Ambrosia Software Web Board: Philosophical Questions... - Ambrosia Software Web Board

Here are 2 questions I like to ask people:

-You have a choice, and you must choose 1. Either have half the intelligence and twice the life-span, or have twice the intelligence and half your normal life span.

-Who is the one, that is actually guilty of murder? Is it the judge or the executioner?

------------------
There are only 3 kinds of people: those who can count, and those who can't.

- Well, having never been smarter or dumber than I am, it's hard to imagine what it'd be like to be more/less intelligent than I am... that said, I think I'd go for the intelligent +, life - option... I've always been a "twice as bright/half as long" sort of person.

- Are we allowed to say they're both guilty?

Hmm, if they're both guilty, are they both equally guilty, or is the guilt 'shared' between them?

------------------
There are only 3 kinds of people: those who can count, and those who can't.

- Double the intelligence would be frustrating because everybody would seem so stupid all the time, yet half the intelligence would be frustrating because I couldn't do most of the things I could do before. So we'll just say I'd kill whoever was trying to change my intelligence before they were successful.

- It depends on the style of execution. If it's being drawn and quartered, and the guy getting killed wasn't a masacist (sp?), they'd both be equally guilty. If it's just a lethal injection, and the guy they were killing didn't mind dying, then I'd say there would be no guilt.

------------------
"Cleanliness is evil. Embrace the mess!"

Quote

That depends. Say that the Executioner is only killing the person because they've been ordered to (aside: are there even people whose sole job is to execute people? or is it just a duty that people with the job of prison guard or something are made to do? not coming from a country with capital punishment, I'm unsure of this), they're still the one pulling the trigger (or throwing the switch, or whatever), but some of their guilt must be absolved by the fact that they are doing what their superiors tell them to do. On the other hand, if they have volunteered for the task (or the position of executioner), then full guilt would lie on their shoulders.
The Judge, on the other hand, is the one who decides whether the potentially executed person is to live or die. In most (or all) cases, I'd assume that execution would merely be one of the possible sentences, not the sole option. So, the Judge is the one who truly has a person's life in their hands, and as such would have the full element of guilt.

I think...

Is it really only God who can decide who's wrong and who isn't? I mean, we all have moral compass. The blame lies with someone who 'feels' they are wrong. And if you can kill billions without feeling that you are doing something wrong, ergo, you are not.

------------------
There are only 3 kinds of people: those who can count, and those who can't.

Quote

Well what they were doing wouldn't seem wrong to themselves, but it may to someone else.
In this case, I would assume you were more talking about guilt assigned to people rather than guilt they assign to themselves... therefore, since it is my opinion that killing where there is an alternative is "wrong", I would assign guilt to those people in such a way, in my mind - whether they feel guilty themselves or not.

A retarded person who killed billions of people would have no choice about his actions, not understanding what he was doing was evil (I doubt many would call him a murderer). Can then a man, possessed of all the abilities to do such a thing, yet retarded in the same judgement for right and wrong, be justly considered as a murderer?

------------------
There are only 3 kinds of people: those who can count, and those who can't.

[This message has been edited by Joveia (edited 01-05-2002).]

Quote

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying when you mean we don't have the right... I mean, people do judge others based on their own opinions and experiences, that's the way things are - so where does having the right come into it? The judgement will come into someone's mind whether they say it out loud or not. Who decides whether we have the right or not? Is this another judgement in itself?

Ever assuming your judgements are correct is an act of arrogance. You can't judge someone accurately unless you know everything about them, which may well include experience of their entire life up to that point. Only God, if he exists, and the next man (the person you're judging) can make a call like that.

------------------
There are only 3 kinds of people: those who can count, and those who can't.

Quote

So, in assuming that you are right in saying this, you're being just as arrogant, no? Unless you know everything about everything, you can't make an opinion about anything and assume you are correct... that would be an act of arrogance...

Not being arrogant about everything, I mean just about humans. I do happen to know all the facts:

*No one can experience what another person experiences without having the same mind

Don't try and catch me with that argument!

------------------
There are only 3 kinds of people: those who can count, and those who can't.

Quote

How can you be sure of that? Have you ever been a person apart from yourself?

------------------
save me from the outside world

My point exactly.

------------------
There are only 3 kinds of people: those who can count, and those who can't.

Both the judge and the executioner are totally guilty. The judge could have stopped the death and the executioner could have stopped the death. The fact that he's acting under orders doesn't matter. He should still refuse to do it if he feels that the executee should not be executed.

------------------
-Admiral-of-the-Fleet Slathkill II
We do not know what lies around the next bend on the information superhighway. All we know for certain is that when we finally get there, we won't have enough RAM.

Quote

If I'm not mistaken, your point was that you're sure that no two people can experience the same thing... my point was that, there's no way you can be sure of that without being another person - and if you did that, you would disprove yourself by experiencing the same thing as someone else. In short, your own logic is killing your argument by creating a Catch 22 type situation.

[edit]Oh and I'm Punkster, just to make it less confusing [/edit]

[This message has been edited by Washer (edited 01-05-2002).]

Explain to my satisfaction exactly how I would need to become another person to be sure that no 2 people could experience the same thing. Do that, and yes, the above argument is correct.

------------------
There are only 3 kinds of people: those who can count, and those who can't.

Quote

Actually, the executioner could not have stopped the death - if the society is like any we know that commonly execute people.

------------------
There are only 3 kinds of people: those who can count, and those who can't.

Quote

Because otherwise you are merely acting on an uninformed assumption you are making (the assumption being that no two people can experience the same thing). Having only been one person, it is impossible for you to say with absolute certainty that no two people experience the same thing. Using your logic, you can not be sure of anything about other people, therefore you would have to become the other person to make sure that they aren't experiencing exactly what you are, and in doing so you would be experiencing what they are experiencing, thus disproving your own argument.

Now, can you give me a reason why you wouldn't need to become another person in order to be *absolutely* sure that no two people experience exactly the same thing?

It is not necessary to disprove something to prove something. Realise that, and you realise why your argument is flawed.

Quote

------------------
There are only 3 kinds of people: those who can count, and those who can't.

Quote

Gah... the only assumption you could make in this situation which isn't arrogant, given the total lack of information to support a statement either way, is to assume that either way *could* be correct.

Quote

And now you know your assumption is based on flawed logic. Then my statement is correct.

------------------
There are only 3 kinds of people: those who can count, and those who can't.

Neither the judge nor executioner is guilty of murder. By definition, a judge sentences, and an executioner executes.

Now, if the judge is injust (in which case he shouldn't be a judge), then he is guilty of murder. The executioner is also guilty of murder. And the guilt is equal, not shared.

------------------
Sundered Angel,
The One and Only
Ares Webboard Moderator, and all-around Nice Guy

So is murder a function of justice now? If I am just killing someone, (for instance, like Dante killed [that woman] in the 3 musketeers) without official sanction, I am not guilty of murder? The executioner has absolutely no say on whether or not he is doing the right thing, since he is not the judge.

------------------
There are only 3 kinds of people: those who can count, and those who can't.

Quote

Okay, I originally said:

"I'm not sure I understand what you're saying when you mean we don't have the right... I mean, people do judge others based on their own opinions and experiences, that's the way things are - so where does having the right come into it? The judgement will come into someone's mind whether they say it out loud or not. Who decides whether we have the right or not? Is this another judgement in itself?"

The assumptions I made in saying so were
-people judge others based on their own opinions and experiences
-these judgements exist whether they are made known to others than the individual judging, or not

The first I'd say is self-fulfilling. I judge people based on my own experiences and opinions, therefore I expect others to do so. The information behind this assumption is my own personal opinions and experiences, and so on and so forth.
The second is also based upon the first assumption, obviously.

No, I can be sure of neither. Therefore, ideally I would say "I don't know anything" and just go to sleep. In essence, yes, my statement is flawed


To which you replied:

"Ever assuming your judgements are correct is an act of arrogance. You can't judge someone accurately unless you know everything about them, which may well include experience of their entire life up to that point. Only God, if he exists, and the next man (the person you're judging) can make a call like that."

The assumptions you made in saying so were
-assuming your judgements are correct is an act of arrogance
-only a deity or someone themselves can judge themselves

The first is hypocritical. Ideally, your response if you were following your own logic would've been "Well perhaps you're right, I'm not sure" or something to that effect.
The second, also using your own logic, should've been something like "Well, I have no idea what you can or cannot know, so I cannot say that you cannot judge someone accurately."


To cut a long story short, yes, I'm wrong (or possibly right), but so are you (or possibly not).

I think I've gone in circles enough times now, so if you have anything the matter with what I've said, please read over the entire thread a number of times until you understand. Failing that, read it until you pass out while trying to understand before posting again...

------------------
save me from the outside world