Quote:
|
Hmm, you just seem to say "It's wrong to kill" without saying much else here
|
I'm not sure what you mean by this. That I'm not saying much about why its wrong to kill people, or that you don't understand my point there and that I am only saying its wrong to kill a person.
My point is that, no matter how much you can justify an action, it is never right to kill a person. The actual act of killing the person cannot be good, regardless of whatever goods are achieved. Even if you traveled back in time and killed hitler, despite all the goods it would accomplish: the actual killing of hitler would be wrong.
If you meant the first part let me know and I'll give you some actual reasons for why it's always wrong to act with the intent to kill
Quote:
|
You have already said that that self defense killing (if it's the last resort before your own death) is "less wrong" than letting yourself die.
|
If by less wrong you mean equally as wrong. In this circumstance, either way, somebody was likely to die or get seriously injured, so as far as wrongness goes it is equal. The thing that makes it partially "Good" is that you were protecting yourself from serious injury.
Quote:
|
We don't choose the wrong or the less wrong option, it's wrong or right. It might be the lesser of two evils, but it's still the right one to choose.... I think it can be right to kill if you can justify it first. So, if you can prove it's right, then it's right.
|
I guess.
Quote:
|
Ok, so a blanket moral statement like "less deaths are good" might be needed to justify a war.
|
Is that a good justification? So a small population is being exterminated by a neighbor with vastly superior numbers but they are jerk racists and just think those other persons are inferior. There will be less deaths if you just let them exterminate that populace.
Is that a just war decision on our part? Certainly, if we went to war to save this small population, there would be more deaths than if we didn't go to war. So that would make that war to save the small population, according to this justification, wrong.
Quote:
|
What counts as justification? Well, if you can convince yourself truthfully, and the population, and outside observers that your course of action is the lesser evil, then that is justified. Do what you think is the right thing to do, that's all I'm saying. The vast majority of people do anyway.
|
What?
This is contradictory.
Quote:
|
Sorry, according to my morals. My main point is personal morals; if you can justify it, do it. That's not a free reign to do what you want, it's a reason to make sure what you want to do is right not only by you but by the majority of others.
|
But you can justify anything. And justify it in front of others? Lots of people were behind the Iraq war.
Your view of morality is confusing at best. In a sense, honestly, I agree with doing what you think is right, even if it means killing somebody. But people aren't going to agree with you universally about it, and you're not going to have any ability to know the universal opinion on an act.
Shit just look at the capital punishment debate. Tons of people want it, tons of people don't. So what do you do?
I would say fuck what other people think and do what you think is right, but you're telling me it needs to be right in the eyes of others and have universal consent but at the same time i should do what i want personal morality.
and how does all of this fit into capital punishment anyway? We should what pick one dude in america and let him use his personal morality to decide if the guy should live or die? of course according to what everybody else in the world thinks.
Linear Mode
