Win a copy of GANs in ActionE this week in the AI forum
or WebAssembly in Action in the JavaScript forum!
    Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic
programming forums Java Mobile Certification Databases Caching Books Engineering Micro Controllers OS Languages Paradigms IDEs Build Tools Frameworks Application Servers Open Source This Site Careers Other all forums
this forum made possible by our volunteer staff, including ...
Marshals:
  • Campbell Ritchie
  • Bear Bibeault
  • Paul Clapham
  • Jeanne Boyarsky
  • Knute Snortum
Sheriffs:
  • Liutauras Vilda
  • Tim Cooke
  • Junilu Lacar
Saloon Keepers:
  • Ron McLeod
  • Stephan van Hulst
  • Tim Moores
  • Tim Holloway
  • Carey Brown
Bartenders:
  • Joe Ess
  • salvin francis
  • fred rosenberger

Heh, another good reason to vote Democrat this year

 
Leverager of our synergies
Posts: 10065
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
Joe: Okay, now it's your child or 1000 strangers. Which do you save? A million strangers? A billion?
My break point is somewhere around 3-5.
One - yes, two - yes with some suffering, three... Then it becomes more and more problematic. 10,000 are out of question. Close your eyes, kill your baby, then kill yourself, the problem is solved. Two dead, 10,000 alive.
 
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Posts: 10065
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
Joe: In the same scenario above, is the number different if you must actively kill the strangers, by pushing a button? If it is different, why?
I guess, only the probability of causing a death matters here. If I said that this button would kill 10,000, how can I be sure it will? Maybe not. If I have to do the killing myself, and see the victims, it's very different.
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1376
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
So what I get from your statement is that you would let 3-5 people die, but you wouldn't actively KILL those people. Why is it okay to let people die but not kill them? In the end, the people die because of your decision, and I find no ethical difference between the two.
In Thomas' rules, you can let people die so you can save your child in the first scenario, but you MUST let your baby die in the other two situations no matter how many strangers are hurt by your action, because you cannot cause harm to an innocent human being. Do you agree with this?
You and Thomas differentiate between letting people die and killing them, and in my mind that's a pretty flimsy difference. In the end, people die based on your decision. I have a hard time differentiating between the two. If I let people die by making a decision or kill them by pushing a button, it's the same exact thing. I am choosing who lives and who dies. It's only when I actually have to kill them with my own hands that it gets more difficult, but that's not necessarily a sign of any sort of moral character. In fact, I think it's a sign of weakness, but I haven't decided yet.
Now, let's take the issue a little further.
You are strapped in a chair, your finger poised over a button. A loved one is chained in a chair across the room, being unspeakably tortured. I won't bother describing the scene, I'll let you determine the most horrific situation imaginable. This person is screaming to you to save them, racking horrible cries of sheer agony. The only way to stop the torture is to push the button.
How many strangers are you willing to kill then? In the end, do you really care what the button does? I know myself: after about 15 seconds, I'm a blithering idiot and I'll push the button ten times to make it stop. If it's my baby, just the threat will probably make me push the button. What about you?
Joe
 
Ugly Redneck
Posts: 1006
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
I am simply stating what I consider to be a fact: that anybody who says they want their loved ones to die in a war is a liar.


Actually, I have read about atleast 2 parents in Palestine and atleast 1 parent in Kashmir who have proudly supported their children dieing in the frontlines of militant warfare. Infact the Palestenian mother was even video taped sending her son into war and personally handing over the weapon to him.
 
