The morality of being a soldier

[Sokartawi]

Those scenarios are not comparible. Also, not being able to show ID does not mean you're NOT 21 or older.

the underlying logic is the same. claim A is made by person #1. person #2 asks person #1 to prove claim A. Thus, either person #1 provides evidence for claim A, and backs it up, or person #1 concedes that they can't back up claim A, or person #1 plugs ears with fingers and goes "lalalalalalala you can't prove i'm wrong". at which point person #2 is likely to kick out person #1.

Yet I do not need "a drink" from anyone here.

Personal experiences are good enough for me.

too bad that's not good enough for science.

Since science cannot (yet) explain what happened, I'll have to use something else.

Thus it's hard for me to convince others. That doesn't mean I have no reason to believe it myself.

except it's foolish to believe in something that can easily be explained with far simpler methods which don't rely on claims that cannot be verified.

I've got plenty of things that either cannot be explained by science, and are just too unlikely to all have happened due to coincidence. And since I already have had a psychiatrist and neurologist after my ass and those found nothing wierd about me, I doubt I've got a brain disorder or something along those lines.

[Darth Wong]

I never said I don't help others. I'm just not obligated to.

You are morally obligated to.

And I'm not proud of human history, and certainly do not consider myself indebted to any of it.

To put it bluntly, without humanity's advancement from primitive cavemen to modern people, you would be dead now. Nature favours only the strong.

You've quite distilled my things into something else over the past few replies. I never said I have NO duties. For example, when I work, I made that choice when I accepted the job, and have duties because of it, including to pay taxes. No problem there, I made that choice. Same thing with the manufacturer, he makes the choice, he accepted the job, so he gets duties. The problem I have is with things I have never signed a contract for and I never had a choice in. Like the law. Or being forced to go to school.

The manufacturer never signed a contract stating that there was any duty accompanying his production of material goods. Yet again, you fail to recognize that your argument simply does not fit your preferred interpretation of the "defective goods" scenario. If you consider yourself able to participate in society without accepting any the rules society applies to its citizens, then a manufacturer should be able to participate in the free market without accepting its implicit rules as well.

Suppose you kill someone and he has no relatives or friends. There is no living person to whom you owe a debt. Your system of ethics, yet again, is obviously an ad hoc patchwork.

I don't see the problem. Try to pay him back in the next life.

So in addition to needing this metaphysical nonsense called "karma", you must add reincarnation and the ability to find and repay people you have wronged in past lives in order to make your ethical system produce the conclusions you want it to. That is three separate evidence-free concepts that you must invent in order to make your system of ethics function.

And yet again, this is why I can state, objectively, that your system of ethics is inferior. For if your various invented evidence-free concepts are not true (and the logical probability is that they aren't), then your system of ethics is worthless. Mine does not require any such inventions.

[Darth Wong]

I think occam's razor is a very flawed instrument, which only encourages the individual to be close-minded. By itself, it does not prove or disprove anything.

Mathematics does not, by itself, prove or disprove anything either. We use it in the same manner that we use Occam's Razor: to determine if someone's ideas make sense. And in your case, they don't. Every time a hole in your system of ethics is pointed out you just add another metaphysical piece into your house of cards in order to shore it up.

[General Zod]

Yet I do not need "a drink" from anyone here.

are you being intentionally stupid or do you simply not realize that the same basic logic involved applies regardless of the situation?

Since science cannot (yet) explain what happened, I'll have to use something else.

just because science may not be able to explain something doesn't mean there's a supernatural cause for it. suppose you find a dollar under your couch cushion and don't know what caused it to be there. are you automatically going to assume it's there due to some supernatural intervention?

I've got plenty of things that either cannot be explained by science, and are just too unlikely to all have happened due to coincidence. And since I already have had a psychiatrist and neurologist after my ass and those found nothing wierd about me, I doubt I've got a brain disorder or something along those lines.

i repeat. simply because there is something science may not be able to explain something does not mean it must be supernatural.

