Who's finger on the trigger?
Me, because I want to survive.
70.8%
75
The man, because no trauma would inflict him.
2.8%
3
The boy, because he still has his future ahead of him.
5.7%
6
I would kill them both, then myself, because I can't bear such guilt.
2.8%
3
No one pulls the trigger...
17.9%
19
106 votes
Hraesvelgr said: According to what morality?Sohei said: You're a baddie if you'd kill a kid.As a side note, what is this test suposed to prove, and how is it connected to morality? Morality is subjective, in no way is there any objectivity in being considered "bad" for killing a kid, let alone the circumstances. |
Sohei said: Morality is subjective, in no way is there any objectivity in being considered "bad" for killing a kid Sohei said: in no way is there any objectivity in being considered "bad" for killing a kid Sohei said: in being considered "bad" for killing a kid Sohei said: ...not... considered "bad" for killing a kid Eureka, time to go hunting. |
 Credit to WingZero619 from Animesuki!! |
cartier-ngo said: Eureka, time to go hunting. There's a difference between law and morality, bro. Do you think vikings felt bad for killing a kid here and there? Do you think, that in a war zone, soldiers feel bad for raping and killing "underage" women? Are these people considered "bad", by universal standards? No, because minimally, they themselves didn't feel too bad about it. |
| ??? My morality was stopping me from hunting little children. Now that I know if I call a little children, I won't be marked as a bad guy and that my family won't exile me and not recognize me as their son, I feel safe to hunt little children. Screw the laws. Who needs laws when you have morality right? I mean I don't see me doing anything bad right? |
Credit to WingZero619 from Animesuki!! |
cartier-ngo said: My morality was stopping me from hunting little children. My point exactly, your morality is stopping you from hunting little children (albeit, what profit is there in hunting little children anyway? I'll leave that to pedobear to decide). Then, you acknowledges that morality is not universal? Seeing as your opinion can hardly be considered the opinion of all beings, past, present and future. Which gets me to what you said next: cartier-ngo said: Screw the laws. Who needs laws when you have morality right? I mean I don't see me doing anything bad right? But, if as I say, it is your morality that stops you from comitting any crime, how do we know that others will not have a different opinion on what is morally wrong and right? Take it a step further, the Muslim Bortherhood or Al-Qaeda considers it morally right to get rid of western influence in the middle east, and have no trouble killing children, woman or elderly who oppose them, as they're the "good" guys. See what I'm getting at? Firstly, how can we trust morality to have the same effect as laws when no two persons have exactly the same moral code. Secondly, how do you define something as being "bad" and " good"? My original point was that no one can truly be considered universally bad for killing off some kid, which makes this poll absolutely useless, seeing as you'd be considered "bad" by a clique of people, hardly every human that ever lived. In short, morality is subjective, and therefore nothing can be considered ethically "right" and "wrong". |
Sohei said: In short, morality is subjective, and therefore nothing can be considered ethically "right" and "wrong". I agree, sadly, many people tend to forget that their opinion is not the correct opinion. |
 L2 Search - http://fc04.deviantart.com/fs48/f/2009/236/3/9/L2_Search_by_Siya_Akuma.jpg We're all getting trolled by Mayans. They probably thought "Fuck this shit, let's end the calendar and say shit's gonna go down." |
Sohei said: In short, morality is subjective, and therefore nothing can be considered ethically "right" and "wrong". There's a difference between morals and ethics. Also, there's nothing wrong with killing a kid. |
| LEGENDOFTHEGALACTICHEROESLEGENDOFTHEGALACTI LEGENDOFTHEGALACTICHEROESLEGENDOFTHEGALACTI LEGENDOFTHEGALACTICHEROESLEGENDOFTHEGALACTI |
Aeiou said: There's a difference between morals and ethics. Not in my book. However, there are many different definitions,and i'm sure you could argue semantics. But what point are you trying to make? |
| I pull the trigger. I don't care about the guy really, sure there is guilt in killing another but it's kill or be killed with him. As for the boy, he's too young, it will have a negative hold on his life and hell if we're stuck in a room having to make a choice like that who knows what's going on outside the door. I'd rather take my chances at a worser fate then have the kid stroll out either into mental head fudge (good kett does not swear) or a land of rabid zombies! |
| I'd save myself, because I am selfish. |
out-ofthe-woods.tumblr.com (✿◠‿◠) |
corbenic said: Right, another name for my hit list then.I'd kill both and then SkiesOfBlue. And Baman. Hraesvelgr said: Belief does not change reality though, so tough luck for them.You described exactly how I feel about the issue, but there are a number of people who really believe in that sort of thing. Little_Sparrow said: But if you had your eyes closed, you might risk not hitting him properly and leaving him squirming in pain and bleeding to death slowly :/IAs for the kid, it depends on my mood. If I was in a kinda "screw the world" mood due to being in the situation, then I would shoot the 6 yr old, if I wasn't in that mood, I would do it with my eyes closed :P |
