A moral quandary...

Discussion in 'Hard Gay Shitpost Metropolis' started by MrGask, Jun 16, 2013.

  1. MrGask

    MrGask
    Expand Collapse
    #FreeGask

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2011
    Messages:
    12,133
    Occupation:
    Bastard child of Jigsaw and Kayako
    Home Page:
    Suppose you knew of a person that would commit a heinous act. This act would be so heinous as to cement the person's place in the historical halls of villainy amongst the likes of Hitler, Vladimir Dracula, and Pol Pot. You are the only person with enough evidence to convince you of this persons villainy. You are also certain that this person is serious about their intentions, yet also sure that they have committed no illegal acts thus far, and are unlikely to leave any evidence that would tie them to their grand act of heinousness.
    Basically, the question is: would you act to prevent someone from committing a second holocaust, if doing so would likely lead to your own vilification? Why and why not? Would it matter how heinous an act was to be committed? Would it matter if you would be lauded or disgraced for acting against said person?
     
  2. MrGask

    MrGask
    Expand Collapse
    #FreeGask

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2011
    Messages:
    12,133
    Occupation:
    Bastard child of Jigsaw and Kayako
    Home Page:
  3. Fraud Based Economy

    Fraud Based Economy
    Expand Collapse
    Disinherited Nigerian Prince

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,848
    For shame. You forgot to tag the greatest armchair philosopher of our age. @scumhook
     
  4. Weezus Christ

    Weezus Christ
    Expand Collapse
    EDF Savior

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    8,886
    Occupation:
    breakfast mummy
    Home Page:
    the answer is only if you think so.

    ive went to jail for some fucked up shit before and i laughed the whole time.

    worth it to me, yeah.

    the rule of thumb is do what you wont regret and that definitely includes murder.
     
  5. Baya Rae 4900

    Baya Rae 4900
    Expand Collapse
    Lawlman

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    37,110
    Occupation:
    Nazi Chocolate (25.8069)
    Home Page:
    Is this about you killing Obama?
     
  6. j15m

    j15m
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2013
    Messages:
    9,284
    What is your relationship or alliance with said person?
    Does said person have a large following you could herd after their demise?
    What are your consequences for outing said person?
    Will you gain anything personally or monetarily for outing said person?



    These are the questions I would start with, but definitely get lots of pictures of you's two together either way!
     
  7. MrGask

    MrGask
    Expand Collapse
    #FreeGask

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2011
    Messages:
    12,133
    Occupation:
    Bastard child of Jigsaw and Kayako
    Home Page:
    No. It is hypothetical.
     
  8. Baya Rae 4900

    Baya Rae 4900
    Expand Collapse
    Lawlman

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    37,110
    Occupation:
    Nazi Chocolate (25.8069)
    Home Page:
    Yes, "hypothetical." To answer your question it depends on who's the victim and who's the perpetrator.
     
  9. Thatdamnnigger

    Thatdamnnigger
    Expand Collapse
    EDF Elite

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2013
    Messages:
    910

    Fuck you hitler wasn't so much of a bad guy
     
  10. MrGask

    MrGask
    Expand Collapse
    #FreeGask

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2011
    Messages:
    12,133
    Occupation:
    Bastard child of Jigsaw and Kayako
    Home Page:
    None, other that you know who they are and what they are about to do.
    No.
    Likely consequences are that you are demonized in this person's stead, at least insofar as you would have to commit acts that would likely be seen as heinous.
    You are likely to lose both personally and monetarily for outing said person.

    The crux of the question is whether you would sacrifice your own well being to perhaps preserve the well being of people you will never meet, and will never know of your actions.
     
  11. MrGask

    MrGask
    Expand Collapse
    #FreeGask

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2011
    Messages:
    12,133
    Occupation:
    Bastard child of Jigsaw and Kayako
    Home Page:
    It is already far too late to kill the president (like that would have any effect on society anyway).
     
  12. Slavoj Jizzek

    Slavoj Jizzek
    Expand Collapse
    Girlvinyl

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2012
    Messages:
    2,086
    Occupation:
    I'm an evil Scotsman and my name is Jock
    Less of a philosophical question and more of a practical question. If the entire concept of preventative violence is justified, it is moral. If it isn't, it's immoral. Then there's personal morals vs. state morals. We live in a nation that was founded on the basis of only intervening when crimes have been committed, although our criminal courts have tossed that out the window. In civil courts you still need to prove harm has been done in order to successfully sue.

    Tons of people have wrestled with the idea of whether it is moral to take violent action to prevent greater violence. They made a shitty Tom Cruise movie about it. I'd say most everybody around the world would say it is moral. Most Americans thought that other shitty Tom Cruise movie (what is it with this guy) where he tried to kill Hitler was awesome and made him a hero. People voice support of killing Hitler and the other evil people while they were young. But a lot of this is because they're judging the young Hitler by the older Hitler's actions.

    In practical terms, if a person were to act, they had better be sure that they were acting on good information, not suspicions. The idea that only the initial person could be convinced of the person's evil makes me doubt that the person has any good information, despite the theoretical stipulations. Evil people often set off warning bells in more alert people. I guarantee you there were people whom Ted Bundy shook hands with who immediately swore to avoid any and all contact with him if possible on the basis of 2-3 minutes interaction. Lots of people are fooled into taking superficial displays as fact, but not everybody falls into that trap.

    In another moral case, right action needs no apology, wrong action allows no excuse (I'm pretty sure I ripped that from some Imperium Commissar's handbook). Practically, it's a big difference. Life in jail sucks. Death by execution sucks. Having everybody you ever knew spit on your image and memory and suddenly become a condescending moral saint whenever they hear your name sucks. Dealing with it all while knowing you did the right thing would suck even more.

    Can't be. Everybody already knows or suspects Obama has Maoist designs. A quarter of the country would be toasting Gask's name every night.

    Are you a Philadelphian?

    EDIT: Accidently hit the post button halfway through
     
  13. Baya Rae 4900

    Baya Rae 4900
    Expand Collapse
    Lawlman

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    37,110
    Occupation:
    Nazi Chocolate (25.8069)
    Home Page:
    I disagree. Lincoln was the most hated US President in history while he was alive and now most Americans are sucking his cock. Indeed, Booth was a marked man as soon as he killed Lincoln.
     
  14. oddguy

    oddguy
    Expand Collapse
    The Prime Memeister

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2011
    Messages:
    26,843
    Occupation:
    rare deepwater jew
    Home Page:
    tl;dr
     
  15. CallMeMaggot

    CallMeMaggot
    Expand Collapse
    Girlvinyl

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2011
    Messages:
    14,477
    Home Page:
    In a sci-fi scenario, where you have travelled back in time a myriad of times having always wittnessed Skynet rise unless you kill the nigger etc... yes, you can

    I believe that ends justifies the means, and furthermore, I believe that is the basis of a any sound moral system at the core. But that's the problem, certainty.

    You can justify a crime only on the basis of a huge amount of certainty. Tenous and vague goals as "national security" are crappy reasons for acting like a psycho. And as Albert says, if you are the only that can be convinced by the evidence avalilable, you have to take in account the possibility of being fucking wrong, you know...
     
  16. scumhook

    scumhook
    Expand Collapse
    Managing account details

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2011
    Messages:
    20,016
    Occupation:
    Fellator of the homeless
    Home Page:
    My philosophy on armchairs is:
    "I like comfy ones that I can go to sleep in".


    Oh, and re OP, no fucking way do I warn anyone of the impending doom. I stock up on popcorn, settle into my philosophical armchair, and wait for the show.