Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

Yakk · 11-21-2006, 10:02 AM

/shrug -- then you could say "I save one, then try to save the other".

I could have described some convoluted situation where you only have a hope of saving one (they are both stuck on a railroad switch, and the controls for each switch are 20 seconds sprint away in opposite directions. The train will run over both of them in 30 seconds. The controls for each switch include a metal-plate covered button that will release each of them), and then add in extra details every time someone finds a hole in my description... but what would be the point of it? It would distract from the discussion I'm interested in, namely, which life would you choose to save?

Yes, I included null-noises that describe the two people being killed. "You have your whole life ahead of you" is true of every human being.

Some people evaluate the value of saving someone's life by how much more life they have to live. Others don't. Heck, you could value someone's life by their replacement cost -- how many resources would it take to create someone equivilent (which would tend to value older people more than younger people). And some people do a combination of the two.

vanblah, I'm a believer in moral relativity. Not the moral relativity of "everything is relative", but the moral relativity that is analagous to the theory of relativity.

The theory of relativity states "many things are relative, but the speed of light isn't one of them". Many moral problems are relative to your cultural situation, or have no "right" answer, but I believe in moral absolutes. You don't have to agree with me about my moral absolutes, and I don't have to be able to express them.

But that still means I feel justified in saying "running up and buggering the old man" is the wrong answer to this ethical question. Even if you are a serial killer who likes buggering old men tied to train tracks.

11-21-2006, 10:02 AM	#32 (permalink)
Yakk Wehret Den Anfängen! Location: Ontario, Canada	/shrug -- then you could say "I save one, then try to save the other". I could have described some convoluted situation where you only have a hope of saving one (they are both stuck on a railroad switch, and the controls for each switch are 20 seconds sprint away in opposite directions. The train will run over both of them in 30 seconds. The controls for each switch include a metal-plate covered button that will release each of them), and then add in extra details every time someone finds a hole in my description... but what would be the point of it? It would distract from the discussion I'm interested in, namely, which life would you choose to save? Yes, I included null-noises that describe the two people being killed. "You have your whole life ahead of you" is true of every human being. Some people evaluate the value of saving someone's life by how much more life they have to live. Others don't. Heck, you could value someone's life by their replacement cost -- how many resources would it take to create someone equivilent (which would tend to value older people more than younger people). And some people do a combination of the two. vanblah, I'm a believer in moral relativity. Not the moral relativity of "everything is relative", but the moral relativity that is analagous to the theory of relativity. The theory of relativity states "many things are relative, but the speed of light isn't one of them". Many moral problems are relative to your cultural situation, or have no "right" answer, but I believe in moral absolutes. You don't have to agree with me about my moral absolutes, and I don't have to be able to express them. But that still means I feel justified in saying "running up and buggering the old man" is the wrong answer to this ethical question. Even if you are a serial killer who likes buggering old men tied to train tracks. __________________ Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.