[Sokartawi]

I never said I don't help others. I'm just not obligated to.

You are morally obligated to.

If I want to be helped in return. If I do not want that then I do not need to help the other person. This is not the reason I'm helping people though, I'm doing it just because.

And I'm not proud of human history, and certainly do not consider myself indebted to any of it.

To put it bluntly, without humanity's advancement from primitive cavemen to modern people, you would be dead now. Nature favours only the strong.

I don't like your 'would' here. I'd prefer 'have a good chance to'. As for the rest, I'd rather have it that we had advanced into something else.

You've quite distilled my things into something else over the past few replies. I never said I have NO duties. For example, when I work, I made that choice when I accepted the job, and have duties because of it, including to pay taxes. No problem there, I made that choice. Same thing with the manufacturer, he makes the choice, he accepted the job, so he gets duties. The problem I have is with things I have never signed a contract for and I never had a choice in. Like the law. Or being forced to go to school.

The manufacturer never signed a contract stating that there was any duty accompanying his production of material goods.

Yet again, you fail to recognize that your argument simply does not fit your preferred interpretation of the "defective goods" scenario. If you consider yourself able to participate in society without accepting any the rules society applies to its citizens, then a manufacturer should be able to participate in the free market without accepting its implicit rules as well.

That is not true. Before anyone can even begin a company, they have to register themselves with several commerce organisations. Depending on the organisation of the company, they have to sign varying things. For example, if a single person owns the company, he has to sign something stating that if his company gets into debt, he can be forced to pay off this debt with his own private money and property. Before he signs that, he is not allowed to even start a company. This is just an example, and there are many other things as well.

Suppose you kill someone and he has no relatives or friends. There is no living person to whom you owe a debt. Your system of ethics, yet again, is obviously an ad hoc patchwork.

I don't see the problem. Try to pay him back in the next life.

So in addition to needing this metaphysical nonsense called "karma", you must add reincarnation and the ability to find and repay people you have wronged in past lives in order to make your ethical system produce the conclusions you want it to. That is three separate evidence-free concepts that you must invent in order to make your system of ethics function.

And yet again, this is why I can state, objectively, that your system of ethics is superior. For if your various invented evidence-free concepts are not true (and the logical probability is that they aren't), then your system of ethics is worthless. Mine does not require any such inventions.

Nor does anyone have to believe in reincarnation or karma and other things to use my system of morals. One can simply use the "better the world, start with yourself" idea, so people will avoid commiting wrong actions even if that prevents someone else doing one.

[Sokartawi]

I think occam's razor is a very flawed instrument, which only encourages the individual to be close-minded. By itself, it does not prove or disprove anything.

Mathematics does not, by itself, prove or disprove anything either. We use it in the same manner that we use Occam's Razor: to determine if someone's ideas make sense. And in your case, they don't. Every time a hole in your system of ethics is pointed out you just add another metaphysical piece into your house of cards in order to shore it up.

Most of the time those pieces were already there, you just didn't know about them yet.

[Sokartawi]

Yet I do not need "a drink" from anyone here.

are you being intentionally stupid or do you simply not realize that the same basic logic involved applies regardless of the situation?

I repeat again, belief does not require rock-hard evidence. That's why it's belief, not science.

Since science cannot (yet) explain what happened, I'll have to use something else.

just because science may not be able to explain something doesn't mean there's a supernatural cause for it. suppose you find a dollar under your couch cushion and don't know what caused it to be there. are you automatically going to assume it's there due to some supernatural intervention?

Depends on the circumstances. I won't immediately rule out supernatural intervention. When it's quite likely that it got there without supernatural intervention I'd assume it's something else. However if dollar notes inexplainably start appearing everywhere and the odds of it being supernatural are larger then the odds of it being something normal, then I'd say it's supernatural.

I've got plenty of things that either cannot be explained by science, and are just too unlikely to all have happened due to coincidence. And since I already have had a psychiatrist and neurologist after my ass and those found nothing wierd about me, I doubt I've got a brain disorder or something along those lines.

i repeat. simply because there is something science may not be able to explain something does not mean it must be supernatural.

I'm not saying it MUST be supernatural, just that TO ME the odds of it being supernatural are larger then the odds of it being normal. That's why I said somewhere back that I guessed that the odds of reincarnation being false and there would be no afterlife around 25%.

[Darth Wong]

You are morally obligated to.

If I want to be helped in return. If I do not want that then I do not need to help the other person. This is not the reason I'm helping people though, I'm doing it just because.

If it is not ethical, then why do you want to do it? You have a problem: you recognize that it is a good thing to help people to whom you owe nothing and expect nothing back, yet you do not want to describe it as a recommendation of your ethical system. So you cannot produce a reason why it should be a good thing to help people, and are reduced to saying "just because".

To put it bluntly, without humanity's advancement from primitive cavemen to modern people, you would be dead now. Nature favours only the strong.

I don't like your 'would' here. I'd prefer 'have a good chance to'. As for the rest, I'd rather have it that we had advanced into something else.

That is totally irrelevant to the fact that society, such as it is, is still a far safer environment than anarchy, particularly for someone of your philosophical inclination.

The manufacturer never signed a contract stating that there was any duty accompanying his production of material goods.

That is not true. Before anyone can even begin a company, they have to register themselves with several commerce organisations. Depending on the organisation of the company, they have to sign varying things. For example, if a single person owns the company, he has to sign something stating that if his company gets into debt, he can be forced to pay off this debt with his own private money and property. Before he signs that, he is not allowed to even start a company. This is just an example, and there are many other things as well.

All completely irrelevant. Yet again, the manufacturer never signed a contract stating duties accompanied with his production of material goods. I am quite aware of the various regulations involving manufacturing corporations, and the rules stipulating the duties we are talking about (pertaining to liability for unsafe goods) are legislated, not contractual. They are imposed by society upon the manufacturer without his explicit consent. Just like the rules for individuals which you reject while hypocritically continuing to participate in society.

So in addition to needing this metaphysical nonsense called "karma", you must add reincarnation and the ability to find and repay people you have wronged in past lives in order to make your ethical system produce the conclusions you want it to. That is three separate evidence-free concepts that you must invent in order to make your system of ethics function.

And yet again, this is why I can state, objectively, that your system of ethics is superior. For if your various invented evidence-free concepts are not true (and the logical probability is that they aren't), then your system of ethics is worthless. Mine does not require any such inventions.

Nor does anyone have to believe in reincarnation or karma and other things to use my system of morals. One can simply use the "better the world, start with yourself" idea, so people will avoid commiting wrong actions even if that prevents someone else doing one.

Now you're just contradicting yourself again. The "better the world, start with yourself" ethic does not lead to your conclusion of inaction. If anything, a direct interpretation of that line leads to the opposite, and demands action.

[Sokartawi]

You are morally obligated to.

If I want to be helped in return. If I do not want that then I do not need to help the other person. This is not the reason I'm helping people though, I'm doing it just because.

If it is not ethical, then why do you want to do it? You have a problem: you recognize that it is a good thing to help people to whom you owe nothing and expect nothing back, yet you do not want to describe it as a recommendation of your ethical system. So you cannot produce a reason why it should be a good thing to help people, and are reduced to saying "just because".

My ethical system DOES recommend it, it just doesn't obligate anyone to do it.

To put it bluntly, without humanity's advancement from primitive cavemen to modern people, you would be dead now. Nature favours only the strong.

I don't like your 'would' here. I'd prefer 'have a good chance to'. As for the rest, I'd rather have it that we had advanced into something else.

That is totally irrelevant to the fact that society, such as it is, is still a far safer environment than anarchy, particularly for someone of your philosophical inclination.

Since I have almost no sense of self-preservation, safety has a rather low priority to me.

