Is there a 'best' or 'worst' thing that someone can do?

Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
I'd imagine murder would be the worst thing someone could do, as it's something completely permanent that can never be taken back, but after reading that sentence, ... I realized everything is permanent and can't be taken back.. So why is it the worst? I'm sure most people would agree. I just heard Sarah Silverman say rape was 'the worst thing imaginable', but maybe she was just exaggerating to make a point before the joke. Rape is bad, really bad actually, but isn't murder worse? At least with rape you're still alive, some people get raped then murdered, I'd argue that's a lot worse than getting raped.

Then you add on the variable of multiple victims, serial rapists/murderers.. I wonder if there is a way to actually mathematically calculate who would be the worst person in all of human history according the the majority of people living today.. I'm sure you could take a sample size and it could be done, maybe I'll do that on Reddit, there are a ton of people there to ask.

The 'best' thing that someone can do seems much more difficult to figure out. Best, good, bad, etc. are subjective, but, curiously, murder would seem to be universally as subjectively objectively true, too..


So what is your opinion? Do you agree that the worst act a person could commit is murder? Why does it seem pretty cut and dry when considering what is bad, but to each his own when considering something good?
 
tyler.durden

tyler.durden

Well-Known Member
Hey, Pad! Yeah, I agree murder is the worst. The best would probably be doing the greatest good for the greatest amount of people: curing cancer/disease, finding a source of free energy, feeding more of the world's population, reversing global warming, etc.. Anything you do or create to improve the quality (I mean really improve the quality, not iPhone 6 or similar shit) of people's lives, including your own, you're probably doing the best thing you could be doing imo...
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
tyler.durden said:
Hey, Pad! Yeah, I agree murder is the worst. The best would probably be doing the greatest good for the greatest amount of people: curing cancer/disease, finding a source of free energy, feeding more of the world's population, reversing global warming, etc.. Anything you do or create to improve the quality (I mean really improve the quality, not iPhone 6 or similar shit) of people's lives, including your own, you're probably doing the best thing you could be doing imo...
Click to expand...

So do you believe it comes down to utilitarianism, the act which produces the most good to the most people is that which is most ethical/moral?

I bought a book about utilitarianism about 4 years ago and skimmed/read through a good portion of it, it presented a few pretty good examples of how that concept would fail depending on certain circumstances, where otherwise, I'd normally agree with you. I'll get into more specific examples if you'd like, but from what I can remember, using an example, what would you do in this case...?


15 kids, ages 5-7 are in class in a rural hut in the outskirts of Baghdad. Meanwhile, 5 internationally verified terrorists are held up in the second floor of the building.. These guys are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of people, one guy responsible for the blast in Dubai last month claiming the lives of 65 victims alone.. CIA intel says the group is planning a strike in Los Angeles within the month. Now, do you order the strike on the building, ensuring the death of at least 15 innocent civilians, mostly, if not all, children, or do you call it off and risk more potential deaths in Los Angeles? Why?
 
tyler.durden

tyler.durden

Well-Known Member
No, I don't think we have the right to certainly murder innocents to potentially stop future murders. I don't believe that the ends justify the means, I believe there are certain things that simply shouldn't be done. It's much like why we shouldn't kill and dissect the healthy dude in the waiting room to save multiple patients. Can you imagine the psychological trauma everyone would live with in a world like that? We'd all walk around in constant terror that we could be sacrificed to the 'greater good' at anytime. That would drastically lower the quality of life for all. If we let the ends justify the means we would probably see something like the Third Reich pop up again very soon...
 
F

fr3d12

Well-Known Member
Murder is deifnitely one of the worst things one human can do to another but many people survive horrific crimes such as rape and live in a kind of hell because of the trauma for the rest of their lives.

Very few care about school children in Baghdad,LA would definitely be prioritised in that scenario.
It was truly horrific what happened in Boston because there never can be any justification for murder but hundreds of innocents are dying in Africa and the Middle East daily in terrorist attacks but they barely make the news yet Boston made world headlines everyday and rightly shocked every decent human being.My point is in the western world if you will why are we less sensitive to murder and terror in Baghdad etc than we are in the US or Europe!
 
cancer survivor

cancer survivor

Active Member
worst thing you can do is lie to a girl and make her sad. flip side is : finding a girl some other dude has made sad and making her happy and joyfull! righting her life and renewing her love and faith in men! so get out there men and start making sad young girls happy! yeah...
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
tyler.durden said:
I did a quick Google search for cultures where murder is accepted, and I couldn't find anything. Could you provide some links?
Click to expand...
I think Genesis meant in places where religion is law, namely Muslim dominant countries, people get stoned for adultery or hanged for being gay and it's viewed as normal or acceptable. Then again, those people probably wouldn't call it murder, they'd call it judgment or something along those lines.
 
tyler.durden

tyler.durden

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
I think Genesis meant in places where religion is law, namely Muslim dominant countries, people get stoned for adultery or hanged for being gay and it's viewed as normal or acceptable. Then again, those people probably wouldn't call it murder, they'd call it judgment or something along those lines.
Click to expand...
I see, thanks for clarifying, Pad. By that standard, we also murder prisoners on death row. Although we call it justice. I don't think every time we kill someone murder is the proper definition, such as in wars, in self defense, or if a dude looks at me funny... J/K on that last one...
 
