I find funny these kind of debates, so let me left here a question to be answered by anyone who want:
You know that a man, a good man, with family and friends, will in the future kill a hundred other good persons. You're presented with this knowledge and a chance to kill this man before all that happens. What would you do? What would be the good thing to do? What would be the lawful good thing to do?
Just remember that with the knowledge and by inactivity, you're so guilty of the act as it's perpetrator.
I'd offer to help him. After all he's a nice guy. And killing one hundred people is a lot of work. We could do fifty each and get the job done quicker.
I find funny these kind of debates, so let me left here a question to be answered by anyone who want:
You know that a man, a good man, with family and friends, will in the future kill a hundred other good persons. You're presented with this knowledge and a chance to kill this man before all that happens. What would you do? What would be the good thing to do? What would be the lawful good thing to do?
Just remember that with the knowledge and by inactivity, you're so guilty of the act as it's perpetrator.
A better question would be how this man can be considered "good" if he's going around killing so many other "good" persons? 100 people is quite a body count.
I find funny these kind of debates, so let me left here a question to be answered by anyone who want:
You know that a man, a good man, with family and friends, will in the future kill a hundred other good persons. You're presented with this knowledge and a chance to kill this man before all that happens. What would you do? What would be the good thing to do? What would be the lawful good thing to do?
Just remember that with the knowledge and by inactivity, you're so guilty of the act as it's perpetrator.
Ha, ha. The old Hitler and a time machine debate. If you could go back in time and kill Hitler as an innocent baby and thereby stop world war 2, would you?
It's a blown question. Just because Hitler got killed there is no guarantee that someone else wouldn't have come along and that it wouldn't have been worse. Might not have been, but then again we will never know.
To answer your question though, (a) just because you didn't act, doesn't mean you are "just as responsible as the killer" unless you visibly force him to pull the trigger over and over again and (b) you make it so that the only solution is to kill the guy. If you know what he is going to do and he is the good man you take him for, talk him out of it. Or worst case scenario, lock him in a room till after all of the people are no longer in danger. and (c) who is to say that the good man killing the hundred other good people won't ultimately lead to something even better (say 5 of those good men think up the next generation of atomic bomb).
@the_spyder, if you have knowledge of the act and the proper ways to stop it, if you stay passive, even if the human laws redeem you, in your mind will be always a place, even if just a little place that will make you guilt yourself in reason of the events.
"...what if i just had...", it's in human nature !
@the_spyder, if you have knowledge of the act and the proper ways to stop it, if you stay passive, even if the human laws redeem you, in your mind will be always a place, even if just a little place that will make you guilt yourself in reason of the events.
"...what if i just had...", it's in human nature !
In one view of morality. Not necessarily all views.
And again, who is to say that things wouldn't be better if those 100 people died? Or worse if you stopped the one guy?
It's not a question of morality, it's as i said deep in human nature, if you're good or evil, no matter, in almost everything we do there's always the "if i...".
"what if i just had..."
1° - Killed him, so i could be cheered as a hero. 2° - Killed him, so i could had save the humankind; 3° - Killed him, so i could had get a fucking awesome reward. 4° - Not Killed him so my consciousness wouldn't feel so heavy. 5° - Not Killed him so i would be arrested. 6° - Not Killed him so i could seel the info for someone and made profit on it. ...
This guilt ins't a judgment from outside, is what our mind does with us.
So Paladin's are supposed to be the epitome of righteousness and good, right? If that's the case how is it they can justify the slaying of entire races "because they are evil?" I see a lot of comments that Paladins would never align themselves with evil creatures, ex: Viconia and furthermore may even be compelled to purge them if at all possible. Let's not forget their atypical self-righteousness tends to lead them to arrogance, pride and a form of self-importance (our morality is better than yours mentality) usually associated with evil characters. I think in some cases it could be argued that Paladins are actually an alternative evil.
Ex: A Paladin knows that one evil individual is, with 100% certainty going to kill a large population. However, the Paladin does not have proof he could bring before any court of law, more importantly this individual is a well known political official. There is no chance to gather evidence to bring against this individual and it literally comes down to a split second decision where the Paladin CAN kill this person and save hundreds or thousands of lives. Despite this if they were to kill this individual they would be considered a fallen paladin. I.e. a "True Paladin" would never really be able to do anything about a Lawful Evil character who covered their bases properly?
