Imagine a world where religion doesnot exist and hence, all such classification for example atheist, theist etc. are non-existant. In such a world lives a poor man named Bob. He realizes that he will never achieve the status of a particular rich individual, even after hard work. Now Bob thinks that life has been unfair to him. Why should he be born in a poor family? So he decides to kill that rich man and take over his wealth. He investigates and finds out that the rich man is also cruel to poor, and has stolen a lot of money from the poor. This provides Bob with a further incentive to kill that man. Bob realizes that the man may change and help poor in the future, however the possibility of that is quite low. And Bob decides to help poor and needy, as soon as he has the wealth. He is willing to accept punishment from law, if he is ever caught. And will not blame any person who might try to kill him for similar reasons. So is this killing justified? If not, then why?
A Moral Question.
This topic is locked from further discussion.
killing is never justified unless it is in self defense, or in the defense of another. that is the martial way.
Unless this rich man directly threatened the well being of this "Bob" character, then absolutely not.-Sun_Tzu-
Why not? Any reason?
You only say it's not justified because society has raised you up that way. And it's done that mostly because of religious effects on our society for the last few thousand years. Now he said in a world religion doesn't exist. Society has not been raised with the killing = bad aspect. In this situation We still have a roman sense of view where killing can be justified in many different situations. (which can be seen by the many forms of execution, war, killing etc that took place throughout the empire.) In this case killing would be ok, because he is able to justify it with logic.killing is never justified unless it is in self defense, or in the defense of another. that is the martial way.
LeGoofyGoober
[QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]Unless this rich man directly threatened the well being of this "Bob" character, then absolutely not.-Sun_Tzu-
Why not? Any reason?
Because everyone has the right to life unless they infringe on another person's right to life. Who says that his statement is correct? Is it not correct that the rich man is an oppressor? That life has been unfair to Bob? Imagine you can only stop Bob by reasoning with him. What will you tell him?You only say it's not justified because society has raised you up that way. And it's done that mostly because of religious effects on our society for the last few thousand years. Now he said in a world religion doesn't exist. Society has not been raised with the killing = bad aspect. In this situation We still have a roman sense of view where killing can be justified in many different situations. (which can be seen by the many forms of execution, war, killing etc that took place throughout the empire.) In this case killing would be ok, because he is able to justify it with logic. No, It's because we all have a universal "Moral Center" to our brain.[QUOTE="LeGoofyGoober"]
killing is never justified unless it is in self defense, or in the defense of another. that is the martial way.
ferrari2001
Causes huge amounts of pain and emotional distress, impinges upon the man's right to self-ownership...Funky_LlamaPain and emotional distress to only one person ( or some of his family and friends). Yet Bob benefits many other families by giving them the joy that was usurped from them by this rich man. And if we assume that the rich man is so cruel that no one loves him. Then? Secondly, that man has the right to own. But why is life unfair to Bob? Why shouldn't he have the same status? He didn't want to be born in a poor family.
The simple answer is this. We can not imagine a world where religion does not exist because we were created, hence it is illogical. A single celled organism does not simply create its self over time and evolve into something more complex. If you want a great article on this topic. Let me know. Look at all the laws in the world and look how they are look very similiar to the 10 commandments. Things like that don't just happen.Imagine a world where religion doesnot exist and hence, all such classification for example atheist, theist etc. are non-existant. In such a world lives a poor man named Bob. He realizes that he will never achieve the status of a particular rich individual, even after hard work. Now Bob thinks that life has been unfair to him. Why should he be born in a poor family? So he decides to kill that an and take over his wealth. He investigates and finds out that the rich man is also cruel to poor, and has stolen a lot of money from the poor. This provides Bob with a further incentive to kill that man. Bob realizes that the man may change and help poor in the future, however the possibility of that is quite low. And Bob decides to help poor and needy, as soon as he has the wealth. He is willing to accept punishment from law, if he is ever caught. And will not blame any person who might try to kill him for similar reasons. So is this killing justified? If not, then why?
MFaraz_Hayat
[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"]Because everyone has the right to life unless they infringe on another person's right to life. Who says that his statement is correct? Is it not correct that the rich man is an oppressor? That life has been unfair to Bob? Imagine you can only stop Bob by reasoning with him. What will you tell him? Just because life has been unfair to Bob doesn't give him the right to seek vengance on the first well off person he sees. And if this well off person is indeed guilty of theft, that is what the judicial system is for.Why not? Any reason?
