STFU, no I don't. However I would like to say that I disagree with you completely. OMG you suck!


XD

I don't think they would have a choice, but they deserve one. Having special blood should immediately remove your right to choice. and if you argue that it does, does that apply for something less serious, supposing you had the last of the receding genes for ginger hair and were infertile could we then harvest you in the name of preserving an aesthetic (this is an intentionally stupid example (I feel like I'm writing "not to scale" on drawings of the solar system))

My point is, when does it no longer become ethically viable to put the one through suffering to save the many from suffering? (note that suffering is subjective, you could kick me and I would wince or perhaps spew foul language however your average football player would need six weeks in recuperative therapy and a massive compensation package before he felt better)

There needs to be an absolute rule else we must go with a preference or we set up an ethical committee that sentences people.

I don't think such a thing can exist.

"You may not kill"

A prime example of an absolute rule, morally speaking the rules are often set due to the ignorance of the populous (relativist ethics allows a common man to get away with anything and therefore you need an entire society of honest people to survive, hence why absolutist ethics are loved by controlling institutions like religions for example.)

It's still not an ABSOLUTE RULE. By that I mean, surely an ABSOLUTE RULE should be one that can never be broken? Unless I'm reading it wrong >_<

Therefore none can exist. As many people have said "Rules are there to be broken." If you have any rule, it can be broken at some particular point or under specific circumstances.

(Apart from possibly some mathematical statements...)

I'm think about a rule without exceptions.

" If you can show that you or someone else was in danger at the time and that your taking control of the vehicle was the best way to escape the threat, then you can avoid a penalty. For example, if you can show you were driving somebody to hospital and it was an emergency, then you can claim that there were special circumstances which required you to drive a car while disqualified. Even if you are guilty of driving while disqualified or driving without a license, a solicitor that specialises in traffic offences may be able to help reduce your punishment by knowing what other mitigating circumstances might exist which should be brought to the attention of the court. "


I assume you have since looked up some of the law regarding driving violations without a license, and realised that was a bad example, however I am baffled why you would choose murder as an example of an "absolute rule" (which does not exist in English case or statute law) since that is one of the worst regarding situations where it may and is allowed, wartime, self defence ect. You could have at least gone via the route of some obscure European fishing zone law.

That makes very little sense at all, perhaps I am not understanding what you meant to type but

"morally speaking the rules are often set due to the ignorance of the populous"

There is nothing morale to speak of, and the rules are almost always set not "due" to the ignorance of the populous while it is easy to argue that they are often set IN the ignorance of the common man, if a rule was created DUE to the so called obliviousness of people then I cannot see whoever is setting these rules being so well informed when they have a revolution on their hands.

Also you need to begin to separate issues that are nothing to do with the topic being discussed. While linking things together can be constructive, expanding too much you simply change the topic. For instance of course religious bodies have in the past (and still do in some cases) wanted to push their absolutist control over people, but that has little to do with the state of law and ethics today (well it could easily be argued it has, but regarding the topic at hand whether their is such a thing as an absolute rule it does not).

You can have a rule or law that 'must' not be broken. However this does not mean that no one will break it, because someone will try to. Like the killing rule. Even with the ruling out of mental conditions like schizophrenia, some people will still be driven to kill someone.

There is no such thing as an absolute rule, because there is no such utopian society within which to witness the said rule.

I'm the only clawper. This is the absolute rule.

Until someone else decides to declare they are also a clawper.

I don't think he meant one that could not be broken, but one that exists that is of absolute nature ; such as "No walking on the grass" however there are obvious situations where walking on the grass would be allowed.

Better not be my grass...

shouldn't that be murder?
You can kill in self defence, war (may be a bad example), defending others or accidentally. other than war i find all these acceptable (circumstances permitting).
getting back to the topic, killing is everywhere in nature, it is a necessity. if animals have human rights does that mean a cat may not kill a mouse for food?

Murder, however, should not be acceptable.



when the gain is no longer worth the cost.
taking your example of ginger hair. do we need it (or any hair colour for that matter)? no. so the gain is not worth the cost of a life.

do we need hair at all? not really. The gain still does not exceed the loss.

do we need the ability to reproduce? absolutely. if the human race were to become sterile... any possible loss would be negligible compared to the gain.

usually we are entitled to a choice, but does any person who would put themselves above an entire civilization really deserve to make one?




on the absolute rule. what i think Nannal is asking is why should we extend or contract rules for person A but not person B. they are equal in rights, its unjust and immoral to flex the rules to favour one person over another. you need a rule that works all of the time.

i agree with him, but any 'absolute rule' should be a vector, not scaler.

I wasn't proposing I was simply stating it as an example (also i was thinking "Thou Shalt Not Murder" style rules that we shouldn't break but were technically allowed to in the Crusades because the pope was an asshole)



Also that's the basics of utilitarianism (The greatest good for the greatest number)

... ugh

If your using the bible for "rules" then murder has provisions within it, "the pope was an asshole" who, what, when? There was more then 1 crusade and alot more then 1 pope.

scottie is on the debating team since 2k6

indeed.

a lot of our laws are based upon the rules within the bible as the church was so powerful (and that for a very long time it was the law) and as for my personal comments upon the popes who allowed killing as a means by which to get into heaven which you could argue was an abuse of power (We can see this alot within the church.(Less so in modern times))