If I could know that there was no chance of any survivors, I'd actually go for option B. If the only possible outcomes involved a lot of people dying, I'd rather no-one had to go through the grief of losing a loved one. It's not like life means anything, so nothing's getting lost if humans become extinct.Fire Daemon said:
Poll: Good or Evil?
- Thread starter Easykill
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I might agree, but something that can wipe us out will damage Earth too. Our planet has value greater than our species. it is the only place we've seen capable of creating life advanced enough to be sentient. In my opinion, the universe is pointless unless there is someone to observe it and try to make sense of it. I don't care about life that relies almost entirely on instinct and doesn't want to know why stuff happens. If we die something else will just pick up where we left off by finding ruins and preserved books and stuff. I'm concerned about the planet.Break said:
Sorry if that made no sense, I'm tired.
I agree with you on the "universe is pointless" bit, but I can't say I see the significance of life. What difference does it make if some atoms get together and notice that the sky is blue? I mean, sure, since we're here, we may as well make the most of it, but that just gives us something to do. We still live short, futile lives, fighting for the good of a meaningless future, in a pointless universe.
I went for Dunno 'cos i dunno. But I guess the "for the greater good" thing goes out of the window when you realise you can become invisible and twang women's bra straps at will. Just think about that. At will.
What do you know, it's the illegitemate child of MGG=Reviews and Hitler. Y'know, this is the kind of place where people have something called intelligent discussion. But then again, you're right. People should just copulate and drink beer and then call themself a success, right? That's the way to live? Heaven forbid anyone sets out to accomplish something meaningful in life.kate----x said:
"so yea people.. omg i bet u lot have regular sex.. u eva had a one night stand?"
Oh, of course. You must have lots of sex with lots of worthless losers. How're the crabs treatin' ya?
Do the world a favour. Don't have sex. The world is polluted enough with your illegitemate retard offspring.
Yeah, but unfortunately there was no option of simply giving them a few smacks upside the head and calling it a day. The conversation went a little something like this:Dectilon said:
Drunk: Yo momma's fat!
Captain Kickass: Have at thee, cur!
Ok not really quite like that, but I think I got the point across.
A cynical view, but a reasonable one, backed up by the arseloads of people that engage in that oh-so-touchy subject known as illegal downloading.Blayze said:
So true. I remember many situations where I'd refuse to accept a reward for someone in KOTOR. I'd choose the dialogue option of "No reward is necessary. I'm just here to help," When what I really meant to say was "GIMME MY LIGHTSIDE POINTS *****"John Galt said:
if the world is willing to kill so much as one inocent so the rest of us can live in peace then balls to that, let this entire forsaken race suffer, with that kind of mentality they don't deserve peace and prosperity. Anyway this whole arguement reminds me of W.E.B. Du Boise vs. Booker T. Washington one beleived Blacks should demand equality now, while Booker speaking from personally experience said they should all get jobs and work their way up the ladder like him so that black and white societies would naturally blend, everyone sided with Du Boise, but personally I think Booker was right and still stand by if we all pull our share and encourage those around us to do the same then that is really the ultimate good, these conversations are fun, but really, fat guys, cliffs and railroads mean very little in the long run
Of course humanity matters! Our lives need not be futile and the future is not meaningless! I have a hard time grasping how anything can matter to you if the entire universe does not. I'm probably alone here as being a theist, so chances are you don't view the world the same way I do, but everything is beautiful and there are moments when I am free of my ego and can truly love everything. It's an overwhelming bliss.Break said:
The statement people are saying about how people only do good because it makes them feel good seems obvious. Doesn't make doing good any less awesome though. I have a theory that happiness is drawn from four sources: the physical, love, virtuosity, and feeling free. Doing good for others falls into almost all of them, depending on what the act is. What do you think?
Oh, and before anyone does any bible bashing, I haven't discovered any religions yet that align with my views, so don't bother.
I believe choosing 5 people to save/kill would be the better choice, but I really don't know if it's a choice I'd be able to make. About these "kill innocent people to save more innocent people" choices, some may argue against it, but in the end, you choose between innocent people dying and more innocent people dying. I think choices should be considered right or wrong depending on the effect they have on others, and to some extent, the intentions behind the choice.
For example, I don't believe that lying itself is bad in any circumstance. Say an annoying telemarketer calls, asking for "Mr. or Mrs. Insert Name here." Can anyone really blame you if you say "No, they're not here right now"? In the end, you spared yourself/your parents the hassle of having to hang up at the first mention of "insert useless crap that telemarketers sell here."
In the aforementioned moral dilemma (kill/save people), some may see it better to do nothing, easing their conscience. But sometimes it can be selfish if you're always thinking about YOUR conscience. Ironic, isn't it? In said situations you may have the power to act, and with great power comes great (*gets shot*).
The Golden Rule ("do unto others blah blah blah") can be considered a reason why people do good (they'd want the same thing done for them if they were in need of displays of kindness for others). It seems like a solid moral code to live by. If you do, you ensure that you don't become a hypocrite. The greatest crime one can commit against oneself is to (I'm going to have to disagree with John Galt here) betray one's own principles.
The Golden Rule is all well and good, except when you throw sadomasochists into the mix. They like causing pain and they like receiving pain. Lose/lose situation.
However, in the end, does our supposed choices in said situations really mean much? We've gone far past the days of Hitler's rule, and it's really hard to kick a guy who's fat enough to stop a train off a cliff, let alone said fat guy actually existing, so I don't think we're going to be thrown into such horrible extreme dillemas (dillemae?) like that. Nevertheless, it is an interesting topic to delve into.