MFaraz_Hayat
I'm not sure killing can be justified. But in this case, its not Bob's money to use. Assuming the rich guy earned it legally, he can do whatever he wants with it.Bourbons3What if the rich guy inherited the wealth from a rich father? Then is the killing justified? He didn't work for the wealth. He was just given wealth as a bonus gift from life upon birth.
[QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]Unless this rich man directly threatened the well being of this "Bob" character, then absolutely not.-Sun_Tzu-
Why not? Any reason?
Because everyone has the right to life unless they infringe on another person's right to life.Three situations to refute that:
1. I'm drowning in the middle of an empty ocean. I cry out to the sea to save me and bring me to shore. It doesn't save me. If I, and indeed we, have a right to life, why wasn't I saved?
2. Two people of equal physical and mental condition are lost in the desert. The only way for one of them to make it out alive is to cannibalize the other. Which person has a right to life?
3. A mother must choose between saving her children and saving herself. If she chooses to save her children, does she do so as a matter of right or of maternal instinct?
And as an extra situation, the one stated by MFaraz. What right to life did the rich man have if his riches couldn't save him from Bob?
The simple answer is this. We can not imagine a world where religion does not exist because we were created, hence it is illogical. A single celled organism does not simply create its self over time and evolve into something more complex. If you want a great article on this topic. Let me know. Look at all the laws in the world and look how they are look very similiar to the 10 commandments. Things like that don't just happen. Please don't turn this into a religious discussion. This is not one. You are going off-topic.[QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"]
Imagine a world where religion doesnot exist and hence, all such classification for example atheist, theist etc. are non-existant. In such a world lives a poor man named Bob. He realizes that he will never achieve the status of a particular rich individual, even after hard work. Now Bob thinks that life has been unfair to him. Why should he be born in a poor family? So he decides to kill that an and take over his wealth. He investigates and finds out that the rich man is also cruel to poor, and has stolen a lot of money from the poor. This provides Bob with a further incentive to kill that man. Bob realizes that the man may change and help poor in the future, however the possibility of that is quite low. And Bob decides to help poor and needy, as soon as he has the wealth. He is willing to accept punishment from law, if he is ever caught. And will not blame any person who might try to kill him for similar reasons. So is this killing justified? If not, then why?
caseypayne69
[QUOTE="caseypayne69"]The simple answer is this. We can not imagine a world where religion does not exist because we were created, hence it is illogical. A single celled organism does not simply create its self over time and evolve into something more complex. If you want a great article on this topic. Let me know. Look at all the laws in the world and look how they are look very similiar to the 10 commandments. Things like that don't just happen. Please don't turn this into a religious discussion. This is not one. You are going off-topic. In that case you should probably edit out "Imagine a world where religion doesnot exist and hence, all such classification for example atheist, theist etc. are non-existant" from your question.[QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"]
Imagine a world where religion doesnot exist and hence, all such classification for example atheist, theist etc. are non-existant. In such a world lives a poor man named Bob. He realizes that he will never achieve the status of a particular rich individual, even after hard work. Now Bob thinks that life has been unfair to him. Why should he be born in a poor family? So he decides to kill that an and take over his wealth. He investigates and finds out that the rich man is also cruel to poor, and has stolen a lot of money from the poor. This provides Bob with a further incentive to kill that man. Bob realizes that the man may change and help poor in the future, however the possibility of that is quite low. And Bob decides to help poor and needy, as soon as he has the wealth. He is willing to accept punishment from law, if he is ever caught. And will not blame any person who might try to kill him for similar reasons. So is this killing justified? If not, then why?
MFaraz_Hayat
To answer the question, though, it is an oversimplification. Whether or not I think what Bob did was right matters not if the majority doesn't think he was right in doing so. Considering the circumstances under which Bob discovered the rich man's treatment of the poor, Bob was not in the right. He killed the rich man simply out of spite and out of greed.
I suppose you are looking to find if someone may be able to form a moral law, independent of a religion, to see if morality can exist without religion.
Killing is not justified because if it is justified for that reason then pretty much any killing would be justified based on emotions.
Thus a chaos would be created in societies and people would not coexist harmoniously.
Chaos alters or even prevents safe human relationships and the flourish of everything: culture, spiritual growth, and advance.