The manufacturer never signed a contract stating that there was any duty accompanying his production of material goods.

That is not true. Before anyone can even begin a company, they have to register themselves with several commerce organisations. Depending on the organisation of the company, they have to sign varying things. For example, if a single person owns the company, he has to sign something stating that if his company gets into debt, he can be forced to pay off this debt with his own private money and property. Before he signs that, he is not allowed to even start a company. This is just an example, and there are many other things as well.

All completely irrelevant. Yet again, the manufacturer never signed a contract stating duties accompanied with his production of material goods. I am quite aware of the various regulations involving manufacturing corporations, and the rules stipulating the duties we are talking about (pertaining to liability for unsafe goods) are legislated, not contractual. They are imposed by society upon the manufacturer without his explicit consent. Just like the rules for individuals which you reject while hypocritically continuing to participate in society.

When starting a company you litterally have to inform them who is to be the legal person, and this person has to sign for it that he can be held directly responsible for the violations of law the company makes.

So in addition to needing this metaphysical nonsense called "karma", you must add reincarnation and the ability to find and repay people you have wronged in past lives in order to make your ethical system produce the conclusions you want it to. That is three separate evidence-free concepts that you must invent in order to make your system of ethics function.

And yet again, this is why I can state, objectively, that your system of ethics is superior. For if your various invented evidence-free concepts are not true (and the logical probability is that they aren't), then your system of ethics is worthless. Mine does not require any such inventions.

Nor does anyone have to believe in reincarnation or karma and other things to use my system of morals. One can simply use the "better the world, start with yourself" idea, so people will avoid commiting wrong actions even if that prevents someone else doing one.

Now you're just contradicting yourself again. The "better the world, start with yourself" ethic does not lead to your conclusion of inaction. If anything, a direct interpretation of that line leads to the opposite, and demands action.

I'd say that if you follow this idea, you see things in the world you do not agree with, and decide NEVER to do anything like it yourself, no matter the circumstances.

[Darth Wong]

My ethical system DOES recommend it, it just doesn't obligate anyone to do it.

All ethical recommendations are obligations, in the sense that an ethical system can only tell you whether an action is ethical, and failure to obey its recommendations means that you are harshly judged by that system.

That is totally irrelevant to the fact that society, such as it is, is still a far safer environment than anarchy, particularly for someone of your philosophical inclination.

Since I have almost no sense of self-preservation, safety has a rather low priority to me.

Irrelevant to your claim that you owe society nothing. The fact remains that you do owe society something, regardless of whether your self-loathing makes you devalue that thing.

All completely irrelevant. Yet again, the manufacturer never signed a contract stating duties accompanied with his production of material goods. I am quite aware of the various regulations involving manufacturing corporations, and the rules stipulating the duties we are talking about (pertaining to liability for unsafe goods) are legislated, not contractual. They are imposed by society upon the manufacturer without his explicit consent. Just like the rules for individuals which you reject while hypocritically continuing to participate in society.

When starting a company you litterally have to inform them who is to be the legal person, and this person has to sign for it that he can be held directly responsible for the violations of law the company makes.

Wrong. Ever heard of limited liability? Corporate personhood? And yet again, it must be pointed out that nowhere in these documents does the manufacturer explicitly agree to any duty to make safe products. Did you ever notice that these kinds of lawsuits are settled in civil court rather than criminal court?

Now you're just contradicting yourself again. The "better the world, start with yourself" ethic does not lead to your conclusion of inaction. If anything, a direct interpretation of that line leads to the opposite, and demands action.

I'd say that if you follow this idea, you see things in the world you do not agree with, and decide NEVER to do anything like it yourself, no matter the circumstances.

But you will not "better the world" using your ethical system, particularly given the numerous scenarios to which you have already given answers. In most of those cases, your inaction will result in great harm to the world. As I said, you are contradicting yourself.

