Discuss moral questions. Or don’t. That’s fine, but it also makes me slightly sad.
As a reminder of the way this goes, basically:
Someone posts a moral question -> People talk -> People get bored of talking -> New question
Rinse and repeat.
If you are on an overcrowded life boat with 30 people and the boat is sinking due to the weight, would you throw some people overboard to save others, knowing that if you dont everyone will drown even those thrown overboard? (Literaly just googled moral questions)
Well, yeah. I will throw them overboard. Better lose some than all.
This was the quickest conversation yet lol
I’d work out a system in which able-bodied people get out and push for a bit, then get back in for the next shift. That way, if the waters were safe, there would be no casualties.
If it happens to be in icy cold water, that would probably result in the pushers getting hypothermia. At the same time, if they do happen to die, their bodies can be thrown out and the problem is solved, without anyone having to make the active decision to kill someone.
Ahh, I found it!
I wanted to talk about the rules of common sense. For example, when you’re at war, different rules apply then when you’re at home with no conflict. Let’s face it: soldiers kill. Killing is murder, and thus, illegal in (I hope) all countries. However, when soldiers come back from war, they are praised, instead of arrested and thrown in prison for murder.
The rules of society don’t apply in situations where the System has failed. For example, the life raft question from above. Clearly, this is not something that would occur regularly as a fault of society, but rather an uncontrollable predicament, which the System failed us to prepare for, since it is of no use for most people.
This is where our vital cheat sheet comes in: common sense. It is flawed, and it’s very flexible and variable, but it’s sure to be applicable in every situation imaginable. That is why we don’t ask what is right or wrong, because right and wrong do not apply in these extra-societal circumstances. Instead, we refer to our deep thinking and go with our gut instinct: survival and sociality. That is why most people usually rather pick the “save everyone with a minor sacrifice”, instead of “LITERALLY DON’T MURDER IN COLD BLOOD WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU”.
P.S. No, OmnipotentFNarr hasn’t been kidnapped and replaced by a thesaurus wielder, I just have a lot of time to think on the bus.
Bus thoughts really do you like that.
Anarchy is always a viable option.
When I say I’m logical I really mean that I can and will bend a situation so it suits me.
(Not always well)
Translation: I am a snake
Thank you for reading my poem I hope you liked it and I’m accepting feedback
There are separate internationally recognised laws about warfare, which state that killing enemy combatants is allowed in specific situations
For example there is:
I’m fine with everything banned except for incendiary weapons. I’ve always been bugged by that. Effective against large groups of enemies, decent kill speed if they get completely covered, no long term consequences (no post-war civilian risk). Unless I am wrong they only banned it because it’s painful for the person being killed (like being shot and bleeding to death isn’t painful).
Yeah, I think that’s the reason.
I think it’s a lot to due with the “cruel and unusual” nature of burning to death - most soldiers have experienced some kind of injury comparable to getting shot - cuts, bruises, impact, etc.
Few people have experienced their whole body burning and lived to tell the tale.
Wars were fought long before the Geneva and Hague Conventions. What’s culturally acceptable and what laws say are two separate things, although they’re interrelated.
This is exactly why I think incendiary weapons don’t deserve to be banned. The dead are dead and have no say in the affairs of the living. If I’m going to kill someone I don’t particularly care how they die. If I was being burned my concern isn’t “OH GOD, THIS IS PAINFUL!” it would be more “I DON’T WANNA DIE!”.
Here’s a new question: Should a person with magical superpowers obligatorily become the city’s superhero, because they owe them?
I find this interesting, because it calls into question if talent should determine your career. Usually, your talent is something you enjoy, but sometimes you’re just naturally good at it, but you’re not interested in taking it to the professional level. For example, I know a person who is really good at writing, but is more interested in programming. So the superhero is just an extreme example, because it affects a lot more people. I for one, think the superhero should get to pick their career, because if you should have a job, the least it should do is not make you miserable. A miserable worker isn’t as efficient, and misery can lead to depression, or develop negative behaviours in the worker’s mind. The superhero might turn on the city, or just abandon it, or he might just become so inefficient and demoralised it’s pointless to employ him.
What are your thoughts on this subject?