Apart from the practical aspects, a person would pursue to maintain harmony for other reasons as well.
A person would try to maintain harmony because he does crave human relationships and doesnt want them to deteriorate (because thats what happens to human relatioships when they are not built in relatively safe environments).
A person craves for human relatioships because like many animals, humans are social beings and seek constant interaction with other people, and are willing to maintain harmonious relationship driven by all of the positive feelings they were "taught about" from when they are born: love, sympathy, compassion etc etc. feelings which evidently and impulsively have only positive effects.
[QUOTE="Bourbons3"]I'm not sure killing can be justified. But in this case, its not Bob's money to use. Assuming the rich guy earned it legally, he can do whatever he wants with it.MFaraz_HayatWhat if the rich guy inherited the wealth from a rich father? Then is the killing justified? He didn't work for the wealth. He was just given wealth as a bonus gift from life upon birth. No, he's gained the money legally. Its his money, and he can spend it on what he wants. If Bob really wants to be rich, he can earn it. Bob isn't any more entitled to the money than the rich guy, just because its inherited rather than earned.
But why is greed wrong, then? Why should he suppress greed in his heart, when it is life itself that has given him the ability to be greedy? And why shouldn't he think about himself? He needs to survive and if life has been unfair to him, well he has to do stuff to tilt the scale in his favour.To answer the question, though, it is an oversimplification. Whether or not I think what Bob did was right matters not if the majority doesn't think he was right in doing so. Considering the circumstances under which Bob discovered the rich man's treatment of the poor, Bob was not in the right. He killed the rich man simply out of spite and out of greed.
tycoonmike
The legality of how the rich man came upon that wealth should be irrelevant. The fact that he possesses this wealth whilst others like Bob arepoor (for the sake of the argument, let's say suffering as well, since that seems to be implied)is in itself unjust. This is not to say that he has a duty to ensure that those around him are not suffering, but it does mean that any animosity from those who are suffering should be anticipated and the consequences of such ought to be accepted. Did the rich man have the right to live? Absolutely. Did he have the right to withhold his excess wealth from the others? That's arguable. While Bob's actions are in the strictest, most absolute sense immoral, when all the facts are considered it is much more difficult to condemn his actions outright.
[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]But why is greed wrong, then? Why should he suppress greed in his heart, when it is life itself that has given him the ability to be greedy? And why shouldn't he think about himself? He needs to survive and if life has been unfair to him, well he has to do stuff to tilt the scale in his favour.To answer the question, though, it is an oversimplification. Whether or not I think what Bob did was right matters not if the majority doesn't think he was right in doing so. Considering the circumstances under which Bob discovered the rich man's treatment of the poor, Bob was not in the right. He killed the rich man simply out of spite and out of greed.
MFaraz_Hayat
You're asking the wrong person. I don't know the answers to life. Like it or not, this will become an epistemological argument and, by answering the way you did, it already has. If the point of life is to survive, then we must do so by any means necessary. Anything else, in some way or another, requires the use of some portion of epistemological thought because all other conclusions end somehow in mankind transcending its nature.
Because everyone has the right to life unless they infringe on another person's right to life.[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"]
Why not? Any reason?
tycoonmike
Three situations to refute that:
1. I'm drowning in the middle of an empty ocean. I cry out to the sea to save me and bring me to shore. It doesn't save me. If I, and indeed we, have a right to life, why wasn't I saved?
2. Two people of equal physical and mental condition are lost in the desert. The only way for one of them to make it out alive is to cannibalize the other. Which person has a right to life?
3. A mother must choose between saving her children and saving herself. If she chooses to save her children, does she do so as a matter of right or of maternal instinct?
1. You weren't saved because there was no one there to save you. Just because it's a right doesn't mean it's going to always be protected. In an ideal world they would be, but we don't live in an ideal world. Rights are infringed all the time.2. Initially they both do. This scenario plays out in four ways; a) Person X starts a fight with Person Y thus negating Person X's right to life (or vice versa) b) they mutually reach an agreement where they fight to the death, thus negating the right to life of both individuals c) one of them dies of natural causes before the other, d) they both die at the same exact time due to natural causes
3. I don't really see what this is trying to prove. If the mother chooses to save her children, it most likely is because of maternal instinct. I don't see how that refutes a right to life though.