[CmdrWilkens]

I'll snip out the second part of our little chat to focus on the inherent mistake you keep making with your own logic. Let me try to spell this out in succession:

1) Your claim is that killing anyone against their will is a murder.
2) You claim that you will never kill another person in self defense
sub a) A person deranged enough to attack you is likely to only be stopped by what is defined as deadly force. If you resist you are most likely going to be forced either to resist with deadly force (kill/attempt to kill) or cease to resist.

3) If you cease to resist then you have made a conscious choice
4) This choice is to not resist and therfore you CONSENT to being killed (so as not to use deadly force on your own part)
5) If you consent to being killed then killing you no longer fits the definition of murder given under point #1

Since the attacker is now no longer committing a murder we are left with one dead person and someone must be assigned responsibility. Since you have (under your own moral terms) absolved the attacker by consent the only other person who made a conscious choice in this scenario is YOU.

You must realize that the legal definition (and I agree with it) of murder is action or inaction which directly or indirectly causes the death of another. You action directly or indirectly resulted in your death. Which makes this a suicide on your part or you murdering yourself. Either one is not a paticularly happy scenario but it is the logical end of the theoretical structure of morality which you have espoused.

You're making mistakes in part 2 and 4 here.

In part 2 because people can still put up resistance that's likely NOT to work, but they try it anyway, so they're still resisting hoping to get lucky.

In part 4 because giving up does not mean you agree with what's happening, it only means you do not have the means to stop it, which doesn't mean you like it.

Okay part 2 only stated that you would never kill in self defence. Now if you are refering to part 2 sub a then you are challenging the assertion that the only force likely to stop a person intent on killing is deadly force.

Since it seems you are more protesting this let me tell you again that in a life and death situation you have two options: either fight back effectively (use deadly force) or submit. Fighting back with less than sufficient force is the same thing here as submiting. In this situation, fully aware of the intents of your attacker, there are no in betweens. You can either use deadly force or not use deadly force and the later option is the moral same as submission.

Anything which you do not agree with but submit to anyway you agree with by inaction. You cannot have your cake and eat it to, if you don't agree with something then you must act to counter it, if you do not act to coutner it then by implicaiton you agree with it. I suppose in this paticualr situation you would be complicit in the murder of a human being (yourself) rather than guilty of the actual murder. However any stance which you are not willing to support by action is one which you do not in fact hold, it is merely a wish and that does not translate into acything as wishes are not horses.

[Sokartawi]

My ethical system DOES recommend it, it just doesn't obligate anyone to do it.

All ethical recommendations are obligations, in the sense that an ethical system can only tell you whether an action is ethical, and failure to obey its recommendations means that you are harshly judged by that system.

Yet inaction is neither ethical nor inethical, so won't be judged.

That is totally irrelevant to the fact that society, such as it is, is still a far safer environment than anarchy, particularly for someone of your philosophical inclination.

Since I have almost no sense of self-preservation, safety has a rather low priority to me.

Irrelevant to your claim that you owe society nothing. The fact remains that you do owe society something, regardless of whether your self-loathing makes you devalue that thing.

Maybe I prefer anarchy to the mess we currently got, at least that would give us a fresh start. And I quite like myself. I just don't like others.

All completely irrelevant. Yet again, the manufacturer never signed a contract stating duties accompanied with his production of material goods. I am quite aware of the various regulations involving manufacturing corporations, and the rules stipulating the duties we are talking about (pertaining to liability for unsafe goods) are legislated, not contractual. They are imposed by society upon the manufacturer without his explicit consent. Just like the rules for individuals which you reject while hypocritically continuing to participate in society.

When starting a company you litterally have to inform them who is to be the legal person, and this person has to sign for it that he can be held directly responsible for the violations of law the company makes.

Wrong. Ever heard of limited liability? Corporate personhood? And yet again, it must be pointed out that nowhere in these documents does the manufacturer explicitly agree to any duty to make safe products. Did you ever notice that these kinds of lawsuits are settled in civil court rather than criminal court?

