How much is too much?

[D1st0rt]

Given almost any situation where it came down to me or somebody else I would pick them because I don't believe its within my bounds to choose my life over someone else's.

Deciding between two 3rd parties where I would survive regardless becomes infinitely more complicated.

[Galleleo]

What if a bunch of people have to die in order for you to live? Does your life take priority, just because you are in the position to decide who lives and dies?

How much killing to save yourself is still morally just? What if a group of people want you dead?

I think that, for myself, my life comes first. So if a group op people wants me death and there would be no other way for me to live then to kill them all, I will. And I think there is no moral problem against that, they wanted to kill you first, you are only responding to save yourself.

If however the chose lies with a group of people has to die to save your life, but that group of people don't want you dead or anything. I guess it depends on the group of people. If it were people I know, friends, family, I would chose their lives over mine. If it were people I do not know I guess it depends more on how I see them, are they nice, good people. Are they people that can mean something to other people or groups, society as a whole?

However, if it's me or 1 other person, I would only chose that other guy/girl over me if it was someone I cared about, friends/family anything in that region.

It depends highly on the situation at hand though.

[Zerzera]

Misplaced sense of superiority.

A bit the same how fat American kids who couldn't fire a gun, walk a mile without a sweat and didn't even finish high school yet think they need to brag about how 'they' own the world.
There's no pressure, and they get trashed for doing so, but they can turn blind to it all.

[Liquid Blue]

That's a good study, but what specifically do you think lead them to do that?

-No fear of repercussion?

-Peer pressure? (one brown-haired kid starts, the others follow)

-something else?

If you have to kill to save your own life, that's one thing. Going beyond just killing someone is going beyond saving your own life.

What if a bunch of people have to die in order for you to live? Does your life take priority, just because you are in the position to decide who lives and dies?

How much killing to save yourself is still morally just? What if a group of people want you dead?

[Zerzera]

I believe you can never tell what you are going to do in these situations. It's easy to claim you would never go that far, but you will only know when you actually end up in that situation.

At school we once had a nice project like that, all kids of our year had to go to this boat and blue eyed people had to do shitty tasks and were bullied by the staff of the boat, the brown (and other colors) eyed people just had a relaxing time. What happened? The brown eyed people started to bully us too, mocking us, point and laugh at us. They were not told to do this, they just did it.

Afterwards they were asked why they did that, and they didn't really know, it was just funny to them to be in a position where they could.

[Liquid Blue]

Topic evolves with the discussion, it doesn't need to stay to the initial idea, as long as productive discussion is achieved.

[Epinephrine]

Where does the line draw then? What act is too sick, too out there, too "evil", even when your life is on the line? The survival instinct is one of our most powerful instincts, but would there be a point, an act where it goes from "trying to survive" to being sadistic?

I thought your thread was about where the line was drawn in regards to believing weird stories about dictators... This new question is something else altogether.

[Galleleo]

If you have to kill to save your own life, that's one thing. Going beyond just killing someone is going beyond saving your own life.

[Liquid Blue]

Where does the line draw then? What act is too sick, too out there, too "evil", even when your life is on the line? The survival instinct is one of our most powerful instincts, but would there be a point, an act where it goes from "trying to survive" to being sadistic?

[Epinephrine]

Sometimes conditions can be created whereby the sick fantasies of certain people are allowed to be played out thanks to their actions being legitimized. I mean you can easily imagine how a lot of these 'torturers' would actually be serial killers and rapists out in the 'normal world', but since they had a chance to actually play out their fantasies without reprocussions in certain times, they go to all the limits. Does this make the man at the top responsible? Ultimately yes, but it's pointless to attribute every single action to the person at the top, because along the way, each and every person below is responsible for their actions as well.

Then again, there are times when you have perfectly 'normal' people who may do these things because they are ordered to, because the person at the top really is pulling all the strings, and hey... you gotta do what you gotta do to not get in trouble right? Hmm...

[ConcreteSchlyrd]

Personally, I try to take in as many opinions as I can on a subject, objectively as possible. Honestly, it's something that's impossible from the start, since as Epi stated, people make stuff up all the time.

So I guess I just make a judgement call on the source of the information, and "rank" it mentally (sort of, I guess). Obviously, some things are harder to swallow at face value (your dog-rape example is something that I'd be skeptical about) and require more research than others.

It helps that I have a job that I can take small net excursions during the day and find out information on things I've heard about. I at least feel fairly educated about the world, although I'm sure I'd still be considered a dumb bastard by a few.

As far as how much moral breakdown I think could occur? I dunno, maybe I'm cynical, but I guess I really don't have a limit. Things may surprise me, but in the back of my mind I understand that there are some sick, sick assholes out there who would do just about anything. And power just makes that part of people sour and fester.

[Squeezer]

He even took it one step farther by telling congress that he'd veto McCain's anti-torture bill (Though it passed in the Senate 91-8-1, and passed in the house by a large majority, though I don't know the exact numbers on that.)

edit: Mind you, this is a president who has used his veto power a handful of times, and I believe has used it less than any other two term Pres. by a looooooong shot.

[ConcreteSchlyrd]

It's like wondering if Abu Gharab was actually say... George Bush's idea, or just people who were stationed there went too far. For sure the blame in some way lies at the leadership, but would it be right to blame all the specifics on the man at the top?

I don't want to make this a G Dub-hating thread, because those are tiresome, but I just couldn't let this go.

Maybe, just maybe, Pres. Bush didn't know about things at Abu Ghraib until the scandal broke. That's a big "if," if you ask me. But anyway, supposing that he truly had no idea about the goings-on, and all fault came to rest on the people stationed there.

It'd make me feel a lot better if the president would've then stated that torture, in any circumstance, is not the business of America. Oh, he did? Yeah, but then he also put a big asterisk behind that statment with the disclaimer that he decides where "coercion" ends and "torture" begins.

So should Bush be considered guilty for what happened at Abu Ghraib? No. But he's surely not saying it's wrong, either. And that's what's fucked up.

[Epinephrine]

People make up stuff all the time. Sometimes it's true, sometimes it's not. Sometimes it's true, but not necessarily directly because of the person. For instance, say that raping stuff actually did happen in Chile. Did Pinochet actually order it? Did he actually want things to be this way?

It's like wondering if Abu Gharab was actually say... George Bush's idea, or just people who were stationed there went too far. For sure the blame in some way lies at the leadership, but would it be right to blame all the specifics on the man at the top?

[Pummel]

I'd research it a bit, have a look around, see if you can find that same piece of information stated somewhere else.