You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: [VIDEO] 99.9% of People Are Good; Violent Conflict is Almost Always Avoidable.
And no, the taking of innocent lives is not wrong to me if it saves vastly more innocent lives than it costs.
I'm sure you'll be the first to volunteer when the time comes, then, to sacrifice your life for a hypothetical "greater good."
Wait a minute. No, you won't. You'll vote for the others to go first. Pathetic.
Some people do answer the call. Some people don't have the option.
I don't see how any of that goes against my utilitarian argument that generally a million lives is worth more than one. It's a no-brainer, really.
It just demonstrates a lack of an understanding of ethics. Like I said, in that case, please sacrifice yourself first.
This is the same inane excuse used to "justify" drone bombing children in the Middle East.
If you think about it for a second, you'll see it's a dead end. Nothing, not even hypothetical situations, ever justify the taking of innocent life.
Some situations do justify taking innocent lives.
If I spend one dollar to save one million dollars, then I have saved $999,999.
If I kill one person to save one million, then I have saved 999,999 lives. That's a good thing!
There you go. My point exactly. Lives to you are comparable to things, and you judge in an exclusively quantitative, utilitarian manner, like most violent collectivists.
Okay. Except I'm not violent or collectivistic.
This in itself is violent thinking. Also you are making the assumption that it really is saving vastly more innocent lives. With that thinking, when does it stop? If war is so necessary and productive for creating peace or safety then how come wars have continuously been going on for 6,000 years?
A lot of things could be considered 'natural'. Just because something could possibly fit into that category doesn't always give the reasoning that its justified or right.
You yourself may not be a violent person in action but supporting a violent entity like war is in itself violent as well. And you seem to be supporting a very 'collectivist' idea pretty enthusiastically without being open to consideration of what others are saying on here in opposition to you.
Well, if you think it is okay to kill innocent people for a hypothetical "greater good," then yes, you are collectivisitic, and potentially violent. Words have meanings. You don't get to just twist and turn out of convenience.