I don't want to imply that morality does not exist without religion. I included the first sentence to prevent any arguments such as, its wrong according to this religion, punishable by God etc. Anyways, what if Bob does not care about the society. Why should he? It is because of the social structure itself, that being poor he may never achieve the same status (even with hard work) that a rich individual has because he was born to a rich family, that he is killing.I suppose you are looking to find if someone may be able to form a moral law, independent of a religion, to see if morality can exist without religion.
Killing is not justified because if it is justified for that reason then pretty much any killing would be justified based on emotions.
Thus a chaos would be created in societies and people would not coexist harmoniously.
Chaos alters or even prevents safe human relationships and the flourish of everything: culture, spiritual growth, and advance.
Apart from the practical aspects, a person would pursue to maintain harmony for other reasons as well.
A person would try to maintain harmony because he does crave human relationships and doesnt want them to deteriorate (because thats what happens to human relatioships when they are not built in relatively safe environments).
A person craves for human relatioships because like many animals, humans are social beings and seek constant interaction with other people, and are willing to maintain harmonious relationship driven by all of the positive feelings they were "taught about" from when they are born: love, sympathy, compassion etc etc. feelings which evidently and impulsively have only positive effects.
Teenaged
[QUOTE="Teenaged"]I don't want to imply that morality does not exist without religion. I included the first sentence to prevent any arguments such as, its wrong according to this religion, punishable by God etc. Anyways, what if Bob does not care about the society. Why should he? It is because of the social structure itself, that being poor he may never achieve the same status (even with hard work) that a rich individual has because he was born to a rich family, that he is killing.Thats why I tried to construct an "argument" (?) without any religious foundations.I suppose you are looking to find if someone may be able to form a moral law, independent of a religion, to see if morality can exist without religion.
Killing is not justified because if it is justified for that reason then pretty much any killing would be justified based on emotions.
Thus a chaos would be created in societies and people would not coexist harmoniously.
Chaos alters or even prevents safe human relationships and the flourish of everything: culture, spiritual growth, and advance.
Apart from the practical aspects, a person would pursue to maintain harmony for other reasons as well.
A person would try to maintain harmony because he does crave human relationships and doesnt want them to deteriorate (because thats what happens to human relatioships when they are not built in relatively safe environments).
A person craves for human relatioships because like many animals, humans are social beings and seek constant interaction with other people, and are willing to maintain harmonious relationship driven by all of the positive feelings they were "taught about" from when they are born: love, sympathy, compassion etc etc. feelings which evidently and impulsively have only positive effects.
MFaraz_Hayat
Actually your example is so stretched that I can find many reasons.
1) Nothing good comes out of this for Bob other than the satisfaction because
a) He wont get the rich man's money
b) His family will be left without a protector
c) He will be punished
As for the social structure you speak of, this social structure was not based on the principles I mentioned, because if it did it would take care of Bob's unfortunate situation and help him out and consequently tax the rich man more. The fact that a social structure is far from perfect doesnt mean that its initial foundations arent or that due to its failure those foundations are not to be trusted.
I don't want to imply that morality does not exist without religion. I included the first sentence to prevent any arguments such as, its wrong according to this religion, punishable by God etc. Anyways, what if Bob does not care about the society. Why should he? It is because of the social structure itself, that being poor he may never achieve the same status (even with hard work) that a rich individual has because he was born to a rich family, that he is killing.Thats why I tried to construct an "argument" (?) without any religious foundations.[QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]
I suppose you are looking to find if someone may be able to form a moral law, independent of a religion, to see if morality can exist without religion.
Killing is not justified because if it is justified for that reason then pretty much any killing would be justified based on emotions.
Thus a chaos would be created in societies and people would not coexist harmoniously.
Chaos alters or even prevents safe human relationships and the flourish of everything: culture, spiritual growth, and advance.
Apart from the practical aspects, a person would pursue to maintain harmony for other reasons as well.
A person would try to maintain harmony because he does crave human relationships and doesnt want them to deteriorate (because thats what happens to human relatioships when they are not built in relatively safe environments).
A person craves for human relatioships because like many animals, humans are social beings and seek constant interaction with other people, and are willing to maintain harmonious relationship driven by all of the positive feelings they were "taught about" from when they are born: love, sympathy, compassion etc etc. feelings which evidently and impulsively have only positive effects.
