Is there any responsibility for inaction?

***double post***

Kay17:
I was thinking, assuming the single individual was Socrates -- cornerstone of Western civilization and the remaining five were ordinary peasants; wouldn't greater good change from numbers to value.

This made me smile. If memory serves, I believe it was his student, Plato, that came from Greek Aristocracy. Being as he was a 'lowly' stone mason of common birth, Socrates qualified as little more than a peasant himself. It's just as well, since I would've argued that value cannot be placed on a soul by birth or station alone. Socrates the 'peasant' makes that argument for me sufficiently enough, I'd say.

EnlightenedSoul:


This made me smile. If memory serves, I believe it was his student, Plato, that came from Greek Aristocracy. Being as he was a 'lowly' stone mason of common birth, Socrates qualified as little more than a peasant himself. It's just as well, since I would've argued that value cannot be placed on a soul by birth or station alone

Are you atheist now? Because religions teach that value can be placed by birth alone.

Una still dey here?? Didn't know enlightenedsoul is still alive o

fellis:


Are you atheist now? Because religions teach that value can be placed by birth alone.

Please, elaborate.

adamskutty:
Una still dey here?? Didn't know enlightenedsoul is still alive o

Hello Adam. And how are you??

Life...

LordReed:


Are you saying you act without considering the consequences? So in considering the man whose organs can save five people, will convincing him to give his organs be more acceptable as an action? Also how is your inaction in the train scene free of the "accusation" of considering consequence? Finally if consequence is not such a "big deal" why not let the armed men have their way and leave?

Well, I'm no mother Theresa (thankfully enough, since as it turns out she was not indeed as saintly as popular opinion would have us believe), but to the best of my ability, I deliberate on the action itself. Consequences are not often uniform, and cannot serve as an apt judge between right, wrong, and gray area, IMHO. For instance, good actions can and often do have bad consequences, and vice versa. No, I tend to first consider the action.

On the healthy unattached man whose organs can save five people, I would consider so-called 'convincing' him give up his life a form of coercion. I'm of the mind that he'd have to come to that conclusion fully himself, and even then that does not free us from having to contemplate the follow-up (the moral question of whether or not the acting surgeon should openly accept such a request).

My choice of inaction is based on the antithetical action of otherwise actively involving myself in the murder of individual(s) removed from the scenario I presently find myself in.

Before the armed men could've been condemned to their fate by the intended future consequences of the their action, ie, rape and other aforementioned crimes (of which unless announced or implied, I couldn't have been fully aware of anyhow), they were condemned to it by the threat of the present action itself (armed trespassing). I would do well to address the present threat/action before analyzing or imagining its possible consequences, don't you think?

Hoping you find yourself well, LordReed.

EnlightenedSoul:


Hello Adam. And how are you??

Life...

Fine.

Enlightened shuka! shuka! u were greatly missed, come take a welcome back hug.

EnlightenedSoul:


Well, I'm no mother Theresa (thankfully enough, since as it turns out she was not indeed as saintly as popular opinion would have us believe)

Really , I always thought she is the modern definition of sainthood.

EnlightenedSoul:

Please, elaborate.

Abeg no vex, forget I said that.

What is bill doing alive kill zee nigga

fellis:


Abeg no vex, forget I said that.

Did you mean by the way of legitimate and 'illegitimate' births? I was catching up on GOT when it occurred to me...when Sansa was taunting that vile Bolton kid about his true 'bastard' status.

adamskutty:


Fine.

Enlightened shuka! shuka! u were greatly missed, come take a welcome back hug.

Thanks, Adam

EnlightenedSoul:


Well, I'm no mother Theresa (thankfully enough, since as it turns out she was not indeed as saintly as popular opinion would have us believe), but to the best of my ability, I deliberate on the action itself. Consequences are not often uniform, and cannot serve as an apt judge between right, wrong, and gray area, IMHO. For instance, good actions can and often do have bad consequences, and vice versa. No, I tend to first consider the action.

On the healthy unattached man whose organs can save five people, I would consider so-called 'convincing' him give up his life a form of coercion. I'm of the mind that he'd have to come to that conclusion fully himself, and even then that does not free us from having to contemplate the follow-up (the moral question of whether or not the acting surgeon should openly accept such a request).

My choice of inaction is based on the antithetical action of otherwise actively involving myself in the murder of individual(s) removed from the scenario I presently find myself in.

Before the armed men could've been condemned to their fate by the intended future consequences of the their action, ie, rape and other aforementioned crimes (of which unless announced or implied, I couldn't have been fully aware of anyhow), they were condemned to it by the threat of the present action itself (armed trespassing). I would do well to address the present threat/action before analyzing or imagining its possible consequences, don't you think?