Joe Pluta
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1376
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
Actually, I have read about atleast 2 parents in Palestine and atleast 1 parent in Kashmir who have proudly supported their children dieing in the frontlines of militant warfare.
Do these mothers actually WANT their children to die, or is it that they will be proud if they do? There's a huge difference. I find it hard to believe there are mothers who want their children to die.
But then again, I don't live in a society that idolizes suicide bombers, either. So you're right, Paul, there are people who want their children to die for (insert cause here). These people are not liars, they are simply irrational, at least by my standards.
Joe
[ February 25, 2004: Message edited by: Joe Pluta ]
 
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Posts: 10065
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
Joe: So what I get from your statement is that you would let 3-5 people die, but you wouldn't actively KILL those people.
No, I don't see the difference between letting people die (assuming I can save them) and killing them myself. The difference I spoke of is probability - when I have to do killing myself, I am sure of consequences, while in the other case I can fancy myself with various fantasies. It isn't an unimportant difference -- that's how all totalitarian regimes work.
 
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
You and Thomas differentiate between letting people die and killing them, and in my mind that's a pretty flimsy difference. In the end, people die based on your decision. I have a hard time differentiating between the two. If I let people die by making a decision or kill them by pushing a button, it's the same exact thing. I am choosing who lives and who dies.


I have to agree that there is a difference. If I'm a firefighter at a house fire with a person trapped, the house heavily involved in fire, and signs of imminent structural collapse, then I have a to weigh the odds of going in and successfully making a save versus the odds of getting my crew killed because conditions are just way too hazardous to attempt a save. If I decide that I believe the chance of a successful rescue is extremely unlikely and there would be a good chance that people on my crew will get killed if the rescue was attempted, then I would not attempt the rescue. In effect, I would be making a conscious decision to let the trapped victim die in order to not get my crew killed while attempting a rescue that would in all likelihood be unsuccessful anyway. Decisions like this have to be made all the time, and I would argue that it is quite a far cry from killing somebody.
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 382
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator


Many posts by various posters
Joe Pluta: I am simply stating what I consider to be a fact: that anybody who says they want their loved ones to die in a war is a liar.
Paul McKenna: Actually, I have read about atleast 2 parents in Palestine and atleast 1 parent in Kashmir who have proudly supported their children dieing in the frontlines of militant warfare. Infact the Palestenian mother was even video taped sending her son into war and personally handing over the weapon to him.


I think what many posters are ignoring is that there are principles, causes and relatives. Each principle, cause & relative that a person holds dear may not have the same priority, influence, strength and importance for that person.
At different times these can be in conflict with one another. Depending on the relative strengths, priorities and the importance of these three with respect to one another, each person will make a decision to act in a certain manner. Sometimes, the cause may be the strongest (as evidenced by the family members of the Palestinian suicide bomber in Paul's post). Sometimes the principle may out-weigh the others (example, UNA bomber's brother turning him in). At other times the love for a particular relative may be the most important for that person and will act accordingly.
Generally this is fine with most people. Nevertheless, there may be instances when a majority of the people may not agree with one person's actions. For example, if I've a very dear friend or a very dear, close family member, who has done a heinous (in my view) crime (say, raped some one, this is just an example; please don't bombard me with a bunch of what if crimes) I will have no hesitation in turning that friend/relative in, no matter how personally painful it may be for me. This may not sit well with the majority who may believe that no matter what a friend/relative does, you don't rat on that person. I don't care if it doesn't sit well with other people.
 
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Posts: 10065
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
You are strapped in a chair, your finger poised over a button. A loved one is chained in a chair across the room, being unspeakably tortured. I won't bother describing the scene, I'll let you determine the most horrific situation imaginable. This person is screaming to you to save them, racking horrible cries of sheer agony. The only way to stop the torture is to push the button.
How many strangers are you willing to kill then? In the end, do you really care what the button does? I know myself: after about 15 seconds, I'm a blithering idiot and I'll push the button ten times to make it stop. If it's my baby, just the threat will probably make me push the button. What about you?