Teenaged
Actually your example is so stretched that I can find many reasons.
1) Nothing good comes out of this for Bob other than the satisfaction because
a) He wont get the rich man's money
b) His family will be left without a protector
c) He will be punished
As for the social structure you speak of, this social structure was not based on the principles I mentioned, because if it did it would take care of Bob's unfortunate situation and help him out and consequently tax the rich man more. The fact that a social structure is far from perfect doesnt mean that its initial foundations arent or that due to its failure those foundations are not to be trusted.
Actually i wrote in the example that Bob will get the money, will escape from law (though will accept punishment wholeheartedly if caught). And will use that money to help the poor, previously oppressed by that rich man. While I may agree that foundations are good, but ultimately the system itself isn't. Why should Bob care about it? He doesn't have any reason to do so. He blames society, and rightly so for even though foundation is good, yet system itself is flawed.You only say it's not justified because society has raised you up that way. And it's done that mostly because of religious effects on our society for the last few thousand years. Now he said in a world religion doesn't exist. Society has not been raised with the killing = bad aspect. In this situation We still have a roman sense of view where killing can be justified in many different situations. (which can be seen by the many forms of execution, war, killing etc that took place throughout the empire.) In this case killing would be ok, because he is able to justify it with logic.[QUOTE="LeGoofyGoober"]
killing is never justified unless it is in self defense, or in the defense of another. that is the martial way.
ferrari2001
..i'm not religious... :lol: at ALL. who the hell are you to take someone's life, the greatest of all gifts? explain to me that. who are you to take this man's life, just because he is richer then you? you are NO ONE to say who lives or dies. NO ONE. at ALL.
You only say it's not justified because society has raised you up that way. And it's done that mostly because of religious effects on our society for the last few thousand years. Now he said in a world religion doesn't exist. Society has not been raised with the killing = bad aspect. In this situation We still have a roman sense of view where killing can be justified in many different situations. (which can be seen by the many forms of execution, war, killing etc that took place throughout the empire.) In this case killing would be ok, because he is able to justify it with logic.[QUOTE="ferrari2001"]
[QUOTE="LeGoofyGoober"]
killing is never justified unless it is in self defense, or in the defense of another. that is the martial way.
LeGoofyGoober
..i'm not religious... :lol: at ALL. who the hell are you to take someone's life, the greatest of all gifts? explain to me that. who are you to take this man's life, just because he is richer then you? you are NO ONE to say who lives or dies. NO ONE. at ALL.
But Bob has some say indeed, for he has the ability to take away this 'greatest of gifts'. Any reason why he shouldn't? Why should he respect this man's right to live, considering(as given in orig post) that Bob himself will not blame anyone who kills him for the same purpose.
[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]
[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] Because everyone has the right to life unless they infringe on another person's right to life.-Sun_Tzu-
Three situations to refute that:
1. I'm drowning in the middle of an empty ocean. I cry out to the sea to save me and bring me to shore. It doesn't save me. If I, and indeed we, have a right to life, why wasn't I saved?
2. Two people of equal physical and mental condition are lost in the desert. The only way for one of them to make it out alive is to cannibalize the other. Which person has a right to life?
3. A mother must choose between saving her children and saving herself. If she chooses to save her children, does she do so as a matter of right or of maternal instinct?
1. You weren't saved because there was no one there to save you. Just because it's a right doesn't mean it's going to always be protected. In an ideal world they would be, but we don't live in an ideal world. Rights are infringed all the time.2. Initially they both do. This scenario plays out in four ways; a) Person X starts a fight with Person Y thus negating Person X's right to life (or vice versa) b) they mutually reach an agreement where they fight to the death, thus negating the right to life of both individuals c) one of them dies of natural causes before the other, d) they both die at the same exact time due to natural causes
3. I don't really see what this is trying to prove. If the mother chooses to save her children, it most likely is because of maternal instinct. I don't see how that refutes a right to life though.
1. So then I have the right to life so long as I can protect it? How can life be a right if I never always have it no matter what? And, indeed, you've hit upon the truth about rights: THERE IS NO SUCH THING! In an ideal world, yes there are rights. This is far from an ideal world, though. Right is a function of might and if I cannot defend that right I do not have that right. I could not defend my life from the sea and thus I did not have the right to live.
