416 réponses à ce sujet

[dan107]

stofsk wrote...
Is your wall of ignorance particularly thick today? Because I swear you're either ignoring my points or just messing with me.

Or perhaps you're not making valid points and thus resorting to personal insults? I point to ways that you're contradicting yourself, but you aren't responding.

Quite clear. Consequentialists argue that if the outcome is good, the action preceding it must be good. And the corroloary to that is, if the actions taken are good, the outcome must be good - hence the phrase, the ends justify the means. If an action is bad it will lead to bad outcome. If an action is 'mostly bad' but is aimed at prevented a 'worse bad' then the outcome is better, but not necessarily a good one. Deontologists argue that the action itself has a kind of 'rightness' or 'wrongness' to it, independent of the outcome. The fact you think an action 'in and of itself' can be moral, shows you don't understand consequentialism.

And you don't seem to understand simple logic. You state in one sentence "if the actions taken are good" and then proceed to claim that an action cannot be moral in and of itself in another. That is a logical contradiction. What is a "good" action if not one that's moral in and of itself?

At any rate, I think we're about done here. I'm not going to continue a debate with someone who lacks the self-control to refrain from personal insults.

[Stofsk]

dan107 wrote...

stofsk wrote...
Is your wall of ignorance particularly thick today? Because I swear you're either ignoring my points or just messing with me.

Or perhaps you're not making valid points and thus resorting to personal insults? I point to ways that you're contradicting yourself, but you aren't responding.

Laughable. It's also bad form and insulting to ignore someone's points and repeat yourself ad nauseum. And pointing out how you're ignoring someone is a personal attack? The comedy writes itself.

And you don't seem to understand simple logic. You state in one sentence "if the actions taken are good" and then proceed to claim that an action cannot be moral in and of itself in another. That is a logical contradiction. What is a "good" action if not one that's moral in and of itself?

A good action is one that leads to a good outcome - like I've been saying for the last dozen goddamn posts! There is no goddamn logical contradiction.

At any rate, I think we're about done here. I'm not going to continue a debate with someone who lacks the self-control to refrain from personal insults.

And I won't debate someone who is dishonest and misrepresents the other's arguments.

[dan107]

stofsk wrote...
Laughable. It's also bad form and insulting to ignore someone's points and repeat yourself ad nauseum. And pointing out how you're ignoring someone is a personal attack?

The "wall of ignorance" comment is a personal attack.

Consequentialists argue that if the outcome is good, the action preceding it must be good.

Saving all life in the galaxy is a good outcome. Correct? No arguement?

Thus by your logic, by what you JUST said in the sentence I quoted, if the preceding action to accomplish that is killing billions of people, it MUST be a good action. If you can find some way to disagree with this or to claim misrepresentation, I don't know what to say to you.

Modifié par dan107, 04 février 2010 - 02:55 .

[Fredgtrer]

stofsk wrote...

dan107 wrote...

So to bring this back to what you said earlier "if the means are evil, or immoral, then the outcome will be immoral." If you maintain that, as well as that killing Hitler to prevent his murders is evil, you are committed to the position that the outcome of preventing Hitler's mass murders is evil as well. Obviously that's not the case. Your position is logically inconsistent.

Strawman distortion. Killing Hitler to prevent WW2 is a classic example of choosing the lesser of two evils. The outcome of preventing WW2 (if it's a given that killing Hitler would prevent WW2) outweighs the immoral act of murdering someone before he is guilty of the crimes he will commit later on in life. But it doesn't negate it. There is no inconsistency.

What's stopping you from presenting a more realistic dilemma that's applicable to the situation?

Which situation? If your goal is get someone to admit they're happy to kill one person to save ten, because it's a bargain, you won't get it from me. See above; the moral outcome of saving 10 people outweighs the act of killing that 1 person, but it doesn't negate it. This all began when you said you'd happily sacrifice half of the galaxy if it would save the other half. Its like you're obsessed with the idea that anything excuses an end that you see as correct, failing to realise that 'the ends justify the means' is pure consequentialist thinking, which I've been advocating. The ends do justify the means; if the means are moral, so too will the ends.

