|
|
 Originally Posted by surviva316
The actual murder itself would have to be the cause of saving 9 or 10 lives for it to be a comparable situation.
I'm not sure about that; the scenario we're presented with is pressing a button to receive money. The use of that money has some possibility of 'saving lives'. So you are "killing" one person and then later "saving" others. Conversely, is it right to kill a rich person and use his money to feed starving children? I know, it's a stretch, but take a look at what is being proposed and advocated by many in this thread.
Originally Posted by surviva316
Also, whether or not someone should be jailed for doing on action or another is irrelevant to whether or not it is moral for someone to take that action.
Maybe, but it's debatable.
Originally Posted by surviva316
Are you a complete pacifist? If you are, that's cool, but if you believe that war is justifiable, then what better justification could possibly exist than the pretense that it will save the lives of others?
Not at all - I actually work in national defence. I just can't really equate the given situation with the concept of war. There are so many other elements in play; power, dominion, sovereignty, way of life. This can't reasonably be compared to what we're looking at here, in my opinion.
|
Reply With Quote