I only like to steal them and pass them off as mine on other forums. It would ruin my streak if I actually started supporting internet artists.
I love Barney you homicidal recluse. He taught me ****.
God: Come on it's not that bad Me: I know. But does it have to be crucifixion? God: Well it certainly can't be bubble gum and rainbows Me: That'd be cool. immunity to everything except bubble gum and rainbows God: Yeah it would. Well, give my regards to the Apostles. See you soon. Me: Sure thing dad. And Dad? God: Yes you sexy son of mine? Me: I love you. God: One love.
Not to mention enormous genitalia! That White_Rook is w-e-l-l e-n-d-o-w-e-d.
This is silly, White_Rooks are incapable of failure. Someone wasn't hugged enough... and is whipped. It sounds crazy but he may be doing his own whipping.
Follow people around and whenever they stop to look at something tell them to "lick it". Shopping cart derby. Ask the butcher for ridiculous cuts.
Que? Si fillerz.
Teh phail cat3goreeeee always needs members!
CLASS WAR!!!!!!! CLASS WAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! CLASS WAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111
SEGREGATION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111111111111111oneoneoneoenoneoenoenshift+1shift+1shift+oneshift+oneshiftplusoneshiftplusone
Chain you to the radiator with the other "guests" of the slumber party. After that I'd be rich and...oh did I skip the part about selling your organs?
I can't give rep for that, so know that I am laughing. So when do we segregate members into their respective castes. Mine's all taken care of, same with CTR so that just leaves everyone else.
Nah you forgot the White_Rook category. Basically I die for all your sins and make this place worth while for billions worldwide. Apparently Fox wants to do a biography of me. Yeah they want to call it "Awesome: The White_Rook Story". It's tough being an icon.
Well there's an inanimate object with the same name as me, but you don't see me throwing a parade in the streets now do you?
Oh god this looks malignant... If we act fast we can excise the idiocy.
As I've stated, the second scenario that was first introduced was not portrayed accurately, and in most cases it's used to justify the action-non action argument. I'm aware it's completely different, and introducing it has more or less confused each point I'm trying to make. As I've said I perfectly understand the point that you're arguing from. By not acting it is simply an accident and the deaths of the four people are just that. In any normal situation I'd vie for any number of the obvious choices. The only thing however is that the design of the situation itself is unnatural, and given the constraints we are placed in control of an outcome that is either tragic or four times as tragic. As I've said, the situation is unfortunately designed for you to take the bare course of action, which is realistically inaccurate. I simply see action and inaction as being equally weighted in all situations, with this one resulting in non-action as yielding the worst possible scenario. As I've said normal morality applies to normal situations. In any normal circumstance the one man's death would be considered murder but in the constraints of the situation, which are unnatural to begin with, either situation results in death that you have control over. Just because the lesser of two evils involves conscious action in the death of one man doesn't mean that his life wasn't of value, that there's no guilt, and no consequence. It's simply that you are in charge of bringing about the best possible good that can come from the mediation of two bad outcomes. Whether or not you consider it murder simply depends on your your application of morality-- and that in itself is another debate altogether.
Ocarina of time had a much more epic feel to the progression of the story in my opinion. Twilight Princess had it's moments, but they were spaced too far apart for my liking. Game play definitely goes to TP though.
But in the unusual situation, in which you are exercising some control, does what we morally and normally define as murder apply? Normal morality cannot readily apply to abnormal situations. The point is that you have some control in the situation. If you have the ability to stop those four from dying it is no longer an accident. You're inaction has resulted in four people dying. Similarly if you choose to pull the lever your action has caused the death of one person. Fate, circumstance, and how things came to be are factors in normal situations, and since these scenarios aren't usually normal to begin with-- we're simply placed in them and are asked to make a decision-- they readily don't apply. Altering the situation always changes the outcome. If I didn't know any of the people I'd still pull the lever or blow the fat man up (not push him off a bridge to stop the trolley). If it was a family member I wouldn't pull the lever. And it is here where Utility fails; to what degree do we attribute the best possible outcome when we are no longer attached. But the point is that it's not a family member, and I can't relate to either of the two outcomes on a more personal level other than the fact that I have a choice as to whether one person dies or four people die. The design of the situation is to force a choice. We can imagine how the situation would turn out if there were more variables, and personal feelings involved, but then it wouldn't be about arriving to the best possible good a situation has to offer. What is considered an objective "best possible outcome" becomes more subjective. Of course I'm not going to pull the lever and kill a family member because my relation to them has skewed my action, and that action at it's barest form is for selfish reasons. Again I'll state that the original "Second Scenario" posted by the creator of this thread is inaccurate. I outlined that in my first post. I wouldn't push the fat man into the trolley, but I'd blow him up in the cave.
It's not that I see other's views of inaction as being cowardly. There is some merit to not being involved. It's just you have the opportunity to, for lack of a better word, reduce the harm of a tragedy. I don't look at the act of puling the lever as actual murder either. It was never your exact intention to kill the one man in place of the other four and it's not like you have anything against the guy in particular. Given the circumstances you're just forced to choose the lesser of two evils. I look at it in terms of that ordinary moral laws were designed for ordinary situations. Yes it is wrong to kill a man in any ordinary circumstance, but if by chance (which is highly unlikely) that an abnormal situation arises where you must choose to either kill four of kill one or blow up one or drown all, the unnatural situation more often than not calls for unnatural action. And in this case the unnatural action results in being aware that one person has to die to save many. I may have been wrong earlier about taking comfort in the fact that four survive and one dies. Really, you're never going to like either outcome. Every other scenario according to Utilitarianism seems to always work out better when the choice doesn't result in death (i.e. Do you cure 1 person or only treat 100? Fully feed one person, or moderately satisfy masses?). To be blunt the calculations of those previous examples have fewer negative outcomes that weigh against the positives. But I digress.
