Moral Conundrums

[IhateClowns]

you didnt think those types of questions would inspire debates???

you really are cute

I didn't say that I just didnt expect it to start a 2-3 page debate was all, not that I mind.

So was that a yes?

 

[RyanBlack]

I didn't say that I just didnt expect it to start a 2-3 page debate was all, not that I mind.

So was that a yes?

IM still waiting for you to award points

 

[IhateClowns]

IM still waiting for you to award points

So this is like "Who's line is in anyways" The show where the points don't matter. Hmmmmm

 

[RyanBlack]

I didn't say that I just didnt expect it to start a 2-3 page debate was all, not that I mind.

So was that a yes?

when have I ever been able to say no to you handsome

 

[IhateClowns]

when have I ever been able to say no to you handsome

Too funny....I should have just left it with the first question apparently

 

[RyanBlack]

Too funny....I should have just left it with the first question apparently

awwwwwwww no regrets my little peach muffin

 

[IhateClowns]

awwwwwwww no regrets my little peach muffin

Absolutely no regrets. Never. I suppose I should have put a death penalty vs war vs murder question up next t not make the thread come to a screeching halt. Is it considered a thread killing if you do it to one you created?

 

[kendra1980]

#2 Developers want to buy your home and demolish it in order to build a research center in which animal experiments will be conducted. They offer you double the market value, would you sell?

In a heartbeat.

 

[NattyBumppo]

#2 Developers want to buy your home and demolish it in order to build a research center in which animal experiments will be conducted. They offer you double the market value, would you sell?

It depends. Am I facing a Kelo situation and do I have enough money to fight it up to the Supreme Court?

 

[RyanBlack]

Absolutely no regrets. Never. I suppose I should have put a death penalty vs war vs murder question up next t not make the thread come to a screeching halt. Is it considered a thread killing if you do it to one you created?

its because you didnt award points!

people who debate are naturally competitive and want evaluation tools and of course ranking based on their performance

you should use points Im tellin you

here is a list of things you can deduct points for---I use it frequently in class

Common fallacies of logic and rhetoric:

Ad hominem - attacking the arguer and not the argument.

Argument from "authority".

Argument from adverse consequences (putting pressure on the decision maker by pointing out dire consequences of an "unfavourable" decision).

Appeal to ignorance (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence).

Special pleading (typically referring to god's will).

Begging the question (assuming an answer in the way the question is phrased).

Observational selection (counting the hits and forgetting the misses).

Statistics of small numbers (such as drawing conclusions from inadequate sample sizes).

Misunderstanding the nature of statistics (President Eisenhower expressing astonishment and alarm on discovering that fully half of all Americans have below average intelligence!)

Inconsistency (e.g. military expenditures based on worst case scenarios but scientific projections on environmental dangers thriftily ignored because they are not "proved").

Non sequitur - "it does not follow" - the logic falls down.

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc - "it happened after so it was caused by" - confusion of cause and effect.

Meaningless question ("what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?).

Excluded middle -considering only the two extremes in a range of possibilities (making the "other side" look worse than it really is).

Short-term v. long-term - a subset of excluded middle ("why pursue fundamental science when we have so huge a budget deficit?").

Slippery slope - a subset of excluded middle -unwarranted extrapolation of the effects (give an inch and they will take a mile).

Confusion of correlation and causation.

Straw man - caricaturing (or stereotyping) a position to make it easier to attack.

Suppressed evidence or half-truths.

Weasel words - for example, use of euphemisms for war such as "police action" to get around limitations on Presidential powers. "An important art of politicians is to find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the public" .

 

[NattyBumppo]

its because you didnt award points!

people who debate are naturally competitive and want evaluation tools and of course ranking based on their performance

you should use points Im tellin you

here is a list of things you can deduct points for---I use it frequently in class

Common fallacies of logic and rhetoric:

Ad hominem - attacking the arguer and not the argument.

Argument from "authority".

Argument from adverse consequences (putting pressure on the decision maker by pointing out dire consequences of an "unfavourable" decision).

Appeal to ignorance (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence).

