killing an innocent person in cold blood is murder period. there are still circumstances where this ok
I do not agree. You will never in your life be faced with a circumstance where you need to murder someone to save 2 other people unless you actually live in a trolley problem comic strip. It's fun to think about, but it has nothing to do with the real world.
even if it does not happen does not mean it can't theoretically happen. If there is a non-zero chance of it happening, the consideration of the moral implications involved in it are real and due to our inability to know the future the consideration of real possibilities is completely valid no matter how unlikely.
wrong, just wrong. Would insert evil adult of your choice be doing evil things they do if they had been murdered as an innocent infant? no. greater good achieved.
inb4 response about how we wouldn't know they would turn out evil part one: the morality of a thing is entirely determined by outcome.
4: real life trolley problems do exist. Additionally, They don't need to save two lives to exist. You are faced with saving a child or an elderly person: who do you save? Unless said elderly person is valuable to humanity on a significant level the child is the only moral answer on who to save because death costs them significantly more.
even if it does not happen does not mean it can’t theoretically happen
dont care, we're not in a formal debate, "that situation would never come up so im not interested in entertaining it" is a valid response
Would insert evil adult of your choice be doing evil things they do if they had been murdered as an innocent infant?
you're not a time traveler, you cant kill baby hitler to stop him from doing genocide. this can be dismissed for the same reason as the trolley problem
the morality of a thing is entirely determined by outcome.
if you kill baby hitler the outcome is that you have murdered a random baby. since you're not a time traveler you have no way of telling that this was a positive for anyone. you're just a baby murderer, which i would call generally a negative thing.
You are faced with saving a child or an elderly person: who do you save? Unless said elderly person is valuable to humanity on a significant level the child is the only moral answer on who to save because death costs them significantly more.
What does that have to do with anything? Putting aside your personal opinion asserted as fact, so what?
so inserting your opinion that it cant happen is valid? either provide a base for this or stfu about opinion being vlaid or not. you dont need time travel, the fact that the hypothetical exits means the question exist which means that an answer exists. just because the answer is real and the implications thereof disagree with your position does not negate the reality of a potential scenario that requires an answer that opposes yours. the point of saving the young vs old hypothetical is to demonstrate that it is possible to quantify the relative value of lives. if it is possible to do so, then there exist scenarios histroical or hypothetical where the benefit of taking a life is greater than the cost of doing so or taking a different life.
historical example since you hate the concept of hypotheticals so much: killing the Romanov children. killing those kids was objectively good because it removed the possiblity of the restoration of the dynasty and severely handicapped movements based around doing so since they are no more of them to put on the throne.
I do not agree. You will never in your life be faced with a circumstance where you need to murder someone to save 2 other people unless you actually live in a trolley problem comic strip. It's fun to think about, but it has nothing to do with the real world.
deleted by creator
dont care, we're not in a formal debate, "that situation would never come up so im not interested in entertaining it" is a valid response
you're not a time traveler, you cant kill baby hitler to stop him from doing genocide. this can be dismissed for the same reason as the trolley problem
if you kill baby hitler the outcome is that you have murdered a random baby. since you're not a time traveler you have no way of telling that this was a positive for anyone. you're just a baby murderer, which i would call generally a negative thing.
What does that have to do with anything? Putting aside your personal opinion asserted as fact, so what?
so inserting your opinion that it cant happen is valid? either provide a base for this or stfu about opinion being vlaid or not. you dont need time travel, the fact that the hypothetical exits means the question exist which means that an answer exists. just because the answer is real and the implications thereof disagree with your position does not negate the reality of a potential scenario that requires an answer that opposes yours. the point of saving the young vs old hypothetical is to demonstrate that it is possible to quantify the relative value of lives. if it is possible to do so, then there exist scenarios histroical or hypothetical where the benefit of taking a life is greater than the cost of doing so or taking a different life.
historical example since you hate the concept of hypotheticals so much: killing the Romanov children. killing those kids was objectively good because it removed the possiblity of the restoration of the dynasty and severely handicapped movements based around doing so since they are no more of them to put on the throne.