1 edit
@BigDoggProblem
Are trolls allowed to drop off little one liners in your thread ?
You know? Like ...?
Because you have no life.
@bigdoggproblem saidI would ask why is it not ethical that the death of any mattered?
I was once rebutted, in this forum, for implying that the deaths of many mattered more than the deaths of few.
The "rebuttal" was that ethics is not just a simple question of numbers.
My question to those who remain here is, why not?
Is "ethics" measured by numerical value? 10 is greater than 1 only because of quantity. It may just be me, but I get a sense that ethics refers to, or implies a value measured morally, or by quality, rather than by numbers.
How is the life of one human being of less value ethically than that of ten?
3 edits
The "rebuttal" was that ethics is not just a simple question of numbers.
My question to those who remain here is, why not?
One person's death is significant I think.
Many persons' death is also signficant.
One person's quality of life is significant.
Many and many more persons' quality of life is also significant.
Ie. I participate in a church life as a Christian which I share with millions of others on every continent. We enjoy a high quality of spiritual, practical, and moral life in view of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
I think that multitudes on the five continents enjoy this experience communally is significant. But I would also regard it as a high life quality matter if only one, two or three people on the whole earth were experiencing Jesus Christ.
That's on the positive side for us. On the negative side, either one wrongful death or many, many wrongful deaths together are both significant.
That MORE people are involved as opposed to LESS people are involved?
It is not too cut and dry to me. I think the particular case could be considered.
I see no reason to think either more or less in some binary sense flick on Yes or a No. And assigning some threshold exact number would be hard as to WHEN a death has "turned on" or "turned off" the significance switch.
1 edit
-Removed-So it's your subjective opinion that the deaths of two has greater ethical value than one.
In other words, if you had to choose who dies, you would be justified morally to choose the smaller number.
You remind me of Caiaphas who said, ",..that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not." Caiaphas, of the sect of the Sadducees, which didn't believe in the resurrection, that had no authority to put someone to death, but conspired to kill Jesus by subterfuge.
@secondson saidOnline disinhibition syndrome level - HIGH
So it's your subjective opinion that the deaths of two has greater ethical value than one.
In other words, if you had to choose who dies, you would be justified morally to choose the smaller number.
You remind me of Caiaphas who said, ",..that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not." Caiaphas, of the sect of the Sadducees, which didn't ...[text shortened]... urrection, that had no authority to put someone to death, but conspired to kill Jesus by subterfuge.