Spirituality
10 Jan 14
11 Jan 14
1 edit
Originally posted by divegeesterPsssst... (I'm frankly shocked that I know what you're talking about here, although I've never seen the movie.
Colonel Nathan R. Jessup.
Is it as drenched in testosterone as I've heard? Meaning I may not have a snowball's chance of understanding it?
Much like another Cruise movie, Top Gun. Hated it.)
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by avalanchethecatHmmm. Ok, well I would suspect that the number of people who believe it is never
It related to a discussion I was having elsewhere. I was surprised at how many people were able to justify taking a human life depending on circumstances and wondered if that was a general tendency. Looks like it might be.
wrong to take a human life under any circumstances are going to be a small minority.
I can't speak for everyone, but I can give my reasons for not being a part of that minority.
First, Killing a human being is a bad thing, we should try if at all possible to avoid doing
it.
However, where circumstances lead to a situation where not killing a human or humans
would lead to greater harm than not killing them then I would contend that the best
moral choice in that circumstance is to choose the lesser evil and kill the person/s.
And the example/argument I give goes like this.
In the run-up to the London 2012 Olympics Surface to Air Missiles [SAM] were deployed around
London as a defence against people flying planes into the Olympic stadiums during the games.
For it to be morally correct that it is never ok to kill another human being in any circumstances
then it would have to be the case, that if there was a terrorist hijacked plane heading in towards
the Olympic main stadium during the opening ceremony when it was full to brimming with
50,000 people,
[and for our purposes here you know beyond reasonable doubt that the plane is hijacked and being flown at the stadium]
that the morally best choice is to allow the plane to fly into the stadium
and not to shoot it down. Now lets say that this plane is a cargo plane, and has nobody
[alive] on-board who isn't a terrorist.
So to come to the moral conclusion that you can't shoot down the plane...
You have to conclude that it's as bad, or more likely worse, to kill the [lets say] 5 people
on the plane than it is to allow the plane to hit the stadium and kill tens of thousands.
I don't think it's possible to justify not shooting down the plane in the above circumstance.
It cannot be the case that it's better to allow thousands of people to die at the hands of a few
simply to avoid killing the few.
Once you then accept that there are extreme circumstances where it is morally right to kill, then
the discussion is not IF it's sometimes ok to kill but WHEN.
That's a much more complicated question, on which there is much disagreement.
If you disagree with the above, then i would be fascinated to know why.
11 Jan 14
Originally posted by googlefudgeAssuming that you know the plane is under terrorist control and heading towards the stadium, then yeah, I guess shooting down the plane looks like the right course of action. That conclusion troubles me though.
Hmmm. Ok, well I would suspect that the number of people who believe it is never
wrong to take a human life under any circumstances are going to be a small minority.
I can't speak for everyone, but I can give my reasons for not being a part of that minority.
First, Killing a human being is a bad thing, we should try if at all possible to avoid ...[text shortened]... is much disagreement.
If you disagree with the above, then i would be fascinated to know why.
11 Jan 14
Originally posted by avalanchethecatWhy? I could understand it if it would trouble you if there were some hostages on the plane.
Assuming that you know the plane is under terrorist control and heading towards the stadium, then yeah, I guess shooting down the plane looks like the right course of action. That conclusion troubles me though.
And I would prefer not to have to kill the terrorists.
But why would the conclusion that it was the right thing to do trouble you?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
11 Jan 14
Originally posted by avalanchethecatIt could be argued that that's a good thing, that the sign of being one of the
Assuming that you know the plane is under terrorist control and heading towards the stadium, then yeah, I guess shooting down the plane looks like the right course of action. That conclusion troubles me though.
'good guys' is that even when your enemy is trying to kill you and those that
you love and care about you still don't WANT to kill them.
If I was faced with the situation I outlined I would shoot the plane down.
I would feel really bad about it, and really pissed that the terrorists had put me
in a position where the only morally correct option open to me was to kill them.
And I would be really keen to make sure that neither I nor anyone else was put
in that situation again.
And as it turns out, part of the reason it was so widely advertised that we were
deploying so much anti aircraft fire-power, with SAM sites and Interceptor fighters
on ready alert, and aerial exclusion zones ect.. Is that by making it so hard to pull
off an attack by air, we made it much less likely that any terrorists would try.
Another variant of the "If you want peace then prepare for war" adage.
Lets look at the issue another way.
Lets say you are in your home at night, with kids upstairs, and someone breaks into
your house and attacks you with a knife. They're bigger than you, and are armed.
To say that it's never ok to kill someone is to say that if you defend yourself and
end up killing your attacker doing so then you would be morally/legally at fault for doing so.
That you are either just supposed to let them kill you, or to try to stop them without doing
anything that might lead to them dying and thus massively increasing the chances they
get past you to your kids upstairs.
We should go to great lengths not to kill people, we should feel that it's wrong and
constantly be on the lookout for alternatives.
But I don't think it's possible to morally justify never killing anyone in any circumstance.