This is why I like neutral good. Because F**k a court of law evildoer, I have to kill you NOW. Farewell King Henry VIII, England will be a much more stable nation now that you are *hypothetically* gone - But we're totally keeping the church of England. Cake or Death?
It's not a question of morality, it's as i said deep in human nature, if you're good or evil, no matter, in almost everything we do there's always the "if i...".
"what if i just had..."
1° - Killed him, so i could be cheered as a hero. 2° - Killed him, so i could had save the humankind; 3° - Killed him, so i could had get a fucking awesome reward. 4° - Not Killed him so my consciousness wouldn't feel so heavy. 5° - Not Killed him so i would be arrested. 6° - Not Killed him so i could seel the info for someone and made profit on it. ...
This guilt ins't a judgment from outside, is what our mind does with us.
Again, in some view points.
Some people are too stupid or self absorbed (or both) to care. Some might simply think "Not my problem". And quite frankly some might say "I have other things on my mind to worry about some random 100 people whom I don't know and don't care about".
I get what you are saying and we might hope that every civicly minded person would at least pause to consider the consequences of actions, but that isn't always the truth, nor is it "Human nature". It might be societal nature, but there is no human imperative which necessitates this that I am aware of.
In an attempt to simplify the Intent/Action/Consequence relationship as much as possible...
Good intent + Good action + Good Consequence = Good moral phrase (A moral savant) Good intent + Bad action + Good Consequence = Good moral phrase (For the greater good) Good intent + Bad action + Bad consequence = bad moral phrase (The road to hell...) Bad intent + Good action + good consequence = Good (One who acts from duty) Bad intent + Bad action + good consequence = Bad (Incompetent evil) and so forth and so forth...
Simply put, if Good>Bad, its good and vice versa. I think the basic problem for moral theory when it comes to actions vs. consequence is that we fail to compare the 3 things which we seem to use to test all of our moral deliberation on a Z-axis. For all these situations I can think of I tend to think that we would say someone is bad if they fail 2/3 qualifications, but good if they fulfill 2/3.
It's not a question of morality, it's as i said deep in human nature, if you're good or evil, no matter, in almost everything we do there's always the "if i...".
"what if i just had..."
1° - Killed him, so i could be cheered as a hero. 2° - Killed him, so i could had save the humankind; 3° - Killed him, so i could had get a fucking awesome reward. 4° - Not Killed him so my consciousness wouldn't feel so heavy. 5° - Not Killed him so i would be arrested. 6° - Not Killed him so i could seel the info for someone and made profit on it. ...
This guilt ins't a judgment from outside, is what our mind does with us.
Again, in some view points.
Some people are too stupid or self absorbed (or both) to care. Some might simply think "Not my problem". And quite frankly some might say "I have other things on my mind to worry about some random 100 people whom I don't know and don't care about".
I get what you are saying and we might hope that every civicly minded person would at least pause to consider the consequences of actions, but that isn't always the truth, nor is it "Human nature". It might be societal nature, but there is no human imperative which necessitates this that I am aware of.
From a psychological viewpoint, we have conscious and unconscious. While a person can say to herself conscious that she doesn't care for an act, she can't control the unconscious process of her mind. This unconscious doubt for the variant possibility don't need necessary happens instantly with the act choosen, but can even manifest years later when that act bring an palpable consequence.
If we have any psychologist here, sorry for meddle in your profession !
I should have probably gone a little bit further than I did. If you have 2/3 being either good or bad, I think it falls into right vs. wrong respectively which I personally don't view as extremely as opposed to good or evil. I think most people here would agree that someone who intends something bad, acts badly, and results in bad consequences for society is an evil person and vice versa for good intent/act/consequence.
Oppenheimer -
Good intentions (Lets make nuclear energy!) + Bad Action (In my book making a weapon is pretty much universally a bad act, no matter who holds it) Bad Consequence (Millions of people died)
I don't think Oppenheimer was evil but what he did most certainly was wrong, regardless of whether or not someone else down the line would have made an atomic bomb which may or may not have altered the timelines resulting in global-nuclear death.
Kevorkian -
Good intentions (end the suffering of others) Grey Action (This changes dramatically on perspective and depending on how you view life.) Bad Consequence (Some suffering people died...but some healthy people did as well).
