If 100 people needs to die to save 100000 people..

[Surreptishus]

Except that the pen with which they sign the treaty is really a bomb...

Edited January 27, 2007 by Surreptishus

[Tale]

Right before battle they'd probably just realize that it was all just a wacky misunderstanding, and then sign a peace treaty or something.

Then what would I do with my ammo and pointy thing?

[Volourn]

"If the 100 are pedophiles that have harmed children, then no they have no rights to defend themselves!"

 

Sure, they do. To me, the right of keeping one's self alive is a fundamental right. I don't care how evil the individual is.

[kumquatq3]

Whichever group I'm in, give me lots of ammo, and then something sharp for when I run out.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

With such a sharp wit, would you really need a knife to wound your opponents? "

[Tale]

Whichever group I'm in, give me lots of ammo, and then something sharp for when I run out.

 

With such a sharp wit, would you really need a knife to wound your opponents? >_

I'm a dual wielder.

[kumquatq3]

Whichever group I'm in, give me lots of ammo, and then something sharp for when I run out.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

With such a sharp wit, would you really need a knife to wound your opponents? "

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm a dual wielder.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

[Pop]

is Eddo in a midlife crisis?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think he's just afraid to make a straight topic about the war in Iraq. All the interchangeable threads he's made have been thinly veiled questions about it. This one is about the insurgency, I guess.

[metadigital]

Careful, you don't want to confront EdD'Oh with his nature or he'll disappear and something more complex will appear in his place ... like a sea cucumber

[Hildegard]

Yeah you could use that theory...let's say attack Iran and cause tens of thousands of deaths, many more wounded...because 'you' believe the Iranian regime is going to kill a lot more....and base your belief on some tough evidence as such actors usually do. :D

[alanschu]

A pretty good example would probably be the situation that the soldiers were in in Saving Private Ryan.  Did it really make sense to risk the lives of a platoon of men in order to save one soldier?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

risking your life to save another's, and fighting to save your own, are two different things

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Did you actually read my post?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

yes...

 

weren't we discussing the right to defend yourself, though?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

My comments were directed towards taks' observation that the idea "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" was motivated by socialist politics. I was giving an example about how it can still be an issue without socialism being present.

[~Di]

The question sounds to me as if it could refer to human sacrifice. After all, certain cultures believed it was okay to murder a few folks for the good of the community.

 

Now if someone volunteers to sacrifice themselves in order to save 1,000 of their compadres (as do those who willingly throw themselves on a grenade or perform some equally courageous act to save others), that's one thing. But the act of throwing an unwilling person onto the grenade is simply an act of murder.

 

That seems rather simple to me.

[Sand]

Socialism, like Capitalism, can work if one doesn't take it to extremes in my ever so humble opinion.

 

Here's another question... If you had the ability to travel in time and givent he opportunity to kill Adolf Hitler as a child would you do it?

Edited January 27, 2007 by Sand

[Arkan]

Socialism, like Capitalism, can work if one doesn't take it to extremes in my ever so humble opinion.

 

Here's another question...  If you had the ability to travel in time and givent he opportunity to kill Adolf Hitler as a child would you do it?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

No.

[Eddo36]

But the act of throwing an unwilling person onto the grenade is simply an act of murder.

 

That seems rather simple to me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

And if it is for the greater good, would it still be called murder?

 

And if it is called murder, then would the word "murder" really be such a bad thing?

Edited January 27, 2007 by Eddo36

[Tale]

But the act of throwing an unwilling person onto the grenade is simply an act of murder.

 

That seems rather simple to me.

 

And if it is for the greater good, would it still be called murder?

 

And if it is called murder, then would the word "murder" really be such a bad thing?

Depends, can you convince 12 people that it was justified?

[Arkan]

But the act of throwing an unwilling person onto the grenade is simply an act of murder.

 

That seems rather simple to me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

And if it is for the greater good, would it still be called murder?

 

And if it is called murder, then would the word "murder" really be such a bad thing?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Depends, can you convince 12 people that it was justified?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, it depends on your definition of murder, really. If you throw an innocent granny walking across the street onto a grenade (we'll assume for argument's sake that she is unwilling to lob herself onto the explosive), that's pretty much murder, and I don't see how you could rationalize it any other way. However, if you find yourself in hand to hand combat with an enemy in a time of war, and a grenade lands near the two of you, throwing him on the grenade doesn't seem so murderous.