I'm quite sure that companies have been dragged to criminal court due to harm they did. A certain fireworks company that didn't store the fireworks in a proper bunker and wiped a whole neighbourhood off the map comes to my mind.

Now you're just contradicting yourself again. The "better the world, start with yourself" ethic does not lead to your conclusion of inaction. If anything, a direct interpretation of that line leads to the opposite, and demands action.

I'd say that if you follow this idea, you see things in the world you do not agree with, and decide NEVER to do anything like it yourself, no matter the circumstances.

But you will not "better the world" using your ethical system, particularly given the numerous scenarios to which you have already given answers. In most of those cases, your inaction will result in great harm to the world. As I said, you are contradicting yourself.

I disagree that it does great harm.

[Darth Wong]

Yet inaction is neither ethical nor inethical, so won't be judged.

You cannot justify your assignment of zero blame to inaction by simply stating it as a fact.

Maybe I prefer anarchy to the mess we currently got, at least that would give us a fresh start. And I quite like myself. I just don't like others.

You must not like yourself that much if you don't value your life.

I'm quite sure that companies have been dragged to criminal court due to harm they did. A certain fireworks company that didn't store the fireworks in a proper bunker and wiped a whole neighbourhood off the map comes to my mind.

Feel free to show me the case. Generally speaking, unsafe-product lawsuits are handled in civil court, not criminal court. And for the umpteenth time, if we use your "I didn't explicitly agree to it, so it doesn't apply to me" reasoning, the company should get off scot free. You agree that it should not, yet you continue to use the reasoning.

I disagree that it does great harm.

You had previously admitted that great harm would occur; you felt that you bore no responsibility if it could not be blamed on you, even if you could have stopped it. However, you also agreed that a manufacturer could be blamed for inaction, yet tried to explain it away by saying that the manufacturer explicitly agreed to its responsibility beforehand, which is simply not true (and which is also an attempt to change the subject; blame is not something which is contingent upon the individual's acceptance of it). This is all above and beyond your irrational karmic and resurrection rantings.

The fact is that you have admitted the existence of ethical responsibility for inaction; you just try to wave it away with the absurd argument that it's a corporation, and corporations willingly agree to be held responsible (as if this is true, and as if agreement has anything to do with ethical responsibility anyway).

[Petrosjko]

Maybe I prefer anarchy to the mess we currently got, at least that would give us a fresh start. And I quite like myself. I just don't like others.

Easily said from the comforts of a secure nation. In an anarchistic environment, those who are unable to use force are victims of those who are able and willing to do so. Anarchy is law of the jungle, and as DW said, nature favors the strong.

It is the society you abhor which allows you the luxury of your conclusions.

[Sokartawi]

Maybe I prefer anarchy to the mess we currently got, at least that would give us a fresh start. And I quite like myself. I just don't like others.

You must not like yourself that much if you don't value your life.

Not liking my life doesn't mean I don't like myself. You can still like your TV while hating the show that's on it. In addition, I don't think it's good to be attached too much to anything, even life, because they're only temporary things and won't last forever anyway.

Yet inaction is neither ethical nor inethical, so won't be judged.

You cannot justify your assignment of zero blame to inaction by simply stating it as a fact.

I'm quite sure that companies have been dragged to criminal court due to harm they did. A certain fireworks company that didn't store the fireworks in a proper bunker and wiped a whole neighbourhood off the map comes to my mind.

Feel free to show me the case. Generally speaking, unsafe-product lawsuits are handled in civil court, not criminal court. And for the umpteenth time, if we use your "I didn't explicitly agree to it, so it doesn't apply to me" reasoning, the company should get off scot free. You agree that it should not, yet you continue to use the reasoning.

I disagree that it does great harm.

