Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Moral Dilemma Exercise
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Aries" data-source="post: 3283230" data-attributes="member: 44328"><p>Taking a life does not necessarily = murder</p><p></p><p><span style="font-size: 22px"><strong>murder</strong></span></p><p><a href="https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/noun" target="_blank">noun</a></p><p>mur·der | \ ˈmər-dər\</p><p><span style="font-size: 18px"><strong>Definition of <em>murder</em></strong></span></p><p> (Entry 1 of 2)</p><p></p><p>1 <strong>: </strong>the crime of <u>unlawfully </u>killing a person especially with malice <a href="https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/aforethought" target="_blank">aforethought</a> (emph. mine)</p><p></p><p>American Heritage Dictionary goes a little farther...</p><p>The killing of another person without justification or excuse, especially the crime of killing a person with malice aforethought or with recklessness manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life.</p><p></p><p>I do agree with you about the "real question". As presented, most take the dilemma to be about whether or not Hitler should be killed before he has a chance to commit his atrocities. But I think (partly from reading the responses) that the real struggle most have is with whether or not we can be absolutely 100% sure that history will play the way it did if he is not killed. Most of the reservations I see are along the line of what if it doesn't, but the question itself defines that it absolutely and certainly will. Given that, I think I probably could, and while it leaves open the interesting possibility that something worse COULD happen... those hypothetical events are potential, not inevitable (within the question). The question does not leave the possibility that it might happen differently if young Adolf is allowed to live. In other words, I would prevent the inevitable, and take my chances on the potential.</p><p></p><p>To put it a different way, if you were convinced that a 17 year old young man was about to kill your family (or make it a 10 year old if you'd rather), could you take his life? I think most of us would say, absolutely! The difference is that the threat to your family is immediate and certain, while the question leaves the impression that Hitler's threat is certain, but not immediate. But the question as stated does not allow uncertainty. It only allows a difference in how much time passes before the inevitable takes place.</p><p></p><p>At least, that's how I see it....</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Aries, post: 3283230, member: 44328"] Taking a life does not necessarily = murder [SIZE=6][B]murder[/B][/SIZE] [URL='https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/noun']noun[/URL] mur·der | \ ˈmər-dər\ [SIZE=5][B]Definition of [I]murder[/I][/B][/SIZE] (Entry 1 of 2) 1 [B]: [/B]the crime of [U]unlawfully [/U]killing a person especially with malice [URL='https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/aforethought']aforethought[/URL] (emph. mine) American Heritage Dictionary goes a little farther... The killing of another person without justification or excuse, especially the crime of killing a person with malice aforethought or with recklessness manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life. I do agree with you about the "real question". As presented, most take the dilemma to be about whether or not Hitler should be killed before he has a chance to commit his atrocities. But I think (partly from reading the responses) that the real struggle most have is with whether or not we can be absolutely 100% sure that history will play the way it did if he is not killed. Most of the reservations I see are along the line of what if it doesn't, but the question itself defines that it absolutely and certainly will. Given that, I think I probably could, and while it leaves open the interesting possibility that something worse COULD happen... those hypothetical events are potential, not inevitable (within the question). The question does not leave the possibility that it might happen differently if young Adolf is allowed to live. In other words, I would prevent the inevitable, and take my chances on the potential. To put it a different way, if you were convinced that a 17 year old young man was about to kill your family (or make it a 10 year old if you'd rather), could you take his life? I think most of us would say, absolutely! The difference is that the threat to your family is immediate and certain, while the question leaves the impression that Hitler's threat is certain, but not immediate. But the question as stated does not allow uncertainty. It only allows a difference in how much time passes before the inevitable takes place. At least, that's how I see it.... [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Moral Dilemma Exercise
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom