Uechi-Ryu.com

Discussion Area
It is currently Wed Oct 22, 2014 4:49 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 43 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: MORAL DILEMMA
PostPosted: Fri Jun 04, 1999 12:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 19, 1998 6:01 am
Posts: 55
Location: Portsmouth,NH,US
Van, if I may:

The shooter is not a man, but a woman. A girl, in fact. Your fifteen-year-old goddaughter, child of your best friend. You used to see her often, before she developed the illness. She has been in and out of hospitals for much of the last year.

She can shoot. Her dad took her hunting and to the club often. She has two weapons and two boxes of ammo. She knows you are there. She keeps saying, "Stop the voices!" before taking aim and bringing down another pedestrian. She faces you, and frantically pleads, "they're telling me to kill you next." She slowly, methodically begins to reload her rifle. You take the opportunity to step forward, hoping to intervene without force. Just as methodically, she takes the handgun and shoots you in the abdomen.

You're losing consciousness, but have somehow grabbed your own weapon. Tears in her eyes, she wimpers, "make them stop," and returns to the window, killing another pedestrian...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: MORAL DILEMMA
PostPosted: Fri Jun 04, 1999 3:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 25, 1998 6:01 am
Posts: 181
Location: Sacramento, California, USA
Mr. Canna:

And I am not surprised at your response. Please, read your question. Either it contains a moral decision or it does not. If you did not mean to focus on a moral choice, then your question should not have raised the decision with reflection on "moral beliefs." Again, it is your question. You can ask it any way you wish. But to phrase a question in terms of "what is the alternative," and then when people explore the alternatives say, "there are no acceptable alternatives," seems a bit perplexing. If there are no "acceptable alternatives," what is your question.

Peace
Robb in Sacramento


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: MORAL DILEMMA
PostPosted: Fri Jun 04, 1999 4:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 12, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 25
Location: bridgewater ma. u.s.a
Hi van.
I love how these people add this or that
what if ???? I like ricks answer JUST KILL HIM. I think it was rob saying, say
if its your best friends daughter?well
rob Whats the differance if its a man
woman , boy or girl? Lets say its your
mother in her sights right before your
chance to take her out. Do you take the shot????And eye for a eye thats my belief, I'll tell you . Id take the shot
and unload the clip in her.
Becuase she's not a kid anymore after
killing the first person.She's a murderer!!! All you here about some kid
doing some heinous crime sent to juvenile school then let out at 18 to
do something worse. Then put back in
so we can pay taxes to keep his lazy
scumbag ass in there. I better stop writting or I'll just keep going on.
CHOW !


------------------


Joe


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: MORAL DILEMMA
PostPosted: Fri Jun 04, 1999 4:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 30338
Gentlemen ,

I hear your concerns ! But please bear in mind that the message here is the presentation of one of many life's great moral dilemmas i.e., we must choose between two evils and hope we choose the lesser ! It is very important in such cases like this that they involve two clear and evil courses of action with no other alternatives or you are missing out on the message !

Michael-san , a counter dilemma is for another day in the sun !

Robb , it seems to most of us that the " moral decision" thrust of the dilemma is abundantly clear ! Yet you are mired in "the alternatives" fox hole ! Okay ,as a side bar , we will later discuss whether you can offer an alternative that will prove to be more immediately successful !

But for the moment lets focus on the moral decision !

And , gentlemen --This is a highly charged emotional topic , so lets be careful about slinging the Bull Sh***

Peace ,





------------------
Van Canna


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: MORAL DILEMMA
PostPosted: Fri Jun 04, 1999 6:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 17, 1998 6:01 am
Posts: 157
Location: Evansville, IN, USA
Tony, this implies then that if you could get away without conflict at all that you would take the opportunity. After all, if you would only kill him due to self-presevation, than the smartest way to "self-preseve" is to avoid the battle in the first place. In all honesty, any sane and honest man must really wonder if they would take the chance to flee as well! There is a story about a young seaman on a boat who has this daydream that the ship is sinking and on fire, and he dashes about saving the captain, and the passengers etc. He is woken from his dream by the ship catching a blaze and the captain yelling abandon ship ... he is the first in line at the life boats! In the face of true danger there are few of us who can really know how we will react. But this is a tangent. My apologies.

In any event, I find your post to be interesting and honest. So, back to my original question, if you could get away from the conflict without harm, would you take that opportunity? Keeping in mind that this is all hypothetical, if after the fact the parents of a slain child found out that you had a chance to kill the murderer and escaped instead and decided that they hated you for it and held you partially responsible for their childs death in their hearts, would you think they would be justified?

The obvious question to follow up with is: How would this make you feel (i.e. would you feel somewhat responsible)? And perhaps that is something to consider, but not something to answer here. There are certain things that are meant to stay private.

Osu!
Jason

P.s. - I have some scanned pictures of Rayna. Bill was saying I should contact you to have them posted, let me know where I can send them: jbernard@comsource.net.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: MORAL DILEMMA
PostPosted: Fri Jun 04, 1999 7:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 17, 1998 6:01 am
Posts: 157
Location: Evansville, IN, USA
I like your post and your reasoning, Tony.

And imagination is the first step to action, for we cannot take any action we cannot first conjure in our minds, right?

Osu!
Jason


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: MORAL DILEMMA
PostPosted: Fri Jun 04, 1999 7:48 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 16, 1998 6:01 am
Posts: 6020
Location: Mount Dora, Florida
Jason:
You bring up an interesting point. . . One for the lawyers. . . If a person ownes a weapon, then finds him/her self in this situation and does nothing, while the madperson kills people, would the parents/spouse of the murdered be justified sueing the not-so-good samaritan? Would they win the suit?

Does legally owning a weapon give the bearer any responsibilites along with the many restrictions?

------------------
GEM


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: MORAL DILEMMA
PostPosted: Fri Jun 04, 1999 8:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 17, 1998 6:01 am
Posts: 157
Location: Evansville, IN, USA
Didn't some state pass a law that said that people have an obligation to help out each other? I thought that the passing of the law was the basis for the fictional Seinfeld finale. I could be wrong.

In any event, assuming I have my facts messed up which seems likely, the limit of legalities regrading good samaritons that I have heard of is like in Canada, they passed a law that states that you cannot be sued in civil court for taking action as a good samariton. Hmmm ... actually now that I think about it, my police friend told me once that there is also a law in Canada that says now citizen is permitted to ignore the request of a police officer for assistance. Anyway, I don't think there is a law that says a person, weapon owner or not, has to take action that might endanger them ... or even not endanger them. Does that mean they wouldn't win? When people win millions of dollars from cities for tripping over a sidewalk and *scraping* their knee, it wouldn't suprise me to have such a case happen and for the "not-so-good" samariton lose.

Now, to the deeper question posed, should they lose? I don't think so. As with my other thread (Morals & not so obvious things), moral action is a jumbled thread of personal belief. What seems "clearly" wrong to me, makes perfect sense to another. The Justice system should be about justice. I.e. that a persons get what they rightfully deserve. Could we honestly fault a person for valuing their lives, even at the cost of other lives? Easy to say, when you aren't the one facing the end of your existance! There is an overpowering force to take fight just to take one more breath.

I would hope that I would stay and fight, but I would not fault myself or another for fleeing.

Osu!
Jason


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: MORAL DILEMMA
PostPosted: Sat Jun 05, 1999 1:03 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 25, 1998 6:01 am
Posts: 181
Location: Sacramento, California, USA
Mr. Canna:

I am not mired in alternatives. I believe I am mired in what Mr. Bernard observed. You now state you are trying to posit a choice between two evils. But as this thread has progressed, you have made it clear that there are no alternatives, hence no choices. If there are no choices, how can one choose between two evils, or choose anything for that matter. Secondly, to the extent you look for evaluation of moral beliefs, the responses you have received indicate a wide disparity in those beliefs, from those who apparently can kill with impunity and little conscience, to those who would kill for the greater good.

Based on your subsequent posts, you appear to be asking something along the vein of if one could go back in time and kill Hitler's mother before he was born, would you do it? You could save millions, and all you would have to do is murder one innocent person. Or, as Gene Hackman's character asks, if you could cure cancer by killing one person, would you do it.


Peace
Robb in Sacramento


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: MORAL DILEMMA
PostPosted: Sat Jun 05, 1999 1:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 3754
Location: Richmond, VA
The books I have read by Jim Cirillo and Mas Ayoob do away with the myth of the 'fair gunfight' in the old west. Ayoob, I believe, went on to say that if in fact you stumble upon a home intruder, back turned or otherwise, shoot to stop. The 'drop your weapon and turn around' warning will frequently get you killed. So will the shoot to disable (which can also get you sued). And, if the intruder came upon you, would he/she give fair warning?

I'd have to shoot the bad guy and wrestle with my conscience later. If my daugter/wife/son were in the sights of a murderer, that is what I'd expect of someone in the position to save them.

Rich


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: MORAL DILEMMA
PostPosted: Sat Jun 05, 1999 3:41 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 12, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 25
Location: bridgewater ma. u.s.a
Van, you didnt think you'd get any hits
( looks like a home run.)

I don't know if you ment me slinging
b. s. But thats how i feel about the
situation.moraly its wrong to kill but
if its the right thing , you do it...
anthony i liked your post at 6-4-@ 9:52
its good to have a sence of humor but
its vans forum . to reply to Mr. Mattson
its pretty sad that today we have to think about getting sued for saving or
own ass. Oh sorry robb it was knight i
ment on my last post.

ps HOWS clarence doing?

CHOW

------------------


Joe


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: MORAL DILEMMA
PostPosted: Sat Jun 05, 1999 5:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 30338
Hi Jason,

Thanks for participating !

You wrote < I do not believe in the
"no alternative", because life itself is nothing more than endless
choices."

This is a tough debate ; the dilemma proposal is not perfect but it serves to illustrate that in this life we can suddenly finds ourselves "dancing on a dime" ----caught between a rock and a hard place , if you will …..in torment over whether it would be or would have been-- better to do nothing or something in the face of seemingly very limited choices !

Robb writes : < But as this thread has progressed, you have
made it clear that there are no alternatives, hence no choices. If
there are no choices, how can one choose between two evils, or
choose anything for that matter.>

It should have been obvious that what the thread espouses is the concept of a dilemma !

So what defines a dilemma ! A dilemma supposedly offers you two , limited undesirable consequences by definition . It is an argument having two premises and a conclusion and it asserts the assumption of certain parameters !

On the choice between two evils : you , Jason, wrote < Do you believe that it is
"evil" to shoot the deranged man? Why? >

It is not what I believe , it is what the dilemma presupposes ! And what some religious pacifist group will challenge : " isn't immoral to kill another human , for any reason ? Do two wrongs make a right ?

You write < Assuming that the death
of Adolf Hitler could have prevented WW2 and you were given the
chance to travel back in time to kill him, would you take it ? would it be evil? I don't believe so.>

Actually it has been argued that killing Hitler before he had a chance to start the war and murder all those innocents - or the man who is about to kill you- or others- is an act of compassion ….not upon the intended victims , but upon the would be killer himself !

Robb writes < Based on your subsequent posts, you appear to be asking something
along the vein of if one could go back in time and kill Hitler's mother
before he was born, would you do it? You could save millions, and all
you would have to do is murder one innocent person. Or, as Gene
Hackman's character asks, if you could cure cancer by killing one
person, would you do it.>

Fallacious argument mostly rooted in fantasy ! The dilemma presents life's reality in stark contrast to here and now palpable beliefs carrying some serious moral consequences from nonfeasence v. malfeasence !

Robb writes ;< the responses you have received
indicate a wide disparity in those beliefs, from those who apparently
can kill with impunity and little conscience, to those who would kill
for the greater good.>

As if this should come as a surprise !

The counterpoint to the pacifist's view , is that the man who uses preemptive countervailing lethal force against a would be assassin is using a natural survival " triage " mechanism honed by God given intelligence and personal skill , to rescue innocent human beings from a death they have done nothing to deserve !

You will get an opportunity to argue alternatives and tactical concepts beyond the 'fixed' choices of the dilemma ! But the question still stands ; you are trapped in the bell tower with a gun in your hand ; the deranged gunman is killing innocent human beings down below every second you hesitate ;maybe your own children walking to school --- the ONLY way to stop him is to shoot him ; will you shoot ? Not shoot ? Why ?


------------------
Van Canna


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: MORAL DILEMMA
PostPosted: Sat Jun 05, 1999 5:17 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 30338
Joseph and Anthony ,

I did not mean you guys at all when I wrote about bull sh*** slingers !

Just a general statement aimed at no one !

Thanks for the contributions ! You two gentlemen are great !

------------------
Van Canna


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: MORAL DILEMMA
PostPosted: Sat Jun 05, 1999 5:34 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 17, 1998 6:01 am
Posts: 157
Location: Evansville, IN, USA
With all due respect to Sensei Van Canna, I do not believe in the "no alternative", because life itself is nothing more than endless choices.

So, to answer your question if I could mentally and spiritually take the action than I would like to take (i.e. I am assuming that in the fear of the moment I would not take another action dictated by my fear) I would attempt to shoot to disable from behind, if that failed I would shoot to kill.

I base this decision upon several factors.

- It is not my assigned function in society to execute the insane or the criminal.

- However, I do have an obligation to my community to attempt to protect them as I would hope that they would protect me. Only by forming a true community can we hope to survive. Therefore, I must attempt to disable the attacker.

- I also have the right to protect myself. Therefore, if attempting to disable the attacker fails, I would shoot to kill.

- From a "purely" moral perspective (if such a thing exists), although tragic that a person can be driven to the depths of insanity or hatred to kill at "random" the greater good must be served to preserve order over chaos, and the person must be stopped.

Osu!
Jason


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: MORAL DILEMMA
PostPosted: Sat Jun 05, 1999 5:34 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 25, 1998 6:01 am
Posts: 181
Location: Sacramento, California, USA
Mr. Canna:

Speaking of rooted in fantasy...well let's not discuss the facts of your hypothetical. As to fallacious, I thought I was pretty straight forward. If you are uninterested in divergent viewpoint, just say so.

Peace
Robb in Sacramento


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 43 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot] and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group