Baman said: Right, another name for my hit list then. Preemptive strike ftw. |
 |
| I'd kill both of em, I don't care about someone I don't know. /asshole |
Sohei said: cartier-ngo said: My morality was stopping me from hunting little children. My point exactly, your morality is stopping you from hunting little children (albeit, what profit is there in hunting little children anyway? I'll leave that to pedobear to decide). Then, you acknowledges that morality is not universal? Seeing as your opinion can hardly be considered the opinion of all beings, past, present and future. Which gets me to what you said next: cartier-ngo said: Screw the laws. Who needs laws when you have morality right? I mean I don't see me doing anything bad right? But, if as I say, it is your morality that stops you from comitting any crime, how do we know that others will not have a different opinion on what is morally wrong and right? Take it a step further, the Muslim Bortherhood or Al-Qaeda considers it morally right to get rid of western influence in the middle east, and have no trouble killing children, woman or elderly who oppose them, as they're the "good" guys. See what I'm getting at? Firstly, how can we trust morality to have the same effect as laws when no two persons have exactly the same moral code. Secondly, how do you define something as being "bad" and " good"? My original point was that no one can truly be considered universally bad for killing off some kid, which makes this poll absolutely useless, seeing as you'd be considered "bad" by a clique of people, hardly every human that ever lived. In short, morality is subjective, and therefore nothing can be considered ethically "right" and "wrong". Eh. Religion =/= morals Religion tends to have its own morality that supersedes human law/morals....so Muslims/Al-Qaeda believing it ok to kill children/westerners/etc in the name of god....is slightly different than subjectivity. They are aware of the social norm regarding morals, they simply put their religious values above it. As far as morality being subjective to begin with, yes and no. Morality is a social construct to maintain order. As times change, so do morals....but there is a general understanding of what is and is not acceptable by all(only little details tend to change from one to another). You can point to murderers/rapists/thieves/etc all you want, but there is a word for them : sociopaths. Sociopaths are incapable of functioning in society, understanding its system, etc. It isn't so much that they have their own sets of right and wrong...as much as they don't have any set of right or wrong. |
staindwing said: Why yes, religions do have their own moral values. Making your equation kind of pointless, isn't it? They just happen to be a different set of moral values, not your standarized ones.Eh. Religion =/= morals Religion tends to have its own morality that supersedes human law/morals....so Muslims/Al-Qaeda believing it ok to kill children/westerners/etc in the name of god....is slightly different than subjectivity. staindwing said: Plenty of criminals seem to have their own values on what's right and wrong, regardless if they're not a healthy member of society. That doesn't make their values invalid, however. They still have moral values, just totally different from the standarized ones. And unless you have some statistics, it seems to me plenty of criminals are pretty "normal" people who can function in society fine. Maybe not the rapists, but thieves?You can point to murderers/rapists/thieves/etc all you want, but there is a word for them : sociopaths. Sociopaths are incapable of functioning in society, understanding its system, etc. It isn't so much that they have their own sets of right and wrong...as much as they don't have any set of right or wrong. |
| Where's the "I don't care. Let them do as they wish." option? |
| I would execute the child from behind while discussing the situation so he wont feel a thing, then the man will have to be swiftly killed immediately after the child since he will most likely fight back. |
 |
staindwing said: I don't believe I ever mentioned religion, but okay.Eh. Religion =/= morals Religion tends to have its own morality that supersedes human law/morals....so Muslims/Al-Qaeda believing it ok to kill children/westerners/etc in the name of god....is slightly different than subjectivity. They are aware of the social norm regarding morals, they simply put their religious values above it. As far as morality being subjective to begin with, yes and no. Morality is a social construct to maintain order. As times change, so do morals....but there is a general understanding of what is and is not acceptable by all(only little details tend to change from one to another). You can point to murderers/rapists/thieves/etc all you want, but there is a word for them : sociopaths. Sociopaths are incapable of functioning in