I was in a softer version of this situation, and I learnt that I abandon the emotional part of myself very quickly, so only brain works. It's not strength, it's actually weakness. My emotions couldn't stand it a second, so something inside me shut them up. I can be very cruel to the people I love most, if there is something I believe is more important. My mother is the same, so I probably inherited this trait.
How many strangers are you willing to kill then?
None. As honestly as I can say without actually being in this situation. Maybe in reality I would act differently -- but this part nobody can guarantee!
[ February 25, 2004: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]
 
Joe Pluta
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1376
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
JM: I have to agree that there is a difference. If I'm a firefighter at a house fire with a person trapped, the house heavily involved in fire, and signs of imminent structural collapse, then I have a to weigh the odds of going in and successfully making a save versus the odds of getting my crew killed because conditions are just way too hazardous to attempt a save.

No, no, no. You're adding WAY too many extraneous factors. This is not about firefighting, or odds, or any other rationalizing factors. This is simply about making a moral decision.
To strip it to its bare essentials: You are on a spaceship, about to self-destruct. There are two lifepods, and you have enough energy to launch one or the other. They are already loaded with people and locked down for launch, you have no time to move anyone. One contains your baby, one contains (X) strangers, about whom you know absolutely nothing. Either lifepod will return to Earth safely, but not both.
You get to choose.
Joe
 
Joe Pluta
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1376
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
Map: difference I spoke of is probability
Okay, that's cheating on the button. I at least tried to go with the spirit of the situation, which was that I knew the button would kill people. If I thought the madman might be lying, then pushing the button isn't even an issue.
But given the human tendency to avoid the realyl tough decision, I knew people mgiht try to skirt the issue. And that's why I added the third option, where you yourself kill the people. What is your breakpoint then? How many people will you kill to save your loved one? Is it a different number than the 3-5 you will let die? If so, why the difference?
And then there's the new scenario about the loved one being tortured.
You'll notice that so far Thomas as kept quiet on this. It's not easy being morally rigid in these extreme circumstances. But if he's keeping quiet, I have to apply his rules and assume that he will just sit in that chair and watch his loved ones be tortured, rather than hurt one innocent stranger.
Personally, I think my family would understand my ethical decision.
Joe
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
No, no, no. You're adding WAY too many extraneous factors. This is not about firefighting, or odds, or any other rationalizing factors. This is simply about making a moral decision.


For me such decisions aren't black and white, and all factors figure in the decision. Again for me personally, I can't make a valid choice on a scenario that has no likelihood of happening. There are no magic buttons and there are no spaceships with a baby in them. I understand your point, but I believe all such decisions can only be made when weighing all factors, and further we can only make such decisions which are in our realm of understanding. A button which will kill 10,000 people is outside of most of our realms of understanding, and therefore a proper decision cannot be made as I see it. In many of the scenarios I've seen here I wouldn't go with either option but would seek a third alternative, but that's just me. These either/or decisions of the magnitude being discussed just aren't usually there in real life, so it's asking people a bit much to make a choice they are willing to stand by. My answer in almost all of these would be depends.
 
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Posts: 10065
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
And that's why I added the third option, where you yourself kill the people. What is your breakpoint then?
The same.
How many people will you kill to save your loved one? Is it a different number than the 3-5 you will let die? If so, why the difference?
It's not different. But regarding "loved one", I would not kill anybody for my man, but I would consider this possibility for my child. I am not clear with myself why it is so, but isn't it the common practice among decent people to try to save children above all other in a dangerous situation?
Personally, I think my family would understand my ethical decision.
I hope mine would not.
 
Joe Pluta
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1376
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
JM: My answer in almost all of these would be depends.
EXCELLENT!
It depends! And for me, I took the time to try and guess what I would do in the horribly unrealistic situation Thomas was posing. I then got castigated for my poor morals.
The truth is that there are no such buttons, and all we can do is make our best guess. Not only that, but applying our own moral yardstick to someone else in these most ridiculous of situations is simply inappropriate.
And that, folks, is my whole issue. If I say I would smash that button down to save my newborn baby boy, then that's my decision, and NOBODY has the right to give me any grief for it. If you say you wouldn't then that's your decision, and from this point forward, I'll leave you alone if you leave me alone .
Joe
 
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Posts: 10065
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
I then got castigated for my poor morals.
Where?
If I say I would smash that button down to save my newborn baby boy, then that's my decision, and NOBODY has the right to give me any grief for it.
Eh... Even those whose babies you killed?
 