Also, hooray for agnosticism.
For example, I don't believe that lying itself is bad in any circumstance. Say an annoying telemarketer calls, asking for "Mr. or Mrs. Insert Name here." Can anyone really blame you if you say "No, they're not here right now"? In the end, you spared yourself/your parents the hassle of having to hang up at the first mention of "insert useless crap that telemarketers sell here."
In the aforementioned moral dilemma (kill/save people), some may see it better to do nothing, easing their conscience. But sometimes it can be selfish if you're always thinking about YOUR conscience. Ironic, isn't it? In said situations you may have the power to act, and with great power comes great (*gets shot*).
The Golden Rule ("do unto others blah blah blah") can be considered a reason why people do good (they'd want the same thing done for them if they were in need of displays of kindness for others). It seems like a solid moral code to live by. If you do, you ensure that you don't become a hypocrite. The greatest crime one can commit against oneself is to (I'm going to have to disagree with John Galt here) betray one's own principles.
The Golden Rule is all well and good, except when you throw sadomasochists into the mix. They like causing pain and they like receiving pain. Lose/lose situation.
However, in the end, does our supposed choices in said situations really mean much? We've gone far past the days of Hitler's rule, and it's really hard to kick a guy who's fat enough to stop a train off a cliff, let alone said fat guy actually existing, so I don't think we're going to be thrown into such horrible extreme dillemas (dillemae?) like that. Nevertheless, it is an interesting topic to delve into.
Also, hooray for agnosticism.
What do people think of Assasian's Creed's whole Templar vs. Assasians thing. Both sides want peace but have two different methods. The Assasians are willing to kill people and let wars rage on in the hope that people will finally accept peace. The Templar's want to create instant peace at the cost of your free will.
Some people could say that, as people with wealth, we are choosing to let people die all over the world by not giving up some cash so that they can have drinking water. It may not be as apparent as a bunch of people getting shot in front of you, but I think everyone's aware that people are dying of entirely preventable reasons and the majority choose inaction.
Easykill: I don't know how easy it is for you to put faith in things, but for me it is hard. When you really have faith in something, it becomes your truth. I haven't been able to make my mind up about a lot of things because I haven't had epiphanies related to them. I have no idea what happens to consciousness after death, but because of my faith, I'm okay with anything. Even if it turns out this is just a phase, believing in a God has only made me a better person, so no harm done. Also, evidence is really a matter of perception.
Easykill: I don't know how easy it is for you to put faith in things, but for me it is hard. When you really have faith in something, it becomes your truth. I haven't been able to make my mind up about a lot of things because I haven't had epiphanies related to them. I have no idea what happens to consciousness after death, but because of my faith, I'm okay with anything. Even if it turns out this is just a phase, believing in a God has only made me a better person, so no harm done. Also, evidence is really a matter of perception.
In that case I'd still go for option "A" because at least then I get to throw the switch. Either I pull it and 1/2 of everyone dies, or I don't and everyone dies. Somebody might as well pull it, if I die, well then nothing I can do about it. If I live, at least I can say "I saved the rest of yins', so quit'cher bitchin'." in a folksy Southern drawl.Fire Daemon said:
Also, on Larenxis' "evidence is a matter of perception" statement, I feel that your stance is flawed because it claims that there are no objective truths. Granted, perception can influence how you see something, it doesn't change the fact that it is still something. Your feelings will not influence reality unless you translate that emotion into a physical action that is able to change your surroundings. You can 'perceive' an object to be a certain thing but it will not matter outside your own mind. Essentially, A is A and will always be A unless you act to change it.
To John Galt
I was responding to Easykill's statement about having no evidence when it comes to my God. Although you bring up an interesting concept. Other than mathematics and our own existence, what can we be so sure about?
P.S. I realize this is a bit off topic, but philosophy is fun!
I was responding to Easykill's statement about having no evidence when it comes to my God. Although you bring up an interesting concept. Other than mathematics and our own existence, what can we be so sure about?
P.S. I realize this is a bit off topic, but philosophy is fun!
One of the possibilities I've considered in the past is that existence might not be what we think it is. If a god exists, how would it go about creating us? We can create our own worlds too, but only in our minds. Imagine how boring an eternity would be. I know I would spend most of my time in my head, maybe all we are is the daydream of a being so advanced he can imagine all our thoughts and personalities at once. If that's the case though, it seems like the interesting personalities would be recycled, not the good ones.Larenxis said:
I give a 65% chance to there not being a god, and 32% to there being a god who keeps to himself. The three percent left is that there is a god who periodically nudges us in the right direction then backs off, letting us choose whether or not to go the right way, 0.00000000013% chance god takes an active part in everything we do.
I dunno.
Sometimes I wake up thinking I am a lone soul whose love was consumed at the death of his family and now I have turned into some sort of a preadator with the skills to use any gun,any element,any tactic with a epic war going on between mythological videogame stuff and the only thing going through my head is ( survival ).
I am just like RAMBO, but I have super human abilities relying on pure instinct.
Yes, I know i might frighten some of you but thats your problem, not mine.
Sometimes I wake up thinking I am a lone soul whose love was consumed at the death of his family and now I have turned into some sort of a preadator with the skills to use any gun,any element,any tactic with a epic war going on between mythological videogame stuff and the only thing going through my head is ( survival ).
I am just like RAMBO, but I have super human abilities relying on pure instinct.
Yes, I know i might frighten some of you but thats your problem, not mine.