Philosophical Question?

[AAolds]

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?

This is a thinking exercise.  There is no true or right answer.  Just answer what you think and leave it at that.  No agreement shall be reached, but it is interesting to see what and how others think.

[Getback]

Who'd you kill?

[Stogie]

Seems like this question belongs in the O'Club

[Anaxogoras]

I think the premises are screwy.

[Newman5]

 

[Zazen13]

I'll bite...Because I can't resist this sort of thing..It's a sickness.

This is actually a fundamental question in hostage situations (or hunting terrorists). The bad man is the unknown chaotic destructive principle. The good man is the controlable known force. The bad man is worse. The reasoning is the bad man's potential to kill is theoretically infinite. By killing the bad man, even if some others die in the process, you are reducing the potential for lost life to the theoretical minimum. If you fail to even attempt to kill the bad man for fear of killing others you actually guarantee maximum lives lost theoretically to infinity. So, any attempt to kill the bad man, in terms of pure logic, assuming it's ultimately successful, is worth almost any number of lives...

 Obviously, humans are not ruled purely by logic, emotions hold sway. So, in reality, the logically correct sacrifice won't always be made as the price seems too high or casualties mount in the attempt to the point where they are deemed unsustainable and the good man fails to defeat the bad man. But, once the decision is made to sacrifice a finite amount of life to prevent the possibly infinite loss of life, it has to be ultimately successful no matter the cost in escalating fashion. If not ultimately successful, the good man has, in effect,  become an unwitting instrument of the bad man by indirectly contributing to his continued potential threat of theoretically infinite life taking.

[BMathis]

Damn Zazen, where'd you graduate from?


- muppet school has no grounds for this question. 

[texasmom]

I'll bite...Because I can't resist this sort of thing..It's a sickness.

This is actually a fundamental question in hostage situations (or hunting terrorists). The bad man is the unknown chaotic destructive principle. The good man is the controlable known force. The bad man is worse. The reasoning is the bad man's potential to kill is theoretically infinite. By killing the bad man, even if some others die in the process, you are reducing the potential for lost life to the theoretical minimum. If you fail to even attempt to kill the bad man for fear of killing others you actually guarantee maximum lives lost theoretically to infinity. So, any attempt to kill the bad man, in terms of pure logic, assuming it's ultimately successful, is worth almost any number of lives...

 Obviously, humans are not ruled purely by logic, emotions hold sway. So, in reality, the logically correct sacrifice won't always be made as the price seems too high or casualties mount in the attempt to the point where they are deemed unsustainable and the good man fails to defeat the bad man. But, once the decision is made to sacrifice a finite amount if life to prevent the possibly infinite loss of life, it has to be ultimately successful no matter the cost in escalating fashion. If not ultimately successful, the good man has, in effect,  become an unwitting instrument of the bad man by contributing to his continued potential threat of theoretically infinite life taking.

You're hired.

[uptown]

  Zazen, you know you're full of crap? 

[CAP1]

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?

This is a thinking exercise.  There is no true or right answer.  Just answer what you think and leave it at that.  No agreement shall be reached, but it is interesting to see what and how others think.

it's a tough question, but a very good one.

the bad man is worse. if he is allowed to do what he does that makes him bad, and the good man waits him out, for fear of hurting or killing innocents, then more bad men will follow. they will do the same things he does. and they will progresivly get away with more and more.

 on the other hand, if the good man sees the things the bad man is doing, and does whatever is necessary to stop the bad man immediatly, or in vry short order, at the cost of innocents, the bad men thst may have followed, will think twice about bothering wiht the good man that did what he had to do. they'll go somewhere else, or possibly not even do the things they were going to do.

 no one wants to see innocent people killed for any reason, but sometimes it is necessary, and un-intended results of needed actions.

 i think this is also alluding to the other topic where it morphed into the bombing in japan and germany.
 japan brought all of their peoples suffering on wiht their actions by attacking pearl harbor. the bombing of civilians was designed to hurt their morale. i think they were warned for the civilians to get out before any bombs fell.

 the bombings in germany, i think were for the same reason, and for the fact that the germans didn't build things in a single place. they(if i recall) spread things out into small towns.

[Zazen13]

Zazen, you know you're full of crap?

 

[Zazen13]

Damn Zazen, where'd you graduate from?

A Zen Buddhist Monastery outside of Kyoto, Japan.

[Agent360]

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.

[uptown]

A Zen Buddhist Monastery outside of Kyoto, Japan.

for real? So you're like Caine. Travels the earth, kicks arse and enlightens folks?

[PFactorDave]

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?

This is rediculous.

You're basically asking who is worse...  A)  The psychopath who breaks into an house in the middle of the night and murders a family...  OR  B) The husband and father who tries to shoot the psychopath with the revolver that he has tucked away in the night table next to the bed, but misses, and shoots through a wall accidentally killing the neighbor who just happened to be walking his dog outside at 2am.

Which of those two seem worse to you?  Which do you think would actually be convicted to prison?

But wait!  Since this was inspired by the other thread, I think a more correct analogy would be...

The neighbor walking the dog on the sidewalk at 2am just happens to be the father of the psychopath  who is at least partially responsible for the mental state of the psychopath...

The premise is rediculous.