Joe Pluta
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1376
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
Even those whose babies you killed?
Please note, Map, I didn't kill ANYONE. Thus the concept of hypothetical. Do you like my answer? No. But I don't like yours. I'd be worried about being your man, since you'd let me die .
Joe
 
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Posts: 10065
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
Please note, Map, I didn't kill ANYONE.
Now you lost me.
You said:
I would smash that button down to save my newborn baby boy,
You also said:
Okay, that's cheating on the button. I at least tried to go with the spirit of the situation, which was that I knew the button would kill people.
So, like... What are you saying? Make your mind :roll:
I'd be worried about being your man, since you'd let me die.
I'd be worried to be with a man who would kill 10,000 to save me!
 
Joe Pluta
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1376
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
Hey Map?
We're arguing semantics now. I was saying that YOU have no right to question my morals. The hypothetical people whose hypothetical babies I hypothetically killed by pushing the hypothetical button have every hypothetical right, but they're not part of this discussion BECAUSE THEY'RE HYPOTHETICAL.
Joe
 
Joe Pluta
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1376
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
I'd be worried to be with a man who would kill 10,000 to save me!
Men have started wars for a woman, Map!
Joe
 
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Posts: 10065
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
We're arguing semantics now. I was saying that YOU have no right to question my morals.
Hm... I am not sure what we argue about at this point. So, like, what happened to your morale absolutes anyway?
 
Joe Pluta
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1376
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
Hey, this is the forum that jumped all over my ass and told me there were no moral absolutes! Anyway, I'm not going to get sucked off into other long-wnided philosophical discussions. My real point here is that my decision is every bit as valid as everyone else's here. When you start creating horrific hypothetical situations, all you're doing is finding those points where each of us have limitations of our moral endurance.
Thomans insists he has a set of rules that will always work, no matter how horrific the situation. Jason says his decisions always depend. You have some pretty strict rules, and some that are pretty soft. Me, I say that for the standard day-to-day issues of life, you can live by a very strict ethical code, but that morality may diverge from ethics in extreme situations and for me it diverges towards protecting my loved ones.
I don't want to debate it anymore. The answers here have shown there is a wide divergence of opinion. I don't think I am any more moral than Thomas (or you or Jason), but I also don't think I am any less moral. It's just my morals are different. And when I hold that tiny infant whose life I am responsible for, I guarantee you that colors my morality.
Joe
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 165
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
Hey, this is the forum that jumped all over my ass and told me there were no moral absolutes!


In fact, the powers here hold the belief that there ARE moral absolutes. I am for there are none. What are you for?
 
Joe Pluta
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1376
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
TT: In fact, the powers here hold the belief that there ARE moral absolutes. I am for there are none.
(laughing)
You need to review some of the threads from last year. Here's one:
https://coderanch.com/t/39182/md/Good-Evil

As to my position, this is a good start:
https://coderanch.com/t/39199/md/Good-Evil-Theoretical-Thread

Joe
 
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Posts: 10065
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
We're arguing semantics now. I was saying that YOU have no right to question my morals.
Joe, you said:
If I say I would smash that button down to save my newborn baby boy, then that's my decision, and NOBODY has the right to give me any grief for it.
if your NOBODY actually means YOU MAP, then you need to indicate it somehow, because it is not immediately clear for me.
 
