Welcome, Guest: Register On Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / New
Stats: 3,153,026 members, 7,818,030 topics. Date: Sunday, 05 May 2024 at 05:34 AM

Kill Bill Vo.1 - Philosophical Edition? - Religion (4) - Nairaland

Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / Kill Bill Vo.1 - Philosophical Edition? (8757 Views)

Philosophical Reflections: The Other Side Of Reality / A Philosophical Explanation For The Incarnation Of Christ / A Must Read Philosophical Sermon (2) (3) (4)

(1) (2) (3) (4) (Reply) (Go Down)

Re: Kill Bill Vo.1 - Philosophical Edition? by Ajuran: 9:51pm On Jun 08, 2015
Fulaman198:


Do eeiiiiiitttt cheesy cheesy cheesy cheesy cheesy cheesy cheesy cheesy cheesy cheesy


Evil man grin
Re: Kill Bill Vo.1 - Philosophical Edition? by Sakes: 8:39pm On Oct 13, 2015
Understanding NATURE does answer this question in a sense.....
Nothing really is in Consequence halted at the point of Action, nor is effect over Ruled overtime....
The POINT is that WHATEVER WE DO "Good or BAD" We become responsible for.....
Therefore, it is not your immediate action that matters but what you do afterwards... It applies both ways....It really has NOTHING TO DO WITH "GOOD & BAD"; RIGHT OR WRONG"

GOOD & BAD is a Game of ACCEPTABLE CONSEQUENCE, hence what is good for ONE might be BAD for another!!!! Each is actually rationed according to NATURAL ABILITY!!!! You Simply cannot say a LION IS BAD because it KILLs to FEED, It can't do otherwise!!!!!

Naturally, it will befit the NATURAL station of some people to neglect Concerned Action, but it will Condemn the inaction of those who are Naturally capable of FORBEARING LONG TERM CONSEQUENCE!!!! They will be held overtime, not by Value, but by the prick of Responsive ABIILTY!!!

Though, we think this issue a Natural, philosophical Dilemma; it is actually already principled & Programed in NATURE, SCIENCE is gradually coming ON!!!!! though....

If I save either of the Sides; I will make sure the other's LIFE compensates for it....in KIND... I MEAN practically footing the other's responsibility.The decision at the POINT will condemn me to almost a Long term Consequence of CARE!!!! for the balance of positions, the SAVED must somehow pay for the DEAD'S consignment!!! I think FIVE can more fit into this responsibility than one.....that's considering the Consequence to MYSELF IN THOUGHTs

THOSE WHO UNDERSTANDs the deeper secrets of ESOTERIC KNOWLEDGE(OCCULTISM relatively) knows this is just not a mere ISSUE!!!

IT has natural a Significance to the BALANCE of LIFE!!!! & actually exceeds mere DISCOURSE.....
That's my COVERT WAY of addressing the VALUE Question..... Yes, there are VALUES & Consequence!!!! already principled in the ORDER of things, the Transfer of ENERGY( This is no Religion please). It is still of the same Significance as the exact processes of NATURE reckon in Sciences!!!!

I apologise this POST may have been made to be STRICTLY ACADEMICAL!!!! But, its more than THAT... There are hidden ESOTERIC realities of NATURE....

Most of what PHILOSOPHY addresses are ISSUES that does not yet command CONVENTIONAL KNOWLEDGE!!!!!
Re: Kill Bill Vo.1 - Philosophical Edition? by Nobody: 9:11pm On Oct 13, 2015
In the first scenario, the person who is to decide if Bill should be killed to save the lives of five other people, would have to decide whether he or she should kill a healthy person to save five sick people.

In the second case, the person to decide would have to choose whether to kill one healthy person to save four other healthy people. Additionally, he will have to decide whether the decision should be left in the hands of a lunatic or whether he will determine the outcome of the situation.

Therin lies the answer to the question FOR ME.

Are we to decide over life and death? We should NOT. Is a lunatic to decide over life and death? Even less. So I would make the decision in the second case before I leave the lives of innocent people in the hands of a crazy fellow.
Re: Kill Bill Vo.1 - Philosophical Edition? by beejaay: 6:37am On Dec 04, 2015
EnlightenedSoul:
Warning: Dark scenario.

Help me out with this, if you will.

"Suppose Bill is a healthy man without family or loved ones. Would it be ok to painlessly kill him if his organs would save five people, one of whom needs a heart, another a kidney, and so on? If not, why not?
Consider another case: you and six others are kidnapped, and the kidnapper somehow persuades you that if you shoot dead one of the other hostages, he will set the remaining five free, whereas if you do not, he will shoot all six. (Either way, he'll release you.)
If in this case you should kill one to save five(?) why not in the previous, organs case? If in this case too you have qualms, consider yet another: you're in the conductor's compartment of a runaway train and see five people tied to the track ahead. You have the option of sending the train onto the track forking off to the left, on which only one person is tied. Surely you should send the train left, killing one to save five (?)"

"But then why not kill Bill?"

Thoughts. Comments. Answers. Questions.

(1) (2) (3) (4) (Reply)

What Is 2013's Tag In Your Church? / What Is Actually Inside The Ka'abba? / Repent Today! The Kingdom Of God Is At Hand!

(Go Up)

Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health
religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket

Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 19
Disclaimer: Every Nairaland member is solely responsible for anything that he/she posts or uploads on Nairaland.