Not wanting to hurt your family is natural and human even if there are bigger things at stake. People sacrificing others not related to them, whether to steal a  goat, grab their women, steal their gold is sad, but it's also the natural state of affairs. If you are strong and have power, then you are able to decide to sacrifice others and spare your family for the greater good. This happens all the time. Rich powerful people got their sons out of the draft or sent to national guard duty, instead of fighting in Vietnam with the poor and minorities.

Just because it happens does not make it right, or that it should happen. Or do you believe just because someone is a senator it is ok for their child to get passed over for the draft?

I'm not an idealist with fuzzy wuzzy paragon beliefs. I'm a realist, and the reality is life isn't fair .Thinking otherwise is naive. Having power means you get to make choices. Sparring friends and especially family when other choices are available is one of the perks of having power.

That does not answer the question. Just because you are a realist does not mean you can not diferentiate between something being right or wrong.

Right and wrong and morality in general is subjective, It's not absolute. Is it right to sacrifice the few for the survival of the many? Yes. Is it morally right for you to spare friends and family if you have the option of sacrificing someone else? I think so. Subjectively, my friends and family have more value to me than someone I hate or don't know. Would I sacrifice my friends, and family if there were no other options? In a heartbeat. Would I sacrifice myself too? Of course.

[Dean_the_Young]

[quote]sanadawarrior wrote...

[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...

You reach an invalid conclusion: you assume that since I would not support something during a period of extreme duress, it would not happen and that I am a hypocrite.[/quote]

Actualy that is the definition of hypocricy, the duress is caused because it affects you. If its ok to sacrifice my family because it does not affect you then that is quite the double standard.
[quote]Incorrect. It would be hypocricy if I felt the standard I hold others by does not apply to myself. I do.

My standard, if you do not understand it, accepts that people are emotional. I expect, or at least anticipate the possibility, of myself being unwilling to go along with the greater good if it hurts personally, just as I expect the same from others. And when that personal influence is in opposition, I expect it to be (or perhaps not, case depending) to be overruled by those not so involved. I can do this for others: others can do it for me.

[quote]
The long term is that your family is now dead to fuel an experiment that may or may not have yielded anything useful. If you are ok with that then please let us know.[/quote]As has already been addressed, my being ok with it is irrelevant to whether it should happen. I apply to a system which I do not dominate, as should you.

[quote]
It matters alot, do you have the willpower to run a fatal experiment on your child to help humanity? If you dont then you sure as hell shouldn't say my child has to in your childs place.[/quote]I have the willpower and the wisdom to say you have a better grounds to make hard choices for my children than I do, and that I am a compromised party after a point. Most every country which mandates universal education, vaccinations, and even juvenile justice systems accepts that a parent's desires for their children can be and are outweighed by social wants and needs.


[quote]
Oh so does the human goverment hold elections to see if the Illusive man should continue to be in charge of cerberus? Can the populace write their congressman to protest and shut down cerberus? I doubt it.

[/quote]The Alliance has elections. As a representative democracy (of sorts), the democratic legitimacy stems from there.

It does make me curious as to your country of origin: I'm not aware of any major Western nation in which direct referendum determins the leadership of classified, or even non-classified, ministries and agencies. The European Union, for example, is famous for the influence and weight of it's unelected beuracrats.

[sanadawarrior]

mosor wrote...

sanadawarrior wrote...

mosor wrote...

sanadawarrior wrote...

mosor wrote...

sanadawarrior wrote...


If it was ok to kill your family for the greater good then you wouldn't try to stop them. This is precisely why this sort of thing should not be allowed, if you arent willing to make the sacrifice then you sure as hell shouldn't be able to decide that I have to in your stead.

Nonsense. People have been killing others for far less vital matters since the dawn of time. Religion, land, money, adultery, being an albino ect ect ect. Not wanting to hurt your family is natural and human even if there are bigger things at stake. People sacrificing others not related to them, whether to steal a  goat, grab their women, steal their gold is sad, but it's also the natural state of affairs. If you are strong and have power, then you are able to decide to sacrifice others and spare your family for the greater good. This happens all the time. Rich powerful people got their sons out of the draft or sent to national guard duty, instead of fighting in Vietnam with the poor and minorities.

Just because it happens does not make it right, or that it should happen. Or do you believe just because someone is a senator it is ok for their child to get passed over for the draft?

I'm not an idealist with fuzzy wuzzy paragon beliefs. I'm a realist, and the reality is life isn't fair .Thinking otherwise is naive. Having power means you get to make choices. Sparring friends and especially family when other choices are available is one of the perks of having power.

That does not answer the question. Just because you are a realist does not mean you can not diferentiate between something being right or wrong.

Right and wrong and morality in general is subjective, It's not absolute. Is it right to sacrifice the few for the survival of the many? Yes. Is it morally right for you to spare friends and family if you have the option of sacrificing someone else? I think so. Subjectively, my friends and family have more value to me than someone I hate or don't know. Would I sacrifice my friends, and family if there were no other options? In a heartbeat. Would I sacrifice myself too? Of course.

I don't, but then again if I were the senator in question I would let my son get drafted and I'm sure many think that would be reprehensible. I agree with the rest of what you said though.