Killing Hitler and stopping WW2 may have been worse than letting WW2 carry on

[dan107]

Fredgtrer wrote...
Killing Hitler and stopping WW2 may have been worse than letting WW2 carry on

That's why I say that introducing uncertainty into a dilemma reduces its value for moral analysis.

[senojones]

To save billions more. Did you not just admit that it would be justifiable to kill one person to save millions? Is it the numbers that you have the problem with here, i.e. it's ok to kill 1 to save millions, but it's not ok to kill billions to prevent twice as many from dying?

Killing billions to safe future billions, sounds like you did nothing.

[Stofsk]

dan107 wrote...

stofsk wrote...
Laughable. It's also bad form and insulting to ignore someone's points and repeat yourself ad nauseum. And pointing out how you're ignoring someone is a personal attack?

The "wall of ignorance" comment is a personal attack.

No more than completely ignoring my posts is a deliberate insult.

Saving all life in the galaxy is a good outcome. Correct? No arguement?

Depends on how you save all life in the galaxy. By definition, you can't save ALL life in the galaxy by sacrificing HALF of it deliberately.

Thus by your logic, by what you JUST said in the sentence I quoted, if the preceding action to accomplish that is killing billions of people, it MUST be a good action.

No, it mustn't. It's a terrible action, because it leads to the deaths billions of people. How can this possibly be a good outcome ffs?

For the final time. If you commit an evil action towards a 'good' outcome, the good outcome doesn't negate the evil action you took. You think that murdering billions of people to save an equal number is a good outcome? I see it as mass murder, and it will always be a part of the outcome. You will have saved billions of people... by killing billions more. The ends do justify the means - how you save the galaxy matters, if you want to call yourself moral. You're either a deontologist, and an action can be good or bad independent of whatever outcome takes place, or you're a consequentialist, where the outcome is ultimately what determines whether an action is good or bad.

If you can find some way to disagree with this or to claim misrepresentation, I don't know what to say to you.

Don't say anything. I couldn't care what you think. You've strawmanned me and i don't appreciate that. You ignore my posts and repeated yourself like a broken record, and you've displayed an ignorance of ethical philosophy which is funny because you insist on debating me over it. There is no further point to this.

Modifié par stofsk, 04 février 2010 - 03:09 .

[jxd73]

Yes some of your crew **** about it, but that's why they aren't in charge.

[tmp7704]

senojones wrote...

Killing billions to safe future billions, sounds like you did nothing.

The billions you save have free future to grow. And if the alternative is all of them just getting wiped out instead... well.

edit: It doesn't have to be billions really. If you have to sacrifice one person so another one can live, when the alternative is both of them dying, can you really condemn the choice to save at least one of them? (a certain dilemma from ME comes to mind here)

Modifié par tmp7704, 04 février 2010 - 03:17 .

[dan107]

stofsk wrote...
if the outcome is good, the action preceding it must be good.

stofsk wrote...
If you commit an evil action towards a 'good' outcome, the good outcome doesn't negate the evil action you took.

I take it that you don't consider this a contradiction either?

And FYI holding up your statements side by side to show that they are contradictory and illogical is not "strawmaning".

There is no further point to this.

One thing we can agree on.

[KnightofPhoenix]

jxd73 wrote...

Yes some of your crew **** about it, but that's why they aren't in charge.

Bingo.

[dan107]

jxd73 wrote...

Yes some of your crew **** about it, but that's why they aren't in charge.

Pretty much all of them **** about it. Whiners..

[Kudara]

Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien wrote...

Offkorn wrote...

Do note that only the Normandy can currently travel through the Relay and even reach the base....

Oh really...

Might want to watch this then...

Oh look a bunch of Cerberus ships appearing at the base, find it interesting that I've only seen this on one of the endings where shep dies whereas on the one where lives it just shows TIM looking at the base.

Figures that the IL would make sure that Shepard did not in fact have the only means of going thru the relay.  He just let the Normandy bet he ship that tested it.

Thats a chilling ending.