Joe Pluta
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1376
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
if your NOBODY actually means YOU MAP, then you need to indicate it somehow, because it is not immediately clear for me.
Map, I'm getting a little tired of detailing the meaning of every phrase, so please bear with me if I sound a little surly.
I am saying that nobody here has any right to give me grief for my decision in this most horrific of situations. However, as I have consistently said (including way back in September), I have to accept the consequences of my action. Those whom I would affect through that decision have every right to make me accept those consequences.
But YOU are not one of those people, nor is anybody in MD. In fact, since this whole exercise is hypothetical, then no real person can give me grief for my decision. Only those hypothetical victims can make claims against me, and only if I actually do the deed - the same as those men you killed in your answer can come to you for redress.
Got it now? I hope so, because if you don't have it, then I apologize but I'm not going to spend any more time on it. This is so basic to me that I can't explain it any further.
Joe
[ February 25, 2004: Message edited by: Joe Pluta ]
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 199
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
Joe--- Actually, I can Bhau. I can do exactly that, because I am a human being, and I don't have to live by your code of ethics, or anybody else's.
Bhau--- The point was not about who's code of ethics should to be followed. It was about fairness. Fairness between 'equal' citizens. GWB, Thomas's brother, and somebody's son all share equal rights and thus share equal responsibilities, I think.

Joe--- What I have to do is live with my own ethics and my relationship with my God. And part of that is being honest, and honestly I don't ever want any of my family or friends to die in war no matter how just.
Anybody who says different is a liar.
[b]Bhau---
Nobody wants their family members to die in war. Heck, no body wants any other innocent to die terribly as they do in wars. Do you think the parents of US millitary personnel sent their kids because that thought it is OKAY if they died? 500 dead till date, if i am correct. Don't those parents have a heart?

Joe--- So, rather than pretend some hollow obeisance to a set of rigid rules - rules that carried to their illogical end lead to the notion that I cannot punch a stranger to save my child
Bhau--- That's why, my brother Joe, I said in my very first post- keep those situations out of discussion. They do not occur everyday in reality and as you said there are no set of rigid rules for them. But war is a reality. And there are a set of rigid rules to be followed by all the citizens equally.

Joe--- I instead am willing to make my ethical judgments based on my heart and what I truly feel. I know I am a good person, and I know that what I feel is usually pretty trustworthy, and my relationship with my God is such that I think I can tell right from wrong.
Bhau--- Hey, we all know you are a good person, Joe. Didn't I mention that sometimes back in a different thread? In fact, I think you are more than perfect. But the world we live in is not. There are times when we narrate fairy tales to our kids, and then there are times when we face reality.

Joe--- To say I want my family on the front lines is simply dishonest.
Bhau--- You know Joe, I have a dream! A world without boundaries, a world without front lines.

Joe--- Can I live with the fact that I am more worried about my family's safety than that of my countrymen? Yup. I can.
Bhau--- In everyday life, people everywhere do the same that you do. Worried about their ownself. Nobody expects you to chase the mafia everyday. But war time is different.

Joe--- And in fact, Bhau, if people thought the way you seem to be proposing, we'd never have needed a draft, would we?
Bhau--- Draft, Conetitous objectors, blah blah blah... Probably our differences arise from the way we think about war.
The part of the world where I come from and in most other parts of the world, the wars have mainly been about fighting to defend ourselves in our own homeland. The enemy is at our gates. Marching in. There is NO ROOM for Conetitous Objectors and there is NO TIME for drafting. Do or die. If all the families do not act togather, there won't be any family left.
In your case, it seems like, okay, there is a war, somewhere thousands of miles away. Do the enemy have enough weapons? Yeah, our president says they have WMDs. He thinks a war is necessary. Okay I support him. What do I mean by that? I mean I'll pay some taxes to support it. Carry a flag on my SUV. Donate to some fund organizations. But I don't want my family and friends to go there. I mean it looks cool on CNN and celebrate people like Jessica Lynch, etc. but that's it. There are enough people to bear that burden. Spare my family, please.
 
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Posts: 10065
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
BM: The part of the world where I come from and in most other parts of the world, the wars have mainly been about fighting to defend ourselves in our own homeland. The enemy is at our gates. Marching in. There is NO ROOM for Conetitous Objectors and there is NO TIME for drafting. Do or die. If all the families do not act togather, there won't be any family left.
How anti-American. But I understand you.
 