Special pleading (typically referring to god's will).

Begging the question (assuming an answer in the way the question is phrased).

Observational selection (counting the hits and forgetting the misses).

Statistics of small numbers (such as drawing conclusions from inadequate sample sizes).

Misunderstanding the nature of statistics (President Eisenhower expressing astonishment and alarm on discovering that fully half of all Americans have below average intelligence!)

Inconsistency (e.g. military expenditures based on worst case scenarios but scientific projections on environmental dangers thriftily ignored because they are not "proved").

Non sequitur - "it does not follow" - the logic falls down.

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc - "it happened after so it was caused by" - confusion of cause and effect.

Meaningless question ("what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?).

Excluded middle -considering only the two extremes in a range of possibilities (making the "other side" look worse than it really is).

Short-term v. long-term - a subset of excluded middle ("why pursue fundamental science when we have so huge a budget deficit?").

Slippery slope - a subset of excluded middle -unwarranted extrapolation of the effects (give an inch and they will take a mile).

Confusion of correlation and causation.

Straw man - caricaturing (or stereotyping) a position to make it easier to attack.

Suppressed evidence or half-truths.

Weasel words - for example, use of euphemisms for war such as "police action" to get around limitations on Presidential powers. "An important art of politicians is to find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the public" .

You forgot Godwin's Law.

 

[RyanBlack]

You forgot Godwin's Law.

didnt foget---

just gave a simple list for clowny boy to use

an all inclusive list would be far too long and his strengths are in his cuteness and ya know between his thighs not his ears thats why we call him sugar pants besides we certainly had enough of it in references

I believe it is covered under the argument of extremes----and does not necessarily qualify for deductions

 

[kendra1980]

what if it later turned out to be discount day for rapists and child molesters at Jimmy Choo's store and the sniper was the father of a young child who had been harmed by those customers? Certainly you might feel bad afterwards, but would you still stand by your decision? and if not, could you undue it?

My only comment to this would be...THOSE kind of people only get discounts at Manolo Blahniks, so this scenario, would of course never happen

 

[IhateClowns]

didnt foget---

just gave a simple list for clowny boy to use

an all inclusive list would be far too long and his strengths are in his cuteness and ya know between his thighs not his ears thats why we call him sugar pants besides we certainly had enough of it in references

I believe it is covered under the argument of extremes----and does not necessarily qualify for deductions

Might be the first time I have ever had my looks out weigh my smarts. Hmmmm not sure I like that. I tell you what. I say we just ask the question see if anyone responds and then ask another question. Sure the debate is good, but I don't see why it has to result in a winner and loser. So i will ask the 2nd question once more and we will see if anyone responds. If not then this thread is dead..LOL

 

[IhateClowns]

#2 Developers want to buy your home and demolish it in order to build a research center in which animal experiments will be conducted. They offer you double the market value, would you sell?

 

[newbiebabe]

Might be the first time I have ever had my looks out weigh my smarts. Hmmmm not sure I like that.

welcome to the world of many a female....

#2 Developers want to buy your home and demolish it in order to build a research center in which animal experiments will be conducted. They offer you double the market value, would you sell?

This will be unpopular with animal rights activists.. but yep.. in a New York minute.

 

[Cinner]

Posting the question as is, without adding the details of who those saved might be etc. . .I would answer no, a completly unqualified no.

The justification and rationalization for taking a life to save another--whether one or 100 is indefensable.

On the surface, it might seem to be an easy answer, however how many of those who answer yes have ever taken a life. The justification of "saving other lives" has been used for nearly every genocide, every heinous crime ever comitted on a large scale. The preservation of a culture, way of life and the future lives of 'our children and our race' was Hitlers justification for the holocaust.

The position of arbitrary judge of life and death is far too complex to leave in the hands of human beings which can only barely adhere to the threads of a moral code.

In the moment, would I kill to protect my child? OF COURSE! However, I am not fit to be a parent to my child if I would commit mass murder--even if I justified it to be to his benefit.

The simplicity of the question belies the complexity of the answer--personally I am willing to give the right to decide death for others only to one capable of giving life as well. Show me the person who can create life from nothing (this is not procreation) and I will accept that person as capable of choosing when others die.

I agree with Ryan here and thank Clowns for raising this. Yet many of the posts have mentioned trying to stop violence or preventing death as justification for killing the one person. What about the people who make these choices in the name of furthering life. I think that there are some doctors and medical researchers who are faced with choices like this every day. If you are able to pull a trigger then you're a much stronger person than I am but think of someone who has to face the relatives and tell them that he has decided that he'll give that heart to Ms. X instead of Mr. Y knowing that there can be only one outcome; think of the parents and the doctors who must decide which of the siamese twins must die. Think of having to suppress word of a possible terrorist attack because of not wanting to cause mass panic or alert the terrorists that you're on to them.

The truth is that without a context we scarcely know how we would behave. We can only hope that we've internalised enough of our deeply held values so that we act decisively and are able to live with the consequences if the time comes. This has to be a subconscious thing for if we were to dwell on it and rehearse a response we would soon find ourselves CAPABLE of killing not only the one but the hundred as well.

 

[Cinner]

Well since this is off to a rollicking start I figure let us move on to the next question. Thanks again to everyone who is posting in here.

#2 Developers want to buy your home and demolish it in order to build a research center in which animal experiments will be conducted. They offer you double the market value, would you sell?

NOT AT ALL!!!

 

[IhateClowns]

welcome to the world of many a female....QUOTE]

LOL maybe so

 

[border_humper]

#2 Developers want to buy your home and demolish it in order to build a research center in which animal experiments will be conducted. They offer you double the market value, would you sell?

I'd say no, since by the time the closing came around someone (besides me) would have figured out that the village residential zoning here doesn't allow animal research centers. It would be a waste of my time and my neighbors would get p*ssed at me for nothing.

 

[mstrshnd]

Interesting

It is interesting that all of the replies I read from females would kill the one to save the many. Some included friends, and children in the many. Many of the male responders spoke at length about circumstances and experience, or lack of it, in hostile situations. Maybe the female really is the deadliest of the species.

 

[Roxanne_Smith69]

It is interesting that all of the replies I read from females would kill the one to save the many. Some included friends, and children in the many. Many of the male responders spoke at length about circumstances and experience, or lack of it, in hostile situations. Maybe the female really is the deadliest of the species.

Interesting observation.

Rox

 

[corks25]

#2 Developers want to buy your home and demolish it in order to build a research center in which animal experiments will be conducted. They offer you double the market value, would you sell?

With the current value of my house - double the market value wont buy me what i want...so maybe.
For triple I will sell for sure.

 

[janeyl]

#2 Developers want to buy your home and demolish it in order to build a research center in which animal experiments will be conducted. They offer you double the market value, would you sell?

If it was for experiments for cosmetic purposes to sell a new anti aging face cream to stupid women who believe it will stop the aging process absolutely not under any circumstances. There's enough shampoo in the world now to make dripping it into the eyes of rabbits unnecessary

If it was for some of the hideous and unnecessary behavioural experiments that serve no purpose other than to satisfy human curiousity absolutely not

If it was for true medical progression I would have to think very carefully but seeing as most of them have no purpose and make very few actual proven advances in treating human disease-probably not

Money can't buy everything and the way we treat sentient beings as a commodity to be exploited sickens me

However-if you were to ask me if I would prefer some of this research to be carried out here in the UK where the industry is very highly regulated and conducted to an extent with a degree of integrity rather than being exported to a country where those things are not taken into consideration then of course i would. i'm not sure my conscience would allow me to assist the process though

and no, i'm not an animal rights activist and I do eat meat and wear leather. I'm a nurse and i see what some of the medical advances have been over recent years but having read some of the research, i'm not convinced that animal experiments have contributed as much as people assume they have

 

[IhateClowns]

It is interesting that all of the replies I read from females would kill the one to save the many. Some included friends, and children in the many. Many of the male responders spoke at length about circumstances and experience, or lack of it, in hostile situations. Maybe the female really is the deadliest of the species.

Ha very good point