Beefbisquit

Beefbisquit

Well-Known Member
This is such a tricky call.

We covered a few scenarios like this in one of my ethics class, except it was about a missile being launched at New York and whether it was ethical to direct it at a less populated city like Newark. New York was a high threat area, and the residents in the scenario were aware of this, whereas Newark was a low threat area, and the residents weren't expecting an attack. What about if both cities didn't know about the threat levels? Would it be different?

One of the other scenarios was something like if the US government launched its own bomb at Newark, it would detonate the terrorists bomb prematurely. The same people would die as the first scenario but the circumstances would be different.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Beefbisquit said:
This is such a tricky call.

We covered a few scenarios like this in one of my ethics class, except it was about a missile being launched at New York and whether it was ethical to direct it at a less populated city like Newark. New York was a high threat area, and the residents in the scenario were aware of this, whereas Newark was a low threat area, and the residents weren't expecting an attack. What about if both cities didn't know about the threat levels? Would it be different?

One of the other scenarios was something like if the US government launched its own bomb at Newark, it would detonate the terrorists bomb prematurely. The same people would die as the first scenario but the circumstances would be different.
Click to expand...
So what was the general opinion of the class?
 
Beefbisquit

Beefbisquit

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
So what was the general opinion of the class?
Click to expand...
I discussed two problems in another thread relating to this;

The Trolley problem - A trolley car is out of control and has five passengers on board that will surely be killed if the trolley car is left to its own devices. You have the only ability to alter the course of the trolley, but in doing so a man who is standing on the side tracks, will be killed. Do you flip the tracks to save the five and kill the one, or let the five die?

The Transplant Surgeon - A brilliant surgeon has five patients all of whom will die if they don't get replacement organs. A man enters the clinic and during a routine checkup the doctor notices he's a match for every single one of his five other patients. Can the Doctor, kill the one to save the five or must he let the five die?

Most in the class thought they were utilitarians until we came into this realm of 'inalienable rights', then everyone seems to say, "Fuck utility, I want to live." I'm partial utilitarian; I think there's a time for utility and a time for doing the right thing simply because the action itself is right, not because the action yields more utility.
 
F

fr3d12

Well-Known Member
Beefbisquit said:
I discussed two problems in another thread relating to this;

The Trolley problem - A trolley car is out of control and has five passengers on board that will surely be killed if the trolley car is left to its own devices. You have the on;y ability to alter the course of the trolley, but in doing so a man who is standing on the side tracks, will be killed. Do you flip the tracks to save the five and kill the one, or let the five die?

The Transplant Surgeon - A brilliant surgeon has five patients all of whom will die if they don't get replacement organs. A man enters the clinic and during a routine checkup the doctor notices he's a match for every single one of his five other patients. Can he kill the one, to save the five or must he let them die?

Most in the class thought they were utilitarians until we came into this realm of 'inalienable rights', then everyone seems to say, "Fuck utility, I want to live." I'm partial utilitarian; I think there's a time for utility and a time for doing the right thing simply because the action itself is right, not because the action yields more utility.
Click to expand...
With regard to the second scenario one could also argue to put down all prisoners who cannot be rehabilitated and harvest their organs.
Start with the scumbag child abusers.
 
Beefbisquit

Beefbisquit

Well-Known Member
fr3d12 said:
With regard to the second scenario one could also argue to put down all prisoners who cannot be rehabilitated and harvest their organs.
Start with the scumbag child abusers.
Click to expand...
Who has the final say in who can and cannot be rehabilitated? Who has the right to decide to end anyone's life? What if they were mistaken in their diagnosis?

One thing about death is there's no 'mulligans' when you 'hook one in the rough', you have to play it where it lies, so to speak.
 
F

fr3d12

Well-Known Member
Beefbisquit said:
Who has the final say in who can and cannot be rehabilitated? Who has the right to decide to end anyone's life? What if they were mistaken in their diagnosis?

One thing about death is there's no 'mulligans' when you 'hook one in the rough', you have to play it where it lies, so to speak.
Click to expand...
I was comparing that to the surgeon killing someone so five others can live but as for child abusers I don't personally believe time should be wasted on trying to rehabilitate them,they destroy lives so I say destroy them.Just my opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top