Hoping you find yourself well, LordReed.

I am well, hope you are too.

Well said however I must ask you why you'd consider taking life in one scenario but not in the other.

Kay17:
I was thinking, assuming the single individual was Socrates -- cornerstone of Western civilization and the remaining five were ordinary peasants; wouldn't greater good change from numbers to value.

I think that the real problem is how we perceive value. Without the benefit of hindsight/foresight/clairvoyance to know the particular value of an individual most of us would default to considering higher numbers as having higher value. Also consider that not everyone values western civilization highly, for such a person Socrates will not carry a significantly different value to any of the other individuals.

LordReed:


I am well, hope you are too.

Well said however I must ask you why you'd consider taking life in one scenario but not in the other.

Do you consider the two scenarios identical? One and the same?

neoapocalypse:



Really , I always thought she is the modern definition of sainthood.

I would liken her to a sadist before I'd liken to a saint. Although, if you look into the past of certain other so-called 'saints', it may leave you wondering as to whether or not the word 'saint' hasn't been code for 'sadist' all along

EnlightenedSoul:

Did you mean by the way of legitimate and 'illegitimate' births?

That's just one of the many different ways. By gender is another way.

EnlightenedSoul:

Do you consider the two scenarios identical? One and the same?

We are examining the action of taking life aren't we?

fellis:


That's just one of the many different ways.
By gender is another way.

I hear ya.

LordReed:


We are examining the action of taking life aren't we?

Yes, we are. But having explained the reason for my inaction, do the two scenarios strike you as identical? That I shouldn't mind either way, I mean?

LordReed:

I am well, hope you are too.
Well said however I must ask you why you'd consider taking life in one scenario but not in the other.

EnlightenedSoul:


Yes, we are. But having explained the reason for my inaction, do the two scenarios strike you as identical? That I shouldn't mind either way, I mean?

What I am trying to understand is you said you primarily consider the action. One scenario you take life while in another you don't, I want to understand why you say you consider the action when there is no difference in the action of taking life.

LordReed:


What I am trying to understand is you said you primarily consider the action. One scenario you take life while in another you don't, I want to understand why you say you consider the action when there is no difference in the action of taking life.

There is a marked difference in my view. Actively changing the course of the track makes the act of murder that much more deliberate. With that action, I have laid claim to a situation I don't believe I was at liberty to. My conscience would suffer for it all the more.

EnlightenedSoul:


There is a marked difference in my view. Actively changing the course of the track makes the act of murder that much more deliberate. With that action, I have laid claim to a situation I don't believe I was at liberty to. My conscience would suffer for it all the more.

Uhh, murder? Is that how that scenario should be described? Also am I to understand that in considering action your conscience plays a pivotal role?

LordReed:


Uhh, murder? Is that how that scenario should be described?

Taking a life...
Murder...

Yet another 'tomato'?

Also am I to understand that in considering action your conscience plays a pivotal role?

I see where you're going with that, but I'd argue that is has everything to do with the principle of the matter. The conscience is merely a 'guide', though our tendency to ' follow' it would seem all but rare.

Do you find yourself in disagreement with my view?

EnlightenedSoul:


Taking a life...
Murder...

Yet another 'tomato'?





I see where you're going with that, but I'd argue that is has everything to do with the principle of the matter. The conscience is merely a 'guide', though our tendency to would seem all but rare.

Do you find yourself in disagreement with my view?

No disagreement at all, merely striving to understand and to relate.

LordReed:


No disagreement at all, merely striving to understand and to relate.

How's that working out for ya?

I half suspect many people chose 'action' for the fear of having 'done nothing' otherwise. What is your reasoning if I may ask?

EnlightenedSoul:


How's that working out for ya?

I half suspect many people chose 'action' for the fear of having 'done nothing' otherwise. What is your reasoning if I may ask?

LoL, getting round to it.

Well I'd say the imminence of danger galvanises one's energies, not doing feels like a lost opportunity to affect the "world". If I choose to switch tracks, persuade the man or kill the marauders it is because I believe I am doing the better thing.

The human heart carries Morals and Cultures. The Mind carries Emotions and Sentiments. The Bible says "The Mind of man is full of hatred and wickedness". When God observed this, He separated His abode from man, so He could stay comfortably away to judge man. God is the supreme judge of all humans and spirits.

LordReed:


LoL, getting round to it.

Well I'd say the imminence of danger galvanises one's energies, not doing feels like a lost opportunity to affect the "world". If I choose to switch tracks, persuade the man or kill the marauders it is because I believe I am doing the better thing.

I see.