Minichan

ilu broseph

Not Broseph here, but one is responsible for the results of their own actions, and not those of something they had nothing to do with.

@previous (C)
What about lack of actions? If I stand by and let you fall to your death, when I could have easily saved you, am I not responsible?

(Citing a deleted or non-existent reply.)
See
(Citing a deleted or non-existent reply.) (you)

There are reasons why philosophers believe this. Like I said, I'm just not going to get into the long-winded proofs. Even if it is just my opinion, everyone went against you in the poll, so there's that. Also, your argument is that people would be happier under your system, but "happy" is subjective, just like opinions. If everyone votes no in the poll, then it's safe to say that most people would not be happy under your system, which makes the system moot. It's a morally bankrupt type of collectivism.

You also never answered my question here: (Citing a deleted or non-existent reply.) (you)
> If they opt out, does that also take them out of the lottery for having their organs harvested? If not, do you see the problem with this?

@104,039 (C)
Inaction is a choice, and very much "something they had to do with".

@104,045 (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
I am not talking about my system, I am talking about your belief that action implies responsibility, but inactions does not (or that it means less responsibility).

If I can easily stop an unaware man from walking off a cliff by simply calling to him to be careful, but do not, how is that any less evil than pushing him off?

Often times we cannot save people (if they are in traffic, it is not safe to approach). But in this clear situation of flipping a switch, or calling (or catching) a man to save him, how do you justify your system?

(Edited 2 minutes later.)

@104,046 (A)
Let's say a bank is being robbed. Am I aiding a crime by not stopping it?

@previous (C)
No.

First, we are dealing with saving money, and risking life.
Second, it's uncertain what would happen. You would be endangering your life, and there is no guarantee that you could do anything.

That is why I am keeping the situation to a simple "flipping a switch", so we can deal with simply the morality of actions, and inactions.

@104,047 (A)
Some things are morally obligatory, somethings are morally bankrupt, and some things are morally preferred but not morally obligatory. Something is morally obligatory if harm is caused as a direct result of your actions. For example, I am morally obligated to not murder someone. I am morally obligated to not steal. I am morally obligated to get out of the way of an ambulance on the highway. I would be morally obligated to flip a switch that would save thousands of people, as long as flipping that switch would not cause me any significant harm. These things are all morally obligatory. Note that most morally obligatory actions involves refraining, not doing. That's because that which is morally obligatory is often based on negative rights. Things such as stealing, murdering, assaulting others, and anything else that causes unnecessary harm or violates someone's rights are morally bankrupt. Then there are things that are morally preferred but not morally obligatory. Donating to charity or helping the elderly are morally preferred, but not morally obligatory. I'm not committing a crime by not donating to charity or not going out of my way to help people, but such actions are morally good because of the good they cause. I'm not directly causing any harm by not doing them. Take the example I gave that if I were in a position to sacrifice my life to save a 1000 lives, I would not be morally obligated to do so. It would be wonderful if I did, but I'm not committing a crime or doing something morally bankrupt by choosing not to kill myself to save the 1000 lives. If you disagree with these terms and/or still don't see the difference, oh well.

(Edited 4 minutes later.)

@104,051 (A)
Ah, so it's a matter of "flip the switch, kill a man; leave the switch, kill a thousand". I'll just bench this one out from here then, for the thread's sake. Later!

@104,048 (C)
Not from the legal perspective.
Not helping somebody when you could have however... is something else.

@104,057 (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
What I'm getting from you is this:

You wouldn't flip the switch, even though it would mean 999 more people would be alive, because it would kill a single person, is against your moral code.

If your moral code involves that many people dying for your own honor, isn't it time to rethink it?

If this actually situation came up, most people would flip that switch, even if they said "murder is bad", and who could blame them? Only a pussy would avoid flipping the switch so they could feel they were morally right. 1k lives is not a toy, bud.

@previous (A)
Flipping the switch is not the same as killing yourself. Read @104,057 (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4) one more time. I specifically listed switching the switch as something that would be morally obligatory. I said in the other thread that if taking no action would be considered borderline negligence, then it is morally obligatory. There are shades of grey, and opinions vary, but flipping a switch to save 1000 people is not the same as killing yourself to save 1000 people. And killing one person to save 1000 is not the same as saving 999. There is a moral difference.

This is going no where, and I'm done with your bullshit. If you don't get it, you don't get it. Everyone else does.

@104,044 (Ks !KansasxqvM)
No, you are not responsible. If you pushed someone off a cliff, you are responsible.