|
Post by D.E.E. on Feb 23, 2009 18:39:05 GMT -6
actually most of us would turn and run, not taking any action at all. perhaps the dilemma being more like, "why would I inject myself into this lawsuit?". I would base this on the people running into the twin towers and murray buidling vs those running away from them I think most people if confronted with a real similar event would be paralysed with indecision. Especially so if there was little time to think, they were not trained to deal with this sort of 'crisis', and the players involved were unknown to them. People answer these things not just with the truth, they also consider how their answer will be accepted by those performing the test. In this case the only thing riding on the decision is the later; 'If I choose such-and-such will this make me look like a bad person'? That's partly why most people answer 'yes' to the first and 'no' to the second. (You see the same with pre-election polls and the like). They can be useful tools for developing individual thought, but as indicators of overall social morality ... not so much. True this is why I say it is BS and not a real question. It is not dependent on real actions that will (note not may) have a whole range of different things happening at the time.
|
|
|
Post by gman on Feb 23, 2009 18:49:15 GMT -6
True G. And I wonder what people would do if their child was say in the group of 5 or was the single person. Would they divert the train to kill 5 if it meant saving their kid.. Yeah. This is why I asked you about what you would do if the guy (fat guy??) was a bad-guy. You said it would be wrong to place one value over another - slippery slope and all. But we DO this all the time, even with the best of intentions to do otherwise. As you say, we value the lives of our children over the lives of strangers, family over others, friends over others, even our own fellow citizens over others. The closer the connection the less of a dilemma we have. However, regardless of how close the connection we are still making a decision to value one life over another. True objective pacifism, equal value for all, is almost impossible in other words. We all have points we just won't cross, things we will do to protect our own, even if that means violating larger principles. Figuring out just where that line is drawn, and why, is important I think.
|
|
|
Post by Matt on Feb 23, 2009 18:56:09 GMT -6
actually most of us would turn and run, not taking any action at all. perhaps the dilemma being more like, "why would I inject myself into this lawsuit?". Especially so in California. Last year a judge out here ruled that the so-called "Good Samaritan" excuse for trying to help, and causing unintended injury or worse, is no longer a valid defense against a civil suit.
|
|
|
Post by missy on Feb 23, 2009 19:45:14 GMT -6
I don't. I view it as justice. You blew it, Missy. Hey Joe..am I not entitled to MY own opinion? Or do I have to believe how others believe here?
|
|
|
Post by missy on Feb 23, 2009 19:50:33 GMT -6
Those are my feelings. This is a pro board. It would be so easy to say, yes it is killing. I see it as justice not killing, as I have said. I guess we will never see eye to eye so lets just leave it at that. If it was not killing and true justice then the death certificates of those executed would say "natural causes-(because what they get is a medically induced heart attack) " or suicide-I can dream buit the fact that it is labled as a homicide makes Kay's point valid about killing. We may say its justice or a justifed killing- just like someone shooting a theif will say its justice- but our views of justice does not come without the underlying premis of killing someone. It is what it is. Do they deserve to die? Everyone will have their own opinions on that question when it comes to murderers-but the fact is it is killing under the law or by the law. Apparently lady justice also holds a syringe. Hi Andie, This thread is an exercise is somantics. I know what you are saying and when you get right down to it..regardless of waht you call it, the inmate is dead. However, when it is the death penalty, it is an execution not killing. It's an execution
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Feb 23, 2009 21:12:17 GMT -6
If it was not killing and true justice then the death certificates of those executed would say "natural causes-(because what they get is a medically induced heart attack) " or suicide-I can dream buit the fact that it is labled as a homicide makes Kay's point valid about killing. We may say its justice or a justifed killing- just like someone shooting a theif will say its justice- but our views of justice does not come without the underlying premis of killing someone. It is what it is. Do they deserve to die? Everyone will have their own opinions on that question when it comes to murderers-but the fact is it is killing under the law or by the law. Apparently lady justice also holds a syringe. Hi Andie, This thread is an exercise is somantics. I know what you are saying and when you get right down to it..regardless of waht you call it, the inmate is dead. However, when it is the death penalty, it is an execution not killing. It's an execution Yes it is an execution. An execution is defined as: putting a condemned person to death Killing is defined as: cause to die; put to death, usually intentionally or knowingly by those two definitions Kay is right in saying that an execution is the same as killing. Different wording same premis. Kay had a really strong point and it is backed up.
|
|
|
Post by missy on Feb 23, 2009 21:19:44 GMT -6
If you look at our society and you consider the law supporting the DP for certain offenses, yes, in essence, it is a killing but it is an execution first and foremost, because of the law.
That is how I feel about it and I am entitled to my opinion.
