4 ms·

Yes, they can. And because I'm bored enough to argue with people on the Internet, I will. "is it OK to kill in self defense?" Yes. Someone who threatens you

by dgordon 18y ago

Yes, they can. And because I'm bored enough to argue with people on the Internet, I will. "is it OK to kill in self defense?" Yes. Someone who threatens your life has removed themself from any concept of morality, like any other person initiating force against anyone else. "What about kill 10 people to keep yourself alive?" If they're ten gangsters trying to rob or rape or kill you, see the above. If they're ten random people that some madman ordered you to murder for his own reasons, at the cost of your own life if you do not, then morality cannot apply here. There can be no right and wrong in the case of someone who is acting under coercion. "What about killing someone who is not harming you, in order to keep yourself alive?" Assuming no madman scenario, so no coercion (which would make it the same as the above), no. Not for organs for transplant, nor for money to pay rent, nor for two dollars for a loaf of bread. A person does not gain the right to use force against others to get what they need to live by their inability to get it by other means. "What about kill a baby to save 100 people?" I can't see any way this would apply outside of the madman scenario I answered above. All of these answers are based on my understanding of morality, which is derived from first principles, as you put it. I'm not so bored as to write about it in detail, and besides, the works of Ayn Rand provide a good first approximation to it. (Read the part of Atlas Shrugged nobody actually reads [in before "You mean any of it?"] -- John Galt's radio speech -- and you'll get a good idea. The key phrase, as I recall, is "human life as the standard of value.")

ars 18y ago
[Kill in self defense] "yes" And yet not everyone agrees - pacifists for example. They also thought about it, and came to the opposite conclusion. The only reason you think it's OK is that you live in a culture where that is the norm. Live somewhere else and you'd think something else. In neither case can you point me to universal principles that would help you decide. I'm not looking for the answer, I'm looking for how to pick the answer. "If they're ten random people that some madman ordered you to murder for his own reasons, at the cost of your own life if you do not, then morality cannot apply here. There can be no right and wrong in the case of someone who is acting under coercion." Yes, 10 random people. You say morality cannot apply - yet you have to make a choice: do you kill them or don't you? Which do you choose? And more importantly how do you decide which to choose? "no" to killing someone not harming you to keep yourself alive: You said no. But thousands upon thousands of people throughout history chose different. Some people would hold that keeping yourself alive is your utmost responsibility, and trumps anything else. Even today people are not that troubled by killing someone outside their group. I don't agree - but I can not prove it beyond saying that probably civilization would do better that way - but even that is not necessarily so. Some civilizations are based on strength of arm (and your allies arms). Those might do better then one not based on such - look at Tibet. Both of the choices you listed match those of american norms and those of the bible (which is where they originated). "I'm not so bored as to write about it in detail" But that was the entire question - the examples listed don't need an answer, they are just a point to example how two people might come up with totally different logical answers. I'm not going to read Atlas Shrugged - I had enough with philosophical books disguised as novels when I read The Sword of Truth series (it started great, then got horrible) - and it's based on Ayn's works. But, I read a wikipedia summary, and I know for sure that many disagree with her. If she can really come up with a morality from first principles - how can you disagree? I say you can't. You either pick randomly, or you let someone above you pick. Most people do the second - they do what they grew up with, and their parents did the same, etc, if you go back, for almost the entire world it's ultimately based on the ideas of the bible.
- unalone 18y ago
  I won't get into all of this argument - it's a good one, and I'm enjoying reading it - but Ayn Rand does one thing that very few other people do: she admits outright what her works are. She never pretends to teach anything other than Objectivism. And while her thoughts are flawed, she has an ability to take complex thoughts and make them easy to follow. Atlas Shrugged is absolutely worth a read. Ironically, your saying that you don't like Rand because other people don't like her is going along with the very principle that Rand most stands against. Make your own opinions, based on your own logic. Don't follow what other people say. Read it yourself and decide.
  - ars 18y ago
    Actually I didn't say I didn't like Rand (I don't know enough about her to have an opinion), I just said I wouldn't read the book. Mainly because it's too long, but also because if I wanted to read on that topic I would prefer a survey, plus I don't like philosophy books masquerading as fiction. I'm glad you are enjoying reading about this, but it seems to have stopped. Plus I got some downmods, so I guess other people are not enjoying it quite as much.

by dgordon 18y ago

ars 18y ago

[Kill in self defense] "yes" And yet not everyone agrees - pacifists for example. They also thought about it, and came to the opposite conclusion. The only reason you think it's OK is that you live in a culture where that is the norm. Live somewhere else and you'd think something else. In neither case can you point me to universal principles that would help you decide. I'm not looking for the answer, I'm looking for how to pick the answer. "If they're ten random people that some madman ordered you to murder for his own reasons, at the cost of your own life if you do not, then morality cannot apply here. There can be no right and wrong in the case of someone who is acting under coercion." Yes, 10 random people. You say morality cannot apply - yet you have to make a choice: do you kill them or don't you? Which do you choose? And more importantly how do you decide which to choose? "no" to killing someone not harming you to keep yourself alive: You said no. But thousands upon thousands of people throughout history chose different. Some people would hold that keeping yourself alive is your utmost responsibility, and trumps anything else. Even today people are not that troubled by killing someone outside their group. I don't agree - but I can not prove it beyond saying that probably civilization would do better that way - but even that is not necessarily so. Some civilizations are based on strength of arm (and your allies arms). Those might do better then one not based on such - look at Tibet. Both of the choices you listed match those of american norms and those of the bible (which is where they originated). "I'm not so bored as to write about it in detail" But that was the entire question - the examples listed don't need an answer, they are just a point to example how two people might come up with totally different logical answers. I'm not going to read Atlas Shrugged - I had enough with philosophical books disguised as novels when I read The Sword of Truth series (it started great, then got horrible) - and it's based on Ayn's works. But, I read a wikipedia summary, and I know for sure that many disagree with her. If she can really come up with a morality from first principles - how can you disagree? I say you can't. You either pick randomly, or you let someone above you pick. Most people do the second - they do what they grew up with, and their parents did the same, etc, if you go back, for almost the entire world it's ultimately based on the ideas of the bible.

unalone 18y ago
I won't get into all of this argument - it's a good one, and I'm enjoying reading it - but Ayn Rand does one thing that very few other people do: she admits outright what her works are. She never pretends to teach anything other than Objectivism. And while her thoughts are flawed, she has an ability to take complex thoughts and make them easy to follow. Atlas Shrugged is absolutely worth a read. Ironically, your saying that you don't like Rand because other people don't like her is going along with the very principle that Rand most stands against. Make your own opinions, based on your own logic. Don't follow what other people say. Read it yourself and decide.
- ars 18y ago
  Actually I didn't say I didn't like Rand (I don't know enough about her to have an opinion), I just said I wouldn't read the book. Mainly because it's too long, but also because if I wanted to read on that topic I would prefer a survey, plus I don't like philosophy books masquerading as fiction. I'm glad you are enjoying reading about this, but it seems to have stopped. Plus I got some downmods, so I guess other people are not enjoying it quite as much.