Philosophical Question?

[Agent360]

The premise is rediculous.

 

It most certainly is not.

This is a question posed every day. Not always in terms of life and death but in terms of good and bad. Most times to conquer bad requires some cost.

How about this. Do you save the women and children first or the stronger men and some of the women leaving the all the children behind? Do we choose to leave hehind the weak in favor of stronger chances for survival? In this situation we are all good. So we must be bad in order to be good.

This is a fundamental question of humanity.

[mechanic]

There is no good or bad, just individual or group discretion as to what behaviour is acceptable for the individual or group. Good is whatever side the individual or group agrees with and bad is what the individual or group defines as wrong. The key word is individual, because all it takes is one mind to define good or bad and behave accordingly. The larger the group the more widespread the definition becomes yet it is no more correct than the definition decided by the individual.
 The first problem arises when a large group following one definition confronts the individual of another belief and instantly we have crime and punishment. The second and more devastating problem is when two large groups following different definitions clash producing war. Good and bad is then defined by which definition you believe in. Once doubt is spread within the large group the war is almost certainly lost.
 As to your question, it is clearly a no brainer. The person deliberately inflicting harm is bad. The good man was just unlucky but his intentions remained good. The only reason this is such an easy question to speak with authority about is that 99.9% of the people we associate with share a common definition of good and bad.

[Zazen13]

Zazen - great explanation in terms of quantative methods for decision making.

The bad man must be killed (neutralized). We know that for sure. The real question is what price will we pay for that. Further, is any life cost worth it. Are 5 good guy lives (defenders not innocents) worth it?

Answering in an altruistic way I believe the neccesity of good to conquer over evil is paramont. For the good of all, the bad man must be neurtralized and that may require a price of considerable cost. Good can not exist without some inherint badness. Unfortunalty we can not destroy or create energy we can olny transfer it. The same applys here. In order for good to triumph over evil the good must be willing to sacrifice something of great value to keep the good. We can only transfer the good to bad or the bad to good. Either way it will cost something in terms of humanity.

Exactly, this is actually the central premise of the Christian Bible and almost every other dogmatic religious belief system.

[Zazen13]

for real? So you're like Caine. Travels the earth, kicks arse and enlightens folks?(Image removed from quote.)

Well, you can't enlighten people in that sense. For me to enlighten you implies I am directly affecting a fundamental change in your level of conscious awareness. No person can do that, only the individual can affect such a change in himself. In a very real way everyone is already enlightened in this way, they are just too preoccupied with the visceral world of the senses and the symbolic thought artifacts it creates to realize it. So, in a sense, obtaining enlightenment is more about getting rid of self-made bonds of distraction than obtaining anything that you may think was previously outside yourself. No one else could possibly do that for you...

[Mighty01]

for real? So you're like Caine. Travels the earth, kicks arse and enlightens folks?(Image removed from quote.)

I must comment, here!

I did not give you the right to post my copyrighted pictures. I now must show you the wrong of your ways. grasshoppa

[lyric1]

I think by 9.00am central time this thread will be moved to O/C. On the question it self.....It makes my head hurt.

[BaldEagl]

I'm a good guy, the red guys are bad and the only innocents are the n00bs.  If the're red their dead.  It's justified.

[ian5440]

I'm a good guy, the red guys are bad and the only innocents are the n00bs.  If the're red their dead.  It's justified.

Agreed

Red is Dead

[475FG Savlan]

What is worse.  The bad man who kills people or the good man who unintentionally kills "innocent" people in a bid to defeat the bad man?

I believe the question itself is either improperly worded, or a trick question.

The men in the question have been already labeled 'good' and 'bad' men.
The question then asks who is worse, the 'good' man or the 'bad' one.
By definition, the good man is always better than the bad man.

Now, if the question was:
What is worse - The man who kills people or the man who unintentionally kills "innocent" people in a bid to defeat evil?

Now you have a philosophical question

[saantana]

Looks to me like a continuation of the previous thread, the point in question remaining the same, just dressed with different words.
If everything in the world would be on a phylosophical level, we would all be sitting in budhist temples wondering why the sky is blue.
I personally don't like wasting my time with such activities.
Let me twist the question around. If a man came into your house in the middle of the night and killed your family, would you not kill him because in theory, you are also evil by doing so?

I think AAolds and Zazen would make good defence attornies.

 

[uptown]

Well, you can't enlighten people in that sense. For me to enlighten you implies I am directly affecting a fundamental change in your level of conscious awareness. No person can do that, only the individual can affect such a change in himself. In a very real way everyone is already enlightened in this way, they are just too preoccupied with the visceral world of the senses and the symbolic thought artifacts it creates to realize it. So, in a sense, obtaining enlightenment is more about getting rid of self-made bonds of distraction than obtaining anything that you may think was previously outside yourself. No one else could possibly do that for you...

[saantana]

Well, you can't enlighten people in that sense. For me to enlighten you implies I am directly affecting a fundamental change in your level of conscious awareness. No person can do that, only the individual can affect such a change in himself. In a very real way everyone is already enlightened in this way, they are just too preoccupied with the visceral world of the senses and the symbolic thought artifacts it creates to realize it. So, in a sense, obtaining enlightenment is more about getting rid of self-made bonds of distraction than obtaining anything that you may think was previously outside yourself. No one else could possibly do that for you...

 

[Ghosth]

sniffs bait, turns and swims away.

[Zazen13]

...Zazen would make good defence attornies.

 

I'm much too stupid to be an attorney unfortunately ...

[CAP1]

I think by 9.00am central time this thread will be moved to O/C. On the question it self.....It makes my head hurt.

that's a good thing. it should. but what would your answer be?