You had previously admitted that great harm would occur; you felt that you bore no responsibility if it could not be blamed on you, even if you could have stopped it. However, you also agreed that a manufacturer could be blamed for inaction, yet tried to explain it away by saying that the manufacturer explicitly agreed to its responsibility beforehand, which is simply not true (and which is also an attempt to change the subject; blame is not something which is contingent upon the individual's acceptance of it). This is all above and beyond your irrational karmic and resurrection rantings.
The fact is that you have admitted the existence of ethical responsibility for inaction; you just try to wave it away with the absurd argument that it's a corporation, and corporations willingly agree to be held responsible (as if this is true, and as if agreement has anything to do with ethical responsibility anyway).

Let's get this all in one post, replying to 3 at once is getting annoying especially if they're all about the same thing.

Inaction does not make you responsible for anything, and the difference between a person doing nothing about something he hasn't caused and a company that makes malfunctioning products is that the company DOES directly cause harm by the products they are making, it's 100% action, not inaction. I think that's quite simple and logical. You're only responsible for actions, and not making a safe product is not inaction, it's a harmful action. No duty or additional responsibility is required here, not even contracts are required here, just plain simple logic.

[Sokartawi]

Maybe I prefer anarchy to the mess we currently got, at least that would give us a fresh start. And I quite like myself. I just don't like others.

Easily said from the comforts of a secure nation. In an anarchistic environment, those who are unable to use force are victims of those who are able and willing to do so. Anarchy is law of the jungle, and as DW said, nature favors the strong.

It is the society you abhor which allows you the luxury of your conclusions.

Does not make society right.

[SirNitram]

Does not make society right.

And what would be right? Voluntarily obliterating ten thousand years of civilization so we can return to dying from mere bacteria, having yearly famine, overpopulating out of control, and having no defense from roaming predators but the occasional jawbone? What is your obsession with causing nigh-on-apocalyptic deathcounts for the sake of your faulty, hypocritical beliefs?

[Darth Wong]

Inaction does not make you responsible for anything,

There you go again, trying to prove this by simply stating it as a fact. That's not how you prove something.

and the difference between a person doing nothing about something he hasn't caused and a company that makes malfunctioning products is that the company DOES directly cause harm by the products they are making, it's 100% action, not inaction.

100% wrong. The company made a product. If they put more work and money into it, they COULD have made it safer. They did not bother; this is inaction.

I think that's quite simple and logical.

With the minor caveat of being false.

[Sokartawi]

And I'd like to add to the post to Wong, manufactorers cannot be blamed for inaction either. Inaction would be not producing medicine while the world needs them, which they are not to blame for. Putting random lables on medicine because you didn't check the machinery properly is action, since producing medicine is an action and you're responsible that you do that well.

[Petrosjko]

Maybe I prefer anarchy to the mess we currently got, at least that would give us a fresh start. And I quite like myself. I just don't like others.

Easily said from the comforts of a secure nation. In an anarchistic environment, those who are unable to use force are victims of those who are able and willing to do so. Anarchy is law of the jungle, and as DW said, nature favors the strong.

It is the society you abhor which allows you the luxury of your conclusions.

Does not make society right.

And you would prefer to live in an environment where there would be no restraints upon a person's ability to bash your skull in with a rock for disagreeing with them?

You're seeking a purity of ideal which cannot ever come to be, and refusing to accomodate the world that does exist in the process.

That's your privilege in the life you lead, but it's a futile waste.

[Sokartawi]

100% wrong. The company made a product.

Aha, action.

If they put more work and money into it, they COULD have made it safer. They did not bother; this is inaction.

Inaction related to the action shown above, thus still action.

[Sokartawi]

Easily said from the comforts of a secure nation. In an anarchistic environment, those who are unable to use force are victims of those who are able and willing to do so. Anarchy is law of the jungle, and as DW said, nature favors the strong.

It is the society you abhor which allows you the luxury of your conclusions.

Does not make society right.

And you would prefer to live in an environment where there would be no restraints upon a person's ability to bash your skull in with a rock for disagreeing with them?

For as long as necessairy before it'll be changed into something better.

You're seeking a purity of ideal which cannot ever come to be, and refusing to accomodate the