News:

Departing the Vacuousness

Main Menu

is it right to choose the lesser evil?

Started by billy rubin, December 30, 2021, 05:15:15 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

No one

If you make the decision to willfully rob someone of their will, you are now worthless. You no longer are considered human. You are expendable.

I have zero pity for anyone who commits such atrocities.


billy rubin



more people have been to berlin than i have

No one

If you do something to someone who doesn't want that something done to them.

billy rubin

sure

but you said earlier that you would torture pedophiles, which would probably violate their will.

im not disagreeing, just observing that something deeper is going on there


more people have been to berlin than i have

No one

I think you are missing my point.

Once you make a conscious decision to harm another human being, you forfeit any and all rights to complain if you are now purposely harmed.

billy rubin

no, i understand your position. equal treatment and equal responsibility.

but all moral systems like that rely on a system of values of some sort. if two people agree that the system applies to both of them, then you can have a relationship on that basis. anything else results in either just disagreement, or somebody getting forced.

in the country of pedophiles, for example, you might spend most of your time in jail for objecting to pedophilia. child marriage is legal and acceptable in places like iran, afghanistan, india, massachusetts (12), new hampshire (13), hawaii (15) and missouri (15).

you might consider it pedophilia, but there its considered normal.


more people have been to berlin than i have

Old Seer

Quote from: billy rubin on January 01, 2022, 08:31:35 PM
no, i understand your position. equal treatment and equal responsibility.

but all moral systems like that rely on a system of values of some sort. if two people agree that the system applies to both of them, then you can have a relationship on that basis. anything else results in either just disagreement, or somebody getting forced.

in the country of pedophiles, for example, you might spend most of your time in jail for objecting to pedophilia. child marriage is legal and acceptable in places like iran, afghanistan, india, massachusetts (12), new hampshire (13), hawaii (15) and missouri (15).

you might consider it pedophilia, but there its considered normal.
Create a common denominator. Go back to a time of no cognitive beings (people), Would there be right and wrong, no. Lions, tigers, bears and zebras have little concept of right and wrong, but they are susceptible to good and evil. Lions do evil upon Zebras by killing for sustenance. The Lion does what's "good" for itself by an evil upon the Zebra. The Zebra eats grass which is good for the Zebra but harmful to the grass. Evil and good then relates to bio-structures. Breaking a rock cannot be evil to a rock, the rock has no concept of good and evil or right and wrong. That makes good and evil right and wrong relative only to bio-structures. Plants for the most part have no nervous system to experience pain, so they don't comprehend good and evil, or right and wrong.

The universe cannot be evil or good to itself, but from it's resources bio-structures were created---it's the bio-structures that experience good and evil because of painful experience or loss , but that doesn't make right or wrong. Right and wrong has been reserved for cognitive beings to decide for themselves, but good and evil rules in all cases. Good is derived from and evil upon someone else, and evil can be derived from good, the two are a universal constant---one cannot be without without the other, it's universal law that all are subject to.
The only thing possible the world needs saving from are the ones running it.
Oh lord, save us from those wanting to save us.
I'm not a Theist
https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Ecurb Noselrub

Quote from: billy rubin on January 01, 2022, 01:29:32 PM
thats the old utilitarian view, greatest good for the greatest number.

but then is it okay to oppress a minority to make the majority better off?

But where is the choice between two evils there? Don't oppress the minority and there is no "evil" at all. It is not a choice between two evils.

If you have two evils that we agree are evil, then I agree with Tank that the lesser evil is better. How to decide what is "lesser" can be a problem. That will all depend on how much weight you place on the consequences of each evil. For example, if the choice is Donald Trump for President or some incompetent Democrat, then the choice for me is clear - I am voting for the Dem, as I consider Trump to be a much greater evil.

But whether to silence a crying baby by killing it or reveal the location of the whole group who are trying to escape the Nazis might be a more difficult situation. If they are revealed, the Nazis would probably kill the baby along with the whole group. So there it may come down to a simple utilitarian calculation.

Icarus


Bad Penny II

Take my advice, don't listen to me.

billy rubin

Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on January 18, 2022, 01:07:29 AM

But whether to silence a crying baby by killing it or reveal the location of the whole group who are trying to escape the Nazis might be a more difficult situation. If they are revealed, the Nazis would probably kill the baby along with the whole group. So there it may come down to a simple utilitarian calculation.

i am always skeptical of utilitarianism, because it so often seems to be th eeasy way out: don't think, don't look deeply, just do whatever it takes to make everybody superficially happy in the moment . . .

because its the nature of utilitarianism to deny meaning, and if meaning is true then utilitarianism is superficial. in the discussion of nihilism/existientialism/absurdism, utilitarianism is the simple rejection of the question itself. faced with the dilemma of acting according to an underlying moral framework, the utilitarian will seek a situational resolution,

im bemused by the question, personally, because i reject meaning in any context other than an absurdist acceptance of something i dont believe in as a guide to my actions.

so the question is still there for me. in the end it doesnt matter, but what if it did?


more people have been to berlin than i have

Ecurb Noselrub

Quote from: billy rubin on January 21, 2022, 05:16:51 PM

so the question is still there for me. in the end it doesnt matter, but what if it did?

If it did matter, what meaning or significance would you attach to it, and why?  Kill the baby and save the group, or let the baby cry and cause the whole group, including the baby, to die. What choice would you make, assuming it mattered?

billy rubin

#27
i dont see a moral difference between killing the baby and allowing the group to die.

causing one death is the same as causing a million deaths, insofar as making a decision to kill is concerned. there is no lesser evil, unless right and wrong is additive, like football scores. is stealing one dollar less wrong than stealing two dollars? or is the important thing making a decision to steal?

i see no meaning or significance to either choice.

i honestly dont know what i would do. being hardwired by evolution is one thing, but i am free to depart from its constraints if i choose.

back when i was religious questions like yours were easier for me, because i believed in right and wrong.


more people have been to berlin than i have