2. You've avoided the question. If both of them are of equal physical condition then neither of them can decisively win without some form of leverage, in the form of a weapon and, thus, in either case, both would die. The point is to see one of them survive. In that case, which person has the right to live?
3. If the mother has a right to live, then in choosing to save her children she also saves herself. Though I may not have made myself clear in my last post, either the mother can choose to sacrifice herself for the sake of her children or she can save herself and let her children die. In either case, the life or lives of the survivors has come at a cost: the death(s) of those left behind. How can something be a right if one must pay for it?
In all three scenarios, I have displayed life as being something that must be fought for and won, not something that is just given to you at birth. Indeed, even the moment of birth comes with a cost, the pain, suffering, and stress of the mother.
Depends under what ethical model you're working. If you're going until Utilitarianism, then I would argue that, in bringing the greatest good to the people by killing the corrupt lord, then yes it is moral. If you're going under ethical egoism, then I would suppose killing him would be immoral, because your greater interest would not be served. I mean there are alot of normative theories out there.VandalvideoBut even under ethical egoism, Bob finds it moral because he gets the wealth.
1. You weren't saved because there was no one there to save you. Just because it's a right doesn't mean it's going to always be protected. In an ideal world they would be, but we don't live in an ideal world. Rights are infringed all the time.[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]
[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]
Three situations to refute that:
1. I'm drowning in the middle of an empty ocean. I cry out to the sea to save me and bring me to shore. It doesn't save me. If I, and indeed we, have a right to life, why wasn't I saved?
2. Two people of equal physical and mental condition are lost in the desert. The only way for one of them to make it out alive is to cannibalize the other. Which person has a right to life?
3. A mother must choose between saving her children and saving herself. If she chooses to save her children, does she do so as a matter of right or of maternal instinct?
tycoonmike
2. Initially they both do. This scenario plays out in four ways; a) Person X starts a fight with Person Y thus negating Person X's right to life (or vice versa) b) they mutually reach an agreement where they fight to the death, thus negating the right to life of both individuals c) one of them dies of natural causes before the other, d) they both die at the same exact time due to natural causes
3. I don't really see what this is trying to prove. If the mother chooses to save her children, it most likely is because of maternal instinct. I don't see how that refutes a right to life though.
1. So then I have the right to life so long as I can protect it? How can life be a right if I never always have it no matter what? And, indeed, you've hit upon the truth about rights: THERE IS NO SUCH THING! In an ideal world, yes there are rights. This is far from an ideal world, though. Right is a function of might and if I cannot defend that right I do not have that right. I could not defend my life from the sea and thus I did not have the right to live.
2. You've avoided the question. If both of them are of equal physical condition then neither of them can decisively win without some form of leverage, in the form of a weapon and, thus, in either case, both would die. The point is to see one of them survive. In that case, which person has the right to live?
3. If the mother has a right to live, then in choosing to save her children she also saves herself. Though I may not have made myself clear in my last post, either the mother can choose to sacrifice herself for the sake of her children or she can save herself and let her children die. In either case, the life or lives of the survivors has come at a cost: the death(s) of those left behind. How can something be a right if one must pay for it?
In all three scenarios, I have displayed life as being something that must be fought for and won, not something that is just given to you at birth. Indeed, even the moment of birth comes with a cost, the pain, suffering, and stress of the mother.
Dude, you are deducting an "ought" from an "is". Just because we do not live in an ideal does not mean we ought not strive to protect those rights that are protected in an ideal world.If Bob really does live in a materialistic world (or even if his doesn't, but he thinks he does) than he will find no reason not to kill, pillage, and torture whatever he wants for whatever reason (or lack of reason) he wants. If the rich man is merely a bunch of atoms and energy then there is no reason to not kill the rich man since all Bob would be doing is reorganizing atoms. Of course there is not any reason in such a world to kill the rich man since Bob himself would only be atoms and energy and could make no value claims whatsoever concerning his "need" or "right" to be happy, wealthy, or even sentient.
BOB's actions arent justified no matter how bad the rich guy seems. If the rich guy is an A-hole and generaly uses his money to make other people miserable. and makes his money off unfair practices that affect the poor. then maybe Ill root for BOB. but he still wouldnt be justified. especially if its just a money thing. What If Bob is just envious of the richmans fortune. What If the rich guy got that way because he did something smart and has to go out of his way to protect his assets from people like bob. for example he invents toilet paper and has a patent on it. and bob is just lazy and sits around all day.