[~Di]

But the act of throwing an unwilling person onto the grenade is simply an act of murder.

 

That seems rather simple to me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

And if it is for the greater good, would it still be called murder?

 

Of course it would. Murder is murder.

 

And if it is called murder, then would the word "murder" really be such a bad thing?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Of course it is. Murder is always a bad thing. At least murder is always a bad thing in this particular society as far as the law goes. Unless you wish to split hairs between governmentally-sanctioned execution after a legal trial, a killing in self-defense or in defense of others, and the bald-faced homocide you referred to when you said that those 100 people "needed" to die in order for the 100,000 others to live. That question presumed that one person stood in one spot, and 1,000 other people stood in the other spot; and that if the single person was murdered, the 1,000 other people would not be murdered. But in the single person was not murdered, then 1,000 other people would be murdered. Your question was basically, does preventing 1,000 from suffering cold-blooded murder justify the murder of one person? My answer, only if the one person being murdered is the person who plans to murder the other thousand.

 

It's not a philosophically-deep question, and it is either an attempt to justify human sacrifice as a culture, or it's a not-so-subtle jab at the war in Iraq. Either way, murder is murder and murder is wrong. Now killing the bloodthirsty thug who is standing there with a machine gun ready to murder people would be, in my mind, a matter of justifiable homicide, killing in the defense of self and others... not murder.

 

It's simple. Just scan a lawbook and ye shall have your answers.

[alanschu]

And those 100 people hates those other 100,000 people, do those 100 people have the right to defend themselves?

 

All I'm asking for is if they have the moral right to try to defend themselves, whether it is a lost cause or not.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Why wouldn't they?

[taks]

Socialism, like Capitalism, can work if one doesn't take it to extremes in my ever so humble opinion.

uh, not true. first of all socialism IS an extreme. there is no such thing as "partial socialism." socialism fails, and always will. you can use capitalistic gains to support socialism, but socialism cannot survive by itself. it will ultimately always bankrupt any society that actually attempts to implement it. the less socialistic aspects a country has, the more prosperous it will be (assuming there are resources to exploit). even sweden has now decided they can no longer handle the brain drain, and 20% unemployment, and they're going to start cutting benefits... not a surprise.

 

Here's another question...  If you had the ability to travel in time and givent he opportunity to kill Adolf Hitler as a child would you do it?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

if you could, you'd change a different timeline, so it wouldn't matter.

 

btw, this 100 vs. 100000 question depends upon whom you are asking.

 

if you ask the 100 to make the decision, either you live or the 100000 live, they should choose themselves. if you ask the 100000, vice versa. self-preservation is the right, nay requirement, of any living thing.

 

taks

[Tale]

Star Trek is socialist. Are you saying that we'll never get to live on the Enterprise? :'(

[alanschu]

if you could, you'd change a different timeline, so it wouldn't matter.

 

Oh?

[Dark_Raven]

This thread is strange.

[taks]

Star Trek is socialist.  Are you saying that we'll never get to live on the Enterprise? :'(

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

star trek is like, utopian...

 

taks

[Sand]

There are some things that need to be socialized in my opinion. Things like what the population needs as a whole on a constant basis. Utilities, medical care, and the like. Basic needs being fulfilled so of thing. Extra stuff like entertainment, toys, luxuries, and the like should be held privately in a competitive market for they aren't needed for basic human living.

 

Also murder is defined as a killing of an individual unsanctioned by a government. If the government sanctioned the death of those individuals, right or wrong, it wouldn't be murder.

[Arkan]

There are some things that need to be socialized in my opinion.  Things like what the population needs as a whole on a constant basis.  Utilities, medical care, and the like.  Basic needs being fulfilled so of thing.  Extra stuff like entertainment, toys, luxuries, and the like should be held privately in a competitive market for they aren't needed for basic human living.

 

Also murder is defined as a killing of an individual unsanctioned by a government.  If the government sanctioned the death of those individuals, right or wrong, it wouldn't be murder.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Government definitions are used simply for legal purposes.