If it does not coincide with any others opinion, well that's just how it is
|
|
|
Post by Kay on Feb 23, 2009 21:31:32 GMT -6
If you look at our society and you consider the law supporting the DP for certain offenses, yes, in essence, it is a killing but it is an execution first and foremost, because of the law. That is how I feel about it and I am entitled to my opinion. If it does not coincide with any others opinion, well that's just how it is Do you not know the difference between fact and opinion? Your argument is ridiculous, yet you still persist.
|
|
|
Post by Kay on Feb 23, 2009 21:32:43 GMT -6
Hi Andie, This thread is an exercise is somantics. I know what you are saying and when you get right down to it..regardless of waht you call it, the inmate is dead. However, when it is the death penalty, it is an execution not killing. It's an execution Yes it is an execution. An execution is defined as: putting a condemned person to death Killing is defined as: cause to die; put to death, usually intentionally or knowingly by those two definitions Kay is right in saying that an execution is the same as killing. Different wording same premis. Kay had a really strong point and it is backed up. Thank you, Andie, obviously you don't hide your support of capital punishment behind a bunch of stupid semantics, as other try to do.
|
|
|
Post by missy on Feb 23, 2009 21:33:21 GMT -6
Yeah, I know for a fact that is your opinion.
I don't care whether you agree with me or not
That is my opinion and I stand by it
|
|
|
Post by missy on Feb 23, 2009 21:38:41 GMT -6
[ Thank you, Andie, obviously you don't hide your support of capital punishment behind a bunch of stupid semantics, as other try to do. This is a pro board..why would I try to hide my pro stance from other pros? That makes no sense Killing, TO ME, is unlawful based on morals
|
|
|
Post by Kay on Feb 23, 2009 21:38:49 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Kay on Feb 23, 2009 21:42:24 GMT -6
[ Thank you, Andie, obviously you don't hide your support of capital punishment behind a bunch of stupid semantics, as other try to do. This is a pro board..why would I try to hide my pro stance from other pros? That makes no sense Killing, TO ME, is unlawful based on morals Really, war is killing is it not, so based on your opinion, soldiers are immoral.
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Feb 23, 2009 21:44:41 GMT -6
If you look at our society and you consider the law supporting the DP for certain offenses, yes, in essence, it is a killing but it is an execution first and foremost, because of the law. That is how I feel about it and I am entitled to my opinion. If it does not coincide with any others opinion, well that's just how it is Yes, you are entitled to your opinion. Nothing wrong with that. Yes it is an execution- again I have no problem with that. But it is false to assume that the execution is not a form of killing just as it is false to assume that one is always granted immunity for shooting an intruder.
|
|
|
Post by missy on Feb 23, 2009 21:45:12 GMT -6
NO!!!! I think I once told you to thank your son for his service, did I not?
Again, although war results in death, there is a morals which separate soldiers from murderers.
I have said all I am going to say on this subject..obviously, you are trying to start something
Think whatever you want
|
|
|
Post by missy on Feb 23, 2009 21:46:51 GMT -6
This is a pro board..why would I try to hide my pro stance from other pros? That makes no sense Killing, TO ME, is unlawful based on morals Really, war is killing is it not, so based on your opinion, soldiers are immoral. I came back to add your quote to my post and noticed you removed the reference to Chefmate
|
|
|
Post by Kay on Feb 23, 2009 21:52:28 GMT -6
Really, war is killing is it not, so based on your opinion, soldiers are immoral. I came back to add your quote to my post and noticed you removed the reference to Chefmate Yes, I thought I had second thoughts about mentioning her, since she's now banned from this board.
|
|
|
Post by kingsindanger on Feb 23, 2009 22:32:48 GMT -6
I don't see the connection between executing murderers and not deciding which innocent person will die in an accident Many pros claim that the only way to insure that a murderer will not kill more innocent people is execution. You execute one person to save others, isn't that the choice that Jane is making? Keep in mind that the people on the track is innocent. The guy being executed is not.
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Feb 23, 2009 22:44:42 GMT -6
Many pros claim that the only way to insure that a murderer will not kill more innocent people is execution. You execute one person to save others, isn't that the choice that Jane is making? Keep in mind that the people on the track is innocent. The guy being executed is not. true but you never know that someone on those train tracks is totally innocent. Could be a theif, a murderer, or a soon to be murderer. But then again it can also be a suicide cult. Who the hell plays on train tracks?