In conclusion BOB is a looser and needs to get his act together because in that religionless world there isnt much of a moral code so It really wont be much of a good vs evil. and who said It would be wrong to be wealthy, or be nasty Since there isnt any church or morals or anything BOB is just an envious prick who needs to get off his bum and work. Instead of contemplating cheap stupid heroics.
[QUOTE="ferrari2001"]You only say it's not justified because society has raised you up that way. And it's done that mostly because of religious effects on our society for the last few thousand years. Now he said in a world religion doesn't exist. Society has not been raised with the killing = bad aspect. In this situation We still have a roman sense of view where killing can be justified in many different situations. (which can be seen by the many forms of execution, war, killing etc that took place throughout the empire.) In this case killing would be ok, because he is able to justify it with logic. No, It's because we all have a universal "Moral Center" to our brain.[QUOTE="LeGoofyGoober"]
killing is never justified unless it is in self defense, or in the defense of another. that is the martial way.
Locke562
wrong. how do you feel about infanticide? because im pretty sure most frown upon it. but inuit tribes commit infanticide still. and its perfectly morally acceptable in that setting
Justifie? yes. Accepted? No.
Why is it up to Bob to determine what is right and wrong in the world? Perhaps Bob is focused too much on material things if he feels he must kill someone else, not for survival or defense, but simply out of anger and spite. Perhaps instead of focusing all his energy on spite, anger, and killing other people, maybe Bob can use some of that energy to try and lift himself out of poverty.
You only say it's not justified because society has raised you up that way. And it's done that mostly because of religious effects on our society for the last few thousand years. Now he said in a world religion doesn't exist. Society has not been raised with the killing = bad aspect. In this situation We still have a roman sense of view where killing can be justified in many different situations. (which can be seen by the many forms of execution, war, killing etc that took place throughout the empire.) In this case killing would be ok, because he is able to justify it with logic.[QUOTE="LeGoofyGoober"]
killing is never justified unless it is in self defense, or in the defense of another. that is the martial way.
ferrari2001
You call that justification logical?! What's this world coming to?
Justified as in justice in the eyes of the law? Or to moralitly? I assume the latter. If so, then no. Yes, this man has done evil to those less fortunate then him, but like you said, he may help the poor in the future. You never know, and its an unecassary chance. Bob should just try and make the most of what he has and be grateful he isn't snobby and evil, like the rich man.enterawesomeHe may help poor in future but Bob will help them certainly, after getting the wealth. Why should Bob try to make most with what he has, when he can take more and when he knows for certain that he may never be able to reach a status he desires (even after hard work) just because he wasn't born in a rich family?
But if anger and spite are the things life has given him, why shouldn't he use them to overcome the difficulty and challenge life has made him face, by being unfair to him?Why is it up to Bob to determine what is right and wrong in the world? Perhaps Bob is focused too much on material things if he feels he must kill someone else, not for survival or defense, but simply out of anger and spite. Perhaps instead of focusing all his energy on spite, anger, and killing other people, maybe Bob can use some of that energy to try and lift himself out of poverty.
sonicare
I take it someone's been reading "Crime and Punishment"?
And It's not justifiable to kill the rich man, because to do so we have to judge his life to have less value than his monetary wealth. Even if he's creul, thoroughly unpleasent etc, it is still impossible to measure his life's value, particularly regarding his family and friends, in such a way that we can then compare it to monetary value. Even a comparison of this sort is emotionally abhorrent.
Dude, you are deducting an "ought" from an "is". Just because we do not live in an ideal does not mean we ought not strive to protect those rights that are protected in an ideal world.-Sun_Tzu-
And you're missing the primary point I'm making: if you have to fight for it that thing IS NOT A RIGHT. It is a privilege! We live simply because the people in high places allow us to live. We are so obsessed with the concept of rights that we forget that one truth: right is a function of might. If you cannot fight for it or in some way purchase it you cannot have it. Indeed, if you're so up in arms about how we all have natural rights, to take a page out of George Carlin's book, look up the Japanese-American internment camps during the Second World War. They had NO rights simply because they or their ancestors were born in the wrong place and as such were forced, not asked to but forced, to live on reservations that can be called little more than shacks in the middle of the desert. If everyone had rights, least of all the right to live, why were those poor souls forced to live on those reservations?
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment