Would you do it?

[Violet]

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?

How can you not justify that as a moral decision? Morality is what we make of it... what sort of ridiculous meter of 'how x' morals must be are you using that I am not?

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?

Fairness is receiving what you put out. If you put out and receive nothing: that is unfair.

Deservence is a measure of how much you put out. If someone wins a lottery, they put out next to nothing for it... they do not deserve any of that money.

Life isn't fair though.

[Chris_Zee_Great]

He would find himself going the way of Franz Reichelt.

[theVOID]

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?

How can you not justify that as a moral decision? Morality is what we make of it... what sort of ridiculous meter of 'how x' morals must be are you using that I am not?

I disagree that morality is "What we make of it" - That can be applied to our individual values, but morality is a subset of value theory dealing with conflicting values, something is either morally good or morally bad relative to other values and those propositions like "x is morally good" are either true or false - Anyway, I fail to see how killing a person simply to transfer resources can be seen as being of a positive moral value, sure it's good for the individual getting the resources, but it's worse for the person who is losing both their resources and their life - They loose more than you gain. It's good for the individual in precisely the same way that raping a child is good for a pedophile.

I might make a thread about it later, it's way too long winded for here.

Fairness is receiving what you put out. If you put out and receive nothing: that is unfair.

No, fairness is being treated equally, there is no cosmic fairness and no measure of fair or unfair outside the interactions of sentient beings. If you put time and effort into a business or product that ends up being a failure while someone else comes up with an idea off the top of their head and is successful there is nothing unfair about it, they simply had a good idea and you did not.

Deservence is a measure of how much you put out. If someone wins a lottery, they put out next to nothing for it... they do not deserve any of that money.

Life isn't fair though.

So if someone puts lots of effort into banging their head on a wall they "deserve" as much as someone who paints fences?

I'd argue that a lottery winner absolutely does deserve that money just as much as it's possible to deserve something - They entered into an agreement for which they stood to gain and did so, it would only be unfair if they took the ticket to the counter and were told "Sorry, but you haven't put enough out".

[Cinjin]

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?

How can you not justify that as a moral decision? Morality is what we make of it... what sort of ridiculous meter of 'how x' morals must be are you using that I am not?

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?

Fairness is receiving what you put out. If you put out and receive nothing: that is unfair.

Deservence is a measure of how much you put out. If someone wins a lottery, they put out next to nothing for it... they do not deserve any of that money.

Life isn't fair though.

jesus tapdancing christ Sae! If I were one of your friends I would NEVER let you walk behind me with a weapon. god only knows what you'd do if you decided you could gain something by committing an act that only you deem morally justified.
I already had you graded at a D- on the "morality scale", but I gotta tell you, I think I have to downgrade you to an F. Mostly because ... you're completely serious.

[Violet]

I disagree that morality is "What we make of it" - That can be applied to our individual values, but morality is a subset of value theory dealing with conflicting values, something is either morally good or morally bad relative to other values and those propositions like "x is morally good" are either true or false - Anyway, I fail to see how killing a person simply to transfer resources can be seen as being of a positive moral value, sure it's good for the individual getting the resources, but it's worse for the person who is losing both their resources and their life - They loose more than you gain. It's good for the individual in precisely the same way that raping a child is good for a pedophile.

Well that is very sad of you then, since morals are relative. And individual.

That you fail to see how killing a person for x reason can be seen as being of positive moral value... is entirely you. Murder of entire civilizations or species are moral to me in some conditions. That others might consider that moral in other situations detracts not from what morality is (subjective).

They lose more than I gain? By whose measure? Mine, his, or someone else's yet? His life was worth little to me, his possessions worth much. I have gained many hundreds of times more than he has lost. Not like the dead could use those things anyway

And raping a child is possibly entirely moral from a pedophile's POV.

No, fairness is being treated equally, there is no cosmic fairness and no measure of fair or unfair outside the interactions of sentient beings. If you put time and effort into a business or product that ends up being a failure while someone else comes up with an idea off the top of their head and is successful there is nothing unfair about it, they simply had a good idea and you did not.

No, equality is inherently unfair. Nothing is less fair then equality.

So if someone puts lots of effort into banging their head on a wall they "deserve" as much as someone who paints fences?

They deserve a larger headache than someone who inhaled the fumes of paint while painting a fence.

I'd argue that a lottery winner absolutely does deserve that money just as much as it's possible to deserve something - They entered into an agreement for which they stood to gain and did so, it would only be unfair if they took the ticket to the counter and were told "Sorry, but you haven't put enough out".

They put out the little energy it took to buy the ticket. Lotteries are inherently unfair: they exaggerate the return on a reckless action, for which each of them put out the same level of work, and only one of which walks away with any sort of victory at all.

That the people agreed to partake in an unfair and totally luck-based tournament does not make the tournament fair. Their agreement is fair as any... but the lottery is not.

---

jesus tapdancing christ Sae! If I were one of your friends I would NEVER let you walk behind me with a weapon. god only knows what you'd do if you decided you could gain something by committing an act that only you deem morally justified.
I already had you graded at a D- on the "morality scale", but I gotta tell you, I think I have to downgrade you to an F. Mostly because ... you're completely serious.

Then you don't know so much about me as my friends I am also completely serious that even if a friend of mine owned the world: I would not take from them... unless I was offered a price worth more than they are to me. I value my friend(s) quite highly.

But I'll never kill my own friend to take their stuff. Only to obtain (enough) new stuff would I betray them in any way for... and I have use only for so much.

It is entirely possible that my relationship with some people is worth more to me than having all of the money on the planet... as I already have more than I have a use for.

[Zen Badger]

Yes I would, but only if it was Donald Trump.

(Mainly because of the hair)

[Cinjin]

[/font]

---

I disagree that morality is "What we make of it" - That can be applied to our individual values, but morality is a subset of value theory dealing with conflicting values, something is either morally good or morally bad relative to other values and those propositions like "x is morally good" are either true or false - Anyway, I fail to see how killing a person simply to transfer resources can be seen as being of a positive moral value, sure it's good for the individual getting the resources, but it's worse for the person who is losing both their resources and their life - They loose more than you gain. It's good for the individual in precisely the same way that raping a child is good for a pedophile.

Well that is very sad of you then, since morals are relative. And individual.

That you fail to see how killing a person for x reason can be seen as being of positive moral value... is entirely you. Murder of entire civilizations or species are moral to me in some conditions. That others might consider that moral in other situations detracts not from what morality is (subjective).

They lose more than I gain? By whose measure? Mine, his, or someone else's yet? His life was worth little to me, his possessions worth much. I have gained many hundreds of times more than he has lost. Not like the dead could use those things anyway

And raping a child is possibly entirely moral from a pedophile's POV.

No, fairness is being treated equally, there is no cosmic fairness and no measure of fair or unfair outside the interactions of sentient beings. If you put time and effort into a business or product that ends up being a failure while someone else comes up with an idea off the top of their head and is successful there is nothing unfair about it, they simply had a good idea and you did not.

No, equality is inherently unfair. Nothing is less fair then equality.

So if someone puts lots of effort into banging their head on a wall they "deserve" as much as someone who paints fences?

They deserve a larger headache than someone who inhaled the fumes of paint while painting a fence.

I'd argue that a lottery winner absolutely does deserve that money just as much as it's possible to deserve something - They entered into an agreement for which they stood to gain and did so, it would only be unfair if they took the ticket to the counter and were told "Sorry, but you haven't put enough out".

They put out the little energy it took to buy the ticket. Lotteries are inherently unfair: they exaggerate the return on a reckless action, for which each of them put out the same level of work, and only one of which walks away with any sort of victory at all.

That the people agreed to partake in an unfair and totally luck-based tournament does not make the tournament fair. Their agreement is fair as any... but the lottery is not.

---

jesus tapdancing christ Sae! If I were one of your friends I would NEVER let you walk behind me with a weapon. god only knows what you'd do if you decided you could gain something by committing an act that only you deem morally justified.
I already had you graded at a D- on the "morality scale", but I gotta tell you, I think I have to downgrade you to an F. Mostly because ... you're completely serious.

Then you don't know so much about me as my friends I am also completely serious that even if a friend of mine owned the world: I would not take from them... unless I was offered a price worth more than they are to me. I value my friend(s) quite highly.

But I'll never kill my own friend to take their stuff. Only to obtain (enough) new stuff would I betray them in any way for... and I have use only for so much.

---

[Violet]

and the grade stands ... F

Fantastic is good

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

NO,but not because "I'd never kill anyone". I have no doubt I would kill another human being in self defence and possibly for revenge,but not for personal gain.

The scenario given is morally bankrupt and repugnant to me.

[ib.me.ub]

Hard to answer unless you have actually been in this position. So maybe, don't know.

I you had "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", im sure your outlook on life would be much different.

The obvious answer for us is no, but people do bad things when they have no alternative.

Its like the question; Would you kill a person to feed your family.