As for the whole prisoner part...that's totally grey territory. In my opinion, the morality of that shifts to the burden of a willing prisoner. If Kevorkian forced the person to have their execution to become scientific its wrong because forced consent is a bad action leading to unwillful death which is also bad whereas allowing for consent is a good action. The question then becomes the consequence "Did this person's death have meaning"? If they volunteered the inmate may argue their death ultimately had a positive (good) consequence.
So I'm taking the same route, the guy wasn't evil...but what he did with the prisoners was right, but not good, (assuming he left room for the inmates to consent to the conditions of their death which I believe he did - correct me if I'm wrong) at least from my perspective whereas is interaction with patients was wrong, but not evil.
Comments
xD
Just b/c I'm thinking this is starting to maybe go a little off-topic? Or maybe I'm just forum-ing bad...
It's a blown question. Just because Hitler got killed there is no guarantee that someone else wouldn't have come along and that it wouldn't have been worse. Might not have been, but then again we will never know.
To answer your question though, (a) just because you didn't act, doesn't mean you are "just as responsible as the killer" unless you visibly force him to pull the trigger over and over again and (b) you make it so that the only solution is to kill the guy. If you know what he is going to do and he is the good man you take him for, talk him out of it. Or worst case scenario, lock him in a room till after all of the people are no longer in danger. and (c) who is to say that the good man killing the hundred other good people won't ultimately lead to something even better (say 5 of those good men think up the next generation of atomic bomb).
"...what if i just had...", it's in human nature
And again, who is to say that things wouldn't be better if those 100 people died? Or worse if you stopped the one guy?
"what if i just had..."
1° - Killed him, so i could be cheered as a hero.
2° - Killed him, so i could had save the humankind;
3° - Killed him, so i could had get a fucking awesome reward.
4° - Not Killed him so my consciousness wouldn't feel so heavy.
5° - Not Killed him so i would be arrested.
6° - Not Killed him so i could seel the info for someone and made profit on it.
...
This guilt ins't a judgment from outside, is what our mind does with us.
Edit:Sorry i've read your following posts.
Some people are too stupid or self absorbed (or both) to care. Some might simply think "Not my problem". And quite frankly some might say "I have other things on my mind to worry about some random 100 people whom I don't know and don't care about".
I get what you are saying and we might hope that every civicly minded person would at least pause to consider the consequences of actions, but that isn't always the truth, nor is it "Human nature". It might be societal nature, but there is no human imperative which necessitates this that I am aware of.
Good intent + Good action + Good Consequence = Good moral phrase (A moral savant)
Good intent + Bad action + Good Consequence = Good moral phrase (For the greater good)
Good intent + Bad action + Bad consequence = bad moral phrase (The road to hell...)
Bad intent + Good action + good consequence = Good (One who acts from duty)
Bad intent + Bad action + good consequence = Bad (Incompetent evil)
and so forth and so forth...
Simply put, if Good>Bad, its good and vice versa. I think the basic problem for moral theory when it comes to actions vs. consequence is that we fail to compare the 3 things which we seem to use to test all of our moral deliberation on a Z-axis. For all these situations I can think of I tend to think that we would say someone is bad if they fail 2/3 qualifications, but good if they fulfill 2/3.
If we have any psychologist here, sorry for meddle in your profession
Oppenheimer -
Good intentions (Lets make nuclear energy!) +
Bad Action (In my book making a weapon is pretty much universally a bad act, no matter who holds it)
Bad Consequence (Millions of people died)
I don't think Oppenheimer was evil but what he did most certainly was wrong, regardless of whether or not someone else down the line would have made an atomic bomb which may or may not have altered the timelines resulting in global-nuclear death.
Kevorkian -
Good intentions (end the suffering of others)
Grey Action (This changes dramatically on perspective and depending on how you view life.)
Bad Consequence (Some suffering people died...but some healthy people did as well).
As for the whole prisoner part...that's totally grey territory. In my opinion, the morality of that shifts to the burden of a willing prisoner. If Kevorkian forced the person to have their execution to become scientific its wrong because forced consent is a bad action leading to unwillful death which is also bad whereas allowing for consent is a good action. The question then becomes the consequence "Did this person's death have meaning"? If they volunteered the inmate may argue their death ultimately had a positive (good) consequence.
So I'm taking the same route, the guy wasn't evil...but what he did with the prisoners was right, but not good, (assuming he left room for the inmates to consent to the conditions of their death which I believe he did - correct me if I'm wrong) at least from my perspective whereas is interaction with patients was wrong, but not evil.