[Stofsk]

dan107 wrote...

stofsk wrote...
if the outcome is good, the action preceding it must be good.

stofsk wrote...
If you commit an evil action towards a 'good' outcome, the good outcome doesn't negate the evil action you took.

I take it that you don't consider this a contradiction either?

No you twit. You can't pat yourself on the back for a job well done for saving the galaxy after killing half of it. Those statements are not my argument, they're strategic selections posted out of context - which is a goddamn strawman distortion. You'll note I put the word 'good' in inverted commas - this is to show that it wasn't a good outcome, but a 'good' outcome - meaning not a good outcome at all, if an evil act was what caused it. Christ. How goddamn hard is it for you understand that the relationship between an outcome of an action and the act itself is such that the former determines whether the latter is a moral action? Outcome based ethics 101.

EDIT: you know what, the above can be simplified with the old saying 'the road to hell is paved with good intentions'.

There is no further point to this.

One thing we can agree on.

So why are you still replying? You obviously can't let it go.

Modifié par stofsk, 04 février 2010 - 03:33 .

[senojones]

LOL. People are actually trying to defend this idea of saving the Collector base with an ending like that?

[dan107]

stofsk wrote...
How goddamn hard is it for you understand that the relationship between an outcome of an action and the act itself is such that the former determines whether the latter is a moral action? Outcome based ethics 101.

I agree with that completely. How hard is it for you to understand that applying basic logic to that statement leads to the conclusion that the good outcome of preserving organic life from total annihilation makes the act of killing billions to do so morally justifyable?

So why are you still replying? You obviously can't let it go.

Neither can you evidently.

[tmp7704]

stofsk wrote...

You can't pat yourself on the back for a job well done for saving the galaxy after killing half of it.

This would depend on how big part of the galaxy you can actually save. If the half of it is all that's possible then yes, it does seem reasonable to consider it job well done if you manage to save that much.

Modifié par tmp7704, 04 février 2010 - 03:39 .

[dan107]

senojones wrote...

LOL. People are actually trying to defend this idea of saving the Collector base with an ending like that?

The decision to save the base is made before you have any knowledge of the ending. Taking that into account is meta-gaming.

[tmp7704]

senojones wrote...

LOL. People are actually trying to defend this idea of saving the Collector base with an ending like that?

Yeah, couple ships and a man smiling after just scoring a major victory clearly spells doom for the world compared to horde of Reapers descending upon the galaxy in the meantime.

[KnightofPhoenix]

tmp7704 wrote...

senojones wrote...

LOL. People are actually trying to defend this idea of saving the Collector base with an ending like that?

Yeah, couple ships and a man smiling after just scoring a major victory clearly spells doom for the world compared to horde of Reapers descending upon the galaxy in the meantime.

Spoke my mind. TIM should have cried instead for people to feel comfortable.

[senojones]

I agree with that completely. How hard is it for you to understand that applying basic logic to that statement leads to the conclusion that the good outcome of preserving organic life from total annihilation makes the act of killing billions to do so morally justifyable?

It isn't justifiable, you will spend the rest of your existence ashamed and alone, you'll be a broken man the rest of your life. Logic won't save you from the billions of faces that will haunt your dreams till the day you die.

[jmood88]

senojones wrote...

LOL. People are actually trying to defend this idea of saving the Collector base with an ending like that?

An ending which convieniently only happens when Shepard is dead.

[dan107]

senojones wrote...
It isn't justifiable, you will spend the rest of your existence ashamed and alone, you'll be a broken man the rest of your life. Logic won't save you from the billions of faces that will haunt your dreams till the day you die.

Assuming that those suppositions are true, spending the rest of your life miserable and alone is not a sacrifice that you would make to save the human species?

[dan107]

jmood88 wrote...

senojones wrote...

LOL. People are actually trying to defend this idea of saving the Collector base with an ending like that?

An ending which convieniently only happens when Shepard is dead.

Maybe those are rescue ships, coming to resurrect him again for ME3?

[senojones]

The decision to save the base is made before you have any knowledge of the ending. Taking that into account is meta-gaming.

Oh there was plenty of knowledge of how things would end, don't kid yourself. You are the one that chooses to ignore your morals for the sake of logic.