I wouldn't do it, to kill someone else for my egotistical purposes. And what a coward move it is to push someone off a cliff...

Furthermore, I don't want to be rich, I just want to live my life, work to fairly own my stuff, so the premise is faulty to me.

(April 25, 2011 at 4:05 pm)Zenith Wrote: This is the scenario: you have somehow lost everything you had - family, friends, house, all money, etc. You're a beggar for some years, barely remaining alive, and there is no way you can change it. Except: it happens once that you get to be on a mountain, and there's also a very rich man there. He is on the edge of a precipice, looking down (there is about 1 km till the bottom of it), and no one else is around. You know that if you push him, he would fall and die, and because he dies, you will somehow get to have all that he has and no one would know that you killed him (that's 100% sure).

So, if you kill him, you will cease to be a beggar, and start living a rich life. If you don't, you'll remain a beggar. All he needs is a push. Would you do it?

NOTE:
1. Don't ask me "how will I get to have all what he has" and stuff. Just assume it is as I said.
2. If you are a theist, or an agnostic, then the scenario is that God does not exist and you know it (because otherwise, you may not kill him for fear of God's punishment). If you can't imagine a scenario in which God does not exist, then don't vote.
3. beggar = you've lived on the streets for years, sleeping while raining on you, being washed only by the rain, starving for days and eating garbage from the garbage containers, with dirty and with ragged dirty cloths that you've been wearing for years.
4. There is no hope of a better future (you're 100% convinced that this is the only opportunity to cease being a homeless beggar). That's because the point is: if you would chose to live the rest of your life as a) a homeless beggar and remain 'innocent', or b) push that man now, knowing that nothing external would punish/accuse you, no one would appreciate/reward you if you do not push him, you'd be living a happy life, struggling to do good in the future and not remember this event.

I'm curios if anyone would vote "no".

[EDITED: added points 3 and 4. I firstly thought that the situation is understood as such by everyone]

I'd be a beggar on a beach of gold.

Then cry myself to sleep.

Oh, happy days.

(April 25, 2011 at 7:32 pm)theVOID Wrote: So you're fine with killing someone to further your own agenda given that:

1. You are in a bad position and
2. They are in a position much better than your own

How can you possibly justify that as a moral decision?

"moral"? what do you understand of "moral"?
look a question:
if you were needed to kill (e.g. with nuclear bombs) 2 million people to save the planet with the rest of its inhabitants, would you do it? it would be you killing 2 million people vs all die but not by your hand; If you killed them, do you think you would afterwards blame yourself or be blamed of committing a genocide? (all know why you did it and that you've saved them). So, would it be "moral" to kill 2 million people?

Anyway, if for a man, "good" is whatever is good for him, and "bad" is whatever is bad for him, then why should it be "bad" for him to kill a rich man? (if nothing bad would ever happen to him). Would you really live the rest of your life as a garbage (eating trash, being always starved, sleeping on garbage, getting and living with lots of diseases, freezing during winter, etc.) only to know that you never killed anybody? Or, what's the difference between killing a rich man in this situation and killing in vengeance/rage somebody that did evil to you? Isn't it "murder" in both situations? Isn't it the "life of a man" in both situations? Or if it's about punishing someone with the death sentence (or killing with your own hands a man that has tortured and killed your own son/daughter), isn't it "the life of a man" we're talking about? If there are situations when you would kill somebody (as you said in a previous post), what is your right to decide who worths to live and who worths to die? Where is the moral in this?? Moreover, what should be "good" and what should be "bad"? and why?

Quote:So because you lost all your wealth in a freak accident, and this man gained all his wealth through, say, the lottery, it would become "fair" for you to murder him? Why? Because you worked hard and gained fuck all in return? How exactly is that "fair"?

Also, someone who wins the lottery deserves "nothing"? Not even their life?

Well, if I was a homeless beggar for years and I got in such a situation, most surely the last thing I could ever think about would be "fair"-ness. Anyway, don't imagine that in my current situation I would kill somebody to gain his wealth, just because he is much richer than me: I have what to eat, where to sleep, I don't freeze to death during winter, etc. so I wouldn't think about killing somebody to get his wealth. On the other hand, I don't believe I'd live for years as a homeless beggar. Most surely I'd kill myself after a week, if I'd see no hope of a better future (better not to live, than to live a garbage life). But, in the rather absurd situation that I lived for years as a homeless beggar without ever deciding to suicide, I wouldn't see things the same way as I see nowadays, and most surely I'd kill that rich man in order for me to have a life once again.

I think it would be cowardice to do so, first and foremost Zenith, so no, again. If it was like 2 people fighting for life or death, I could think about it, but to kill for my personal gain(except survival mode), does not do any real good to me. My knowledge has not advanced, I did nothing to inprove. To me this is meaningless, because to be rich has no value to me.

(May 2, 2011 at 9:49 am)LastPoet Wrote: I think it would be cowardice to do so, first and foremost Zenith, so no, again. If it was like 2 people fighting for life or death, I could think about it, but to kill for my personal gain(except survival mode), does not do any real good to me. My knowledge has not advanced, I did nothing to inprove. To me this is meaningless, because to be rich has no value to me.

ok, for you: each of you has an axe in his hand - it's a duel. You both start screaming as you approach rapidly one towards the other, with the axes held hight. After your first interaction, you start chopping one into another until your fellow rich man dies of too much bleeding. You're the last man standing, ready to get your prize (the whole wealth), but not before you go to the hospital and remain there for a lot of months. Then, you finally return from the hospital happy that you've bravely earned your prize - having scars on all your body while half of your left leg is mechanical.

The non-brave versions was simpler, in few words and few deeds. Anyway, I wonder if you consider an assassin that killed a president from a far-away distance a "coward" for not facing him face-to-face in a spectacular dangerous bloody battle.

"To me this is meaningless, because to be rich has no value to me" - the point is: does being a homeless beggar that is eating trash, being always starved, sleeping on garbage, getting and living with lots of diseases, freezing during winter have a meaning to you? If you'd be a homeless beggar for years, you would see talking a hot bath as a paradise! what about eating even dessert whenever you desire, having parties, and live your life only in joy, parties and happiness, without working? The contrast is big, so you'd probably do it.

A big part of how I live my life is accepting responsibilty for for my actions and coming to terms with how my fate has played out. So, no, I wouldn't make anyone else pay for the state I find myself in.

(May 2, 2011 at 11:06 am)Theistsbane Wrote: A big part of how I live my life is accepting responsibilty for for my actions and coming to terms with how my fate has played out. So, no, I wouldn't make anyone else pay for the state I find myself in.

And yet you necessarily must force others to pay for your existence if you interact with them in any way. There is more to riches than gold on the ground, and more to payment than that which is numbered and obvious.