|
|
|
Post by nils on Feb 24, 2009 1:40:57 GMT -6
Hi Gman, On question a) I think i would pull the switch, thereby saving the 5 and killing the one, on question b) I tend to think I would not push the guy, thereby letting the five be killed. take care nils So pulling a switch is easier than pushing a man? different actions, but same outcome. In one instance you would sacrifice a life to save 5 but in another you would not. Why? Hi Kita, I don't know why thay is, but that is what the overwhelming majority answers when faced the question. Take a few minutes to listen to the recording I posted. nils
|
|
|
Post by nils on Feb 24, 2009 1:44:46 GMT -6
actually most of us would turn and run, not taking any action at all. perhaps the dilemma being more like, "why would I inject myself into this lawsuit?". I would base this on the people running into the twin towers and murray buidling vs those running away from them I think most people if confronted with a real similar event would be paralysed with indecision. Especially so if there was little time to think, they were not trained to deal with this sort of 'crisis', and the players involved were unknown to them. People answer these things not just with the truth, they also consider how their answer will be accepted by those performing the test. In this case the only thing riding on the decision is the later; 'If I choose such-and-such will this make me look like a bad person'? That's partly why most people answer 'yes' to the first and 'no' to the second. (You see the same with pre-election polls and the like). They can be useful tools for developing individual thought, but as indicators of overall social morality ... not so much. well, this is a thought experiment, and it reveals something about our moral values. In one instance most of us will sacrifice the one to save the five, in the orther we will not. why is that? nils
|
|
|
Post by gman on Feb 24, 2009 5:49:20 GMT -6
well, this is a thought experiment, and it reveals something about our moral values. In one instance most of us will sacrifice the one to save the five, in the orther we will not. why is that? nils As I said, there are many reasons why, one of which I've posted above. When there is nothing riding on an outcome most people will chose the answer which puts them in the best light; in this case answer one. Remember people know when they are filling these things out that one answer is preferred over another - that one answer is the one that the investigators are really after. People like to please, especially when there is nothing personally riding on the result. The other flaw, as mentioned, is that the above situation deals with actors of equal value - again a situation that tells us little about how an individual values human life in practical terms. This sort of exercise has been used to 'prove' that people are more likely to perform difficult or unpleasant acts if there is an automated 'other' involved - a medium that acts as a buffer between the action and the result. In this case the 'switch'; a metaphor that has been likened to the 'state'. ie. if the State does the killing for us we are more likely to condone killing than if we were directly involved. (Extended to an argument against the death penalty of course) The problem with transforming the dilemma into a practical situation is that the actors are never equal in real life. In real life judgments are made about value or worth. For example, put 5 children on those tracks and I assure you people will say 'yes' both times. (telling us nothing other than that adults greatly value children, hardly an earth shattering comment on universal social morality) So, while this exercise may tell us something about how we value human life as individuals, and that's a big perhaps, it is a big leap to use such to prove social trends. Which is, unfortunately, just how these things have been used.
|
|
|
Post by lawrence on Feb 24, 2009 7:11:09 GMT -6
Moral values Nils go out the window when we are looking after our families and loved ones. we all act differently. look at war and waht it does to people, sometimes it brings out the best and others the worst.
Another Shakesspear quote.
" what we must do fist, is kill all the lawyer!, it may not be word perfect but its more or less right. Lawyers lose all morality when in court do they not. Could you defend those who instigated the 9/11 attacks knowing they were guilty? Could you defend a peadophile who raped and killed a child knowing he was guilty. Lawyers do this all the time. To most i am assuming its the battle of will, for some its defending that right of innocent until guilty.
Morals? Morals are what we all live under in a civilised society is it not.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Feb 24, 2009 9:22:05 GMT -6
am I not entitled to MY own opinion? Or do I have to believe how others believe here? You are not entitled to your own definition of killing. It's dishonest.
|
|
|
Post by missy on Feb 24, 2009 9:44:18 GMT -6
I'm not saying I have my own definition of a word..it is how I look at and feel about the ideology of capital punishment
|
|
|
Post by missy on Feb 24, 2009 9:50:02 GMT -6
I came back to add your quote to my post and noticed you removed the reference to Chefmate Yes, I thought I had second thoughts about mentioning her, since she's now banned from this board. What you said to me was..Do I consider your son a murderer since he is a soldier like Chefmate does. I guess you forgot I wrote you when your son was coming home and I told you how happy I was for you and that I had been praying for him I thank our troops for all they have sacrificed for our country and for our future generations So please, don't put words in my mouth and accuse me of feeling like anyone else might. That was an attempt to start something and was not relevant to our discussion at all
|
|
|
Post by missy on Feb 24, 2009 9:51:05 GMT -6
If you look at our society and you consider the law supporting the DP for certain offenses, yes, in essence, it is a killing but it is an execution first and foremost, because of the law. That is how I feel about it and I am entitled to my opinion. If it does not coincide with any others opinion, well that's just how it is Yes, you are entitled to your opinion. Nothing wrong with that. Yes it is an execution- again I have no problem with that. But it is false to assume that the execution is not a form of killing just as it is false to assume that one is always granted immunity for shooting an intruder. Of course it's a form of killing but killing, to me, has an unlawful and amoral connotation where as the DP is a lawful tool utilized by the CJS.
|
|
|
Post by Kay on Feb 24, 2009 10:12:32 GMT -6
That was an attempt to start something and was not relevant to our discussion at all If you have a problem with something I post, please let Charlene know, otherwise I would appreciate your dropping the accusations. That's the second time you have accused me of "trying to start something". I deleted my post, yet you felt the need to re-hash it.
|
|
|
Post by D.E.E. on Feb 24, 2009 10:15:42 GMT -6
Somehow this does not seem so hard to me. All murder is killing, not all killing is murder. If you take a life it is killing, if you do so illegally then it is murder. Execution is killing but it is not murder. A soldier killing in war is not usually murder, even though it can be in some circumstances.
|
|
|
Post by Lisa on Feb 24, 2009 10:15:49 GMT -6
So please, don't put words in my mouth and accuse me of feeling like anyone else might. That was an attempt to start something and was not relevant to our discussion at all Kay deleted that portion of her post within seconds, but you had to make sure everyone knows what she deleted. You're the one trying to start something, Ilene.
|
|