Joe Pluta
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1376
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
The part of the world where I come from and in most other parts of the world, the wars have mainly been about fighting to defend ourselves in our own homeland.
You got it, Bhau. There's a huge difference between saving your home and saving someone else's. Typically in wartime, America is saving someone else, so I guess we see things differently.
Joe
 
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
You got it, Bhau. There's a huge difference between saving your home and saving someone else's. Typically in wartime, America is saving someone else, so I guess we see things differently.

Maybe having seen the crumbling ruins of the World Trade Center I have a different perspective on whose home is being saved.
 
Bhau Mhatre
Ranch Hand
Posts: 199
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
Map--- How anti-American.
Bhau--- Can you go a little slower?

Joe--- You got it, Bhau. There's a huge difference between saving your home and saving someone else's. Typically in wartime, America is saving someone else, so I guess we see things differently.

Bhau--- Nice one, Joe!
That has been the case before. But this time US fought to save its own homeland from imminent threats from terrorists with WMDs. That is why you suported your president. Not to save others. And that is why your active commitment was as important as any other citizen's who fought for it. Don't you think?
(Thomas, Map, you are way tooo faster...)
[ February 25, 2004: Message edited by: Bhau Mhatre ]
 
Joe Pluta
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1376
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
But the discussion was Vietnam, kids.
Joe
 
Joe Pluta
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1376
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
Guys, you want to run around like crazy people finding every possible way to argue, that's fine, but I'm not interested at this point. I don't want my family in the front line, and some people agree with me. Some don't. We're just as right as each other, and I'm not going to fight about it.
Joe
 
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
We're just as right as each other, and I'm not going to fight about it.

That is only true if you are a relativist. But in that case how can you tell someone that blowing up a busload of children is immoral?
 
Bhau Mhatre
Ranch Hand
Posts: 199
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
Joe--- But the discussion was Vietnam, kids.
Some re-cap of of the past:

Thomas ---------------------------
GWB was a legal draft dodger. He used his power and influence to stay home while those without power and influence died in a jungle fighting for their country.
Because of that someone else had to go to Vietnam in his place. And that someone may have died there.

[/b]Joe ---------------------------[/b]
Let me ask you this: if you had been influential enough to do so, would you have pulled enough strings to get your brother a Guard slot? Or would you instead rather your brother fought and possibly died for your principles?
------------------------------------------------------

Bhau ---------------------------
2. God forbid, if today the war in Iraq were to drag and get messier, and if more Americans were required to join now than in Viet Nam, and if the chances were close to hundred percent that you or one of your family members were drafted, and if you are influential enough to do so, then will you pull enough strings to keep yourself and your loved ones out of Iraq? Or would you rather join yourself and also let your loved ones fight along and possibly die in the war?

Joe ---------------------------
it's almost impossible to compare Iraq with Vietnam...
Now, despite those differences, I think my response is going to be similar. For siblings and relatives, I'd try to convince them to take a low-risk position, be it a Guard slot or a stateside supply officer or a European billet, but I'd respect their wishes if they chose to go to a front-line outfit. For my children, I would use every trick in my bag to keep them from going into harm's way - I would plead, threaten, cajole and cry if necessary. But if my child chose to serve, I would let him go and pray to God to keep him.

Bhau ---------------------------
...The point is, if you support a war (e.g recent war in Iraq), if you agree with the administration's claim that the future is at stake at the hands of terrorists, if you believe the war is just and must be fought by all means, and if you trust your president's words that your country is facing an imminenet threat, then you must be ready to encourage your eligible siblings, children, and all relatives, to actively participate in it, and must be ready to sacrifice whatever it takes to support your president to save your nation, your values of freedom and liberty, and the future of your next generation.

You cannot shout on the top of your voice that you support the war, that your country is the greatest because it liberates others from suffering, and at the same time back off from your duty and discourage your own kids while your neighbor's kids are fighting for you.

Joe ---------------------------
Actually, I can Bhau. I can do exactly that, because I am a human being, and I don't have to live by your code of ethics, or anybody else's. What I have to do is live with my own ethics and my relationship with my God. And part of that is being honest, and honestly I don't ever want any of my family or friends to die in war no matter how just.

Bhau --------------------------- Back to Present:
I think the discussion was about how much one is willing to commit oneself for the good of the nation? The same nation where one was born and brought up. The same nation that tought about freedom and equality and liberty. The nation that protects one from terrorists, from foreign aggression. The nation that provides one with employment opportunities. The discussion was about, how much one is able to recite this from his heart:
"I Pledge Allegiance to the flag of the my nation
and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God,
indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
How much one is ready not-to-pull-strings by unfair means that leaves other 'equal' citizens in trouble.
 
Joe Pluta
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1376
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
That is only true if you are a relativist. But in that case how can you tell someone that blowing up a busload of children is immoral?
I do not believe that my not wanting my family on the front lines has anything to with moral relativism. I have no problem with other people not wanting their children on the front line, nor do most people. Thus the draft.
It doesn't matter. I won't argue with someone who won't slap someone to save his child's life. We have no common moral ground, you and I.
Joe
 
Joe Pluta
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1376
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
then you must be ready to encourage your eligible siblings, children, and all relatives, to actively participate in it,
I would encourage my family to participate. But I'd rather they serve in low-risk positions. That's just family safety. If you think that everyone who believes in war must push their loved ones to the front lines, then I acknowledge your viewpoint but I disagree. I guess you would tell all your friends and relatives to sign up for the infantry. I wouldn't.
And I'm comfortable with my position. If you disagree, then that's your position. We'll just have to agree to disagree.
Joe
 
Bhau Mhatre
Ranch Hand
Posts: 199
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
Joe---------I have no problem with other people not wanting their children on the front line.
But don't you have a problem if others pulled strings to escape and because of that if your family members had to go?

Joe---------Thus the draft.
And thus the pulling of strings. And thus Thomas's problem.

Joe---------We'll just have to agree to disagree.
Okay. You have a nice time
Later,
Bhau.
 
Joe Pluta
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1376
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
But don't you have a problem if others pulled strings to escape and because of that if your family members had to go?
"Problem"? Would I be happy? No. Would I think the others immoral? No.
Joe
 
Paul McKenna
Ugly Redneck
Posts: 1006
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Bhau Mhatre:
The part of the world where I come from and in most other parts of the world, the wars have mainly been about fighting to defend ourselves in our own homeland. The enemy is at our gates. Marching in. There is NO ROOM for Conetitous Objectors and there is NO TIME for drafting. Do or die. If all the families do not act togather, there won't be any family left.


[Applause]
 
Joe Pluta
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1376
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
Just got done taping Anthony as he woke up. He makes about 30 different faces in the space of two or three minutes, and it's incredible fun to watch. Then I picked him up and kissed his cheeks, and (reluctantly) gave him to his mommy.
With that fresh in my mind, let me be perfectly clear on this issue.
Should the teeming masses of humanity be threatened with extinction, should the Earth itself be ready to explode, should the very Universe be on the edge of destruction, I would not sacrifice this child.
I can see me huddled in a crumblnig foundation shielding AJ with my body, fire falling from the sky, the sun mottled and distorted as it begins its disintegration. A shimmering alien in translucent silver garb stands over us and demands that I give up the child to save the entire Cosmos.
Folks, consider yourself outsourced, because the alien's going away empty handed. I don't care how unrealistic, I don't care how fatalistic, I don't care how immoral you paint me. If you haven't held an 8-day old child of your own in a while, and if you can't understand what I'm saying, then you're missing out on the greatest thing in the world.
Joe
 
Water! People swim in water! Even tiny ads swim in water:
Java file APIs (DOC, XLS, PDF, and many more)
https://products.aspose.com/total/java
    Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic
Boost this thread!