Agreed. The choice is which you will take from me - my [insert object] or my well being. I already have both. I am not profitting, even psychically, merely managing losses.
And yet what if [insert object] is your well-being? Its certainly possible since some here seem to be willing to die for an ideology.
I’m confused… The choice is, “Give me your or I’ll kill you,” right? Or am i missing something. My point was only that there is no benefit, psychically or otherwise, to the victim in this scenario. Yes, the choice will still be made voluntarily, but one of the lesser of two losses. He will always be worse off than had he not been presented with the choice.
If you had to kill or be killed, would you kill? If it was your life or the life of someone dear to you (lover, parent, sibling or child) would you be willing to trade your life?
Well Iam said that there is the pyshic benefit of both parties getting what they want.
The choice wasn’t arrived at voluntarily. Therefore the exchange is invalid and that includes anything that happened it in. People are not properly understanding the definition of coercion. It is an involuntary state where your will is no longer based on free-will. You are a slave to the will of another. This whole argument is turning into a variant of implicent social contract.
Well I did ask what is higher then self. So yes if faced with kill or be killed I would kill in order to preserve my life. I think anyone would.
I think that is an over-idealized situation.
There is more to the world than just libertarianism.
it depends on the context you have in mind. I was more thinking about a slave that deliberated upon their future actions to rise up against the coercion of their master.
So if you had to kill someone to get their food, because there is only food for one of you, you would kill that person to eat and live?
You claimed to be an idealist. Suck it up and answer the question.
If you want to die for an idea then it is obviously your choice. Whatever it is, I will probably think it is a useless gesture.
I want neither. If I must chose, I’ll therefore lose either way. It’s then a matter of choosing the lesser loss.
It’s free will in the sense that I am physically doing something, and no one else can control my body at that level. “Kill this stranger or I’ll kill you!” I agree that I’m not responsible, regardless of the action I choose. Still, it is my decision to pull the trigger or stand down.
No. That is non-sequitor. I could trade with them.
The implied point of me saying it is an over-idealized situation is that such an event is so unlikely to transpire that I don’t consider it a proper situation. If I must then I must though, I would kill the individual who is holding the someone dear to me’s life in the balance. Now I have a prediction. Your first thought is ‘Well you can’t do that’ then I will ask ‘Well why not?’ then you will say something like ‘well because you can’t’ then on and on.
I agree. There is still liberty at such baseline levels.
LS may reply that way. I will ask, “Are you willing to die in the attempt?” That’s all that really matters, and what’s at the heart of the initial question. Or are you talking about after the fact? You see a gunman aiming a gun at your loved one, and you can see the trigger finger start to pull. You can jump in front of your loved one or kill the shooter after the fact.
Well why is the gun man attacking my loved one? Why did I just suddenly realize it [ that an individual is hunting down a loved one]? If I knew I harmed this person to the point where they were willing to kill then why didn’t I prepare? The whole situation is question-begging and so randomly chaotic that I don’t accept it as a valid environmental setting to test my theories in. I think lifeboat situations have more chance of occuring then something like this.
Misuse of question begging. I guess you’ve never been mugged. I hope you never face the situation. The question is so simple, though. Would you risk your life for your loved ones? One who is being mugged, or one who is falling through thin ice, or one who needs an organ transplant, or one who is about to be the victim of a random shooting… there are a vast number of situations in which a loved one’s life may be in danger and to save him or her, you will have to put your life at risk.
more trivially you put your life at risk whenever you ride a car, cross the street, or spend the day at home
The State of Home Safety in America™ (2004) is a study commissioned by the Home Safety Council. Results show that unintentional home injuries are a much more serious issue than many Americans may realize. According to the report, unintentional injuries at home result in an average of nearly 20,000 deaths and 21 million medical visits each year.
I’d be VERY happy to take a bullet for my wife and child.
Muggings and situations in which someone is looking to gun down your family or lover purposely are different situations. Please don’t conflate the two.
Because you already have the answer before you ask the question. That is question-begging.
And I am asking, why can’t I have the option to save them and retain my live? You arbitrarily already establish that I have to die before the fact.
I didn’t. The “looking to gun down your family or lover purposely” is covered under the “random shooting”.
Only if I know the answer. I honestly don’t know how I’d react, so I certainly don’t presume to know how you would.
You do have the option to save them and retain your life, well, the chance anyway. You don’t have the option of saving them without risking your life. There’s a risk you will be fatally shot, or fall through the ice yourself, or die in surgery or from complications due to your missing organ (not the jealous cuccumber in the other thread).