society, understanding its system, etc. It isn't so much that they have their own sets of right and wrong...as much as they don't have any set of right or wrong. The morality for a group believing in Qutbism is the social norm for them. Relgious values and morality are not exactly the same (but I don't believe i ever said they were), however, usually amongst those who are strong believers, the moral code of a specific religion strongly influences their individual morality, no? How can they be "aware" of the social norms? Is there some god preaching to them in their heads constantly? Social norms are hardly universal. There is no such thing as set in stone ethics. You mention sociopaths. Would those same men be considered sociopaths in say (and no be able to function), the Viking age, the mongol invasions, or whatnot? The lead executioner of the NKVD durign Stalin's reign personally killed thousands of men, and he got medals for it too. Is he not able to function in society? Morality differs individually and per society. Everyone has their own morality, you cannot not have a moral code. |
Tachii said: not particularly. the point i was making is the fact they uphold what they consider higher "laws", nullifying societal morality. Simply because they have their own set of morals, doesn't mean they are oblivious to society's standards. Thus, religion does not equal (generalized)morality.Why yes, religions do have their own moral values. Making your equation kind of pointless, isn't it? They just happen to be a different set of moral values, not your standarized ones. Tachii said: Plenty of criminals seem to have their own values on what's right and wrong, regardless if they're not a healthy member of society. That doesn't make their values invalid, however. They still have moral values, just totally different from the standarized ones. And unless you have some statistics, it seems to me plenty of criminals are pretty "normal" people who can function in society fine. Maybe not the rapists, but thieves? I don't recall claiming their morals invalid, rather, implying they are unorthodox. No statistics, just the reminder I specifically am referring to sociopaths, for the pure fact they by definition have no concept of moral responsibility (from a societal norm. standpoint anyhow). Ultimately my point was, that Sohei is claiming since no two people have the same morals....nothing is technically right or wrong(and using muslims and terrorists as his examples). ....and from a purely philosophical, existentialistic pov, sure.... you can argue that. Yet, society does have a more or less universally understood code of conduct. Exceptions exist(sociopaths, secluded civilizations, etc) , but they are just that, exceptions. |
| In reality, no one would have the balls to kill someone (Innocent [Including bullies, assholes not criminal or serious offenders]). Even if they did, they'll either become psychotic and kill some more, turn themselves in, suicide, bear the guilt for the rest of there lives which haunts them sometimes, drink themselves to death or try and forget it which takes over a year to do (unless someone resembles that person by what he/she's wearing or what he/she looks like) Unless you're a person that have been in many dangerous situation and got used to seeing death or bad things. If you kill a guitly person, you still might not have the balls to shoot but if you did you can at least dont have to worry as much since he/she is a criminal or a badass offender. I still got more but I'm only gonna type this much. I hope you understand my english. [Everyone has the right to survive, but it only depends on the person who actually deserves that right] |
lKaireNl said: or try and forget it which takes over a year to do (unless someone resembles that person by what he/she's wearing or what he/she looks like) so who'd you kill |
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
Neverender said: lKaireNl said: or try and forget it which takes over a year to do (unless someone resembles that person by what he/she's wearing or what he/she looks like) so who'd you kill The man obviously, even though it'll haunt me, since he's innocent but hes a man and hes in between life while we're pretty damn young or young since we have a future a head of us. |
lKaireNl said: Neverender said: lKaireNl said: or try and forget it which takes over a year to do (unless someone resembles that person by what he/she's wearing or what he/she looks like) so who'd you kill The man obviously, even though it'll haunt me, since he's innocent but hes a man and hes in between life while we're pretty damn young or young since we have a future a head of us. Does that not, more or less, indicate that one person's life is worth a different amount than anothers based on something as simple as age? Out of curiosity, I don't actually see anything wrong with that train of thought. |
Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the General Forum Guidelines! |
| I don't see why everyone is only talking about killing one person...you have to kill both, or kill none and let them kill you, or no one kills you and you all die...It's not a matter of "who would you kill" so much as it is "would you kill them." FAGBUTT said: Does that not, more or less, indicate that one person's life is worth a different amount than anothers based on something as simple as age? Out of curiosity, I don't actually see anything wrong with that train of thought. One person't life is not more valuable than others...that will always be the same....How ever, one persons skills can be more valuable than another. This depends on the situation though. It's that thing of, you're in a bomb shelter with 15 people but the shelter only has enough supplies to keep 6 people...who lives and who dies? They give you their age, medical history, jobs, skills, etc..for a reason. In a situation where you would need to survive in a barren world, finding food, and killing any kind of mutated thing or wild animal around, some skills will be worth more than others. Skills, experience, age, and medical background are very important because they need to know that if chosen to live, you can provide something no one else can. Skills- Survival, hunting, etc...possible use of wepons (assuming hostile enemies will attack), building shelter, etc...If no one can do any of these and an effective manner, chances are, none will last long. Medical history and age- If you render the people with a bad leg or something and you slow them down when you need to move, you can't do much unless you have a skill that is irreplaceable to the group. Age, if you're about to kick off in the next few months or years, then you really shouldn't let someone else die who could live much longer. Especially women; if you're at a point where you can't have children and you don't have any useful skills for the situation, then yea.. In theory, yes, it's simple to decide....people's feelings, etc..get in the way of doing it though, and that's what it all comes down to....Not, what to do..but, if you can do it. |
SayalolNov 3, 2009 6:09 PM
L2 Search - http://fc04.deviantart.com/fs48/f/2009/236/3/9/L2_Search_by_Siya_Akuma.jpg We're all getting trolled by Mayans. They probably thought "Fuck this shit, let's end the calendar and say shit's gonna go down." |
Sayalol said: I don't see why everyone is only talking about killing one person...you have to kill both, or kill none and let them kill you, or no one kills you and you all die...It's not a matter of "who would you kill" so much as it is "would you kill them." FAGBUTT said: Does that not, more or less, indicate that one person's life is worth a different amount than anothers based on something as simple as age? Out of curiosity, I don't actually see anything wrong with that train of thought. One person't life is not more valuable than others...that will always be the same....How ever, one persons skills can be more valuable than another. This depends on the situation though. It's that thing of, you're in a bomb shelter with 15 people but the shelter only has enough supplies to keep 6 people...who lives and who dies? They give you their age, medical history, jobs, skills, etc..for a reason. In a situation where you would need to survive in a barren world, finding food, and killing any kind of mutated thing or wild animal around, some skills will be worth more than others. Didn't you just explain why different lives can carry different values, in a nutshell? Albeit, the values would change based on the scenario, but you can always break down how useful to you/in general one person would be over another. At least, I think so. |
Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the General Forum Guidelines! |
FAGBUTT said: Didn't you just explain why different lives can carry different values, in a nutshell? Albeit, the values would change based on the scenario, but you can always break down how useful to you/in general one person would be over another. At least, I think so. ehh, lives as in personality is what I was going for...That was my fault for not explaining that. I think it's that quote of "All men are created equal," but never goes to "All men are created equal, but some become better." |
L2 Search - http://fc04.deviantart.com/fs48/f/2009/236/3/9/L2_Search_by_Siya_Akuma.jpg We're all getting trolled by Mayans. They probably thought "Fuck this shit, let's end the calendar and say shit's gonna go down." |
More topics from this board
Sticky: » The Current Events Board Will Be Closed on Friday JST ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )Luna - Aug 2, 2021 |
272 |
by traed
»»
Aug 5, 2021 5:56 PM |
|
» Third shot of Sinovac COVID-19 vaccine offers big increase in antibody levels: study ( 1 2 )Desolated - Jul 30, 2021 |
50 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:24 PM |
|
» Western vaccine producers engage in shameless profiteering while poorer countries are supplied mainly by China.Desolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
1 |
by Bourmegar
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:23 PM |
|
» NLRB officer says Amazon violated US labor lawDesolated - Aug 3, 2021 |
17 |
by kitsune0
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:41 PM |
|
» China Backs Cuba in Saying US Should Apply Sanctions To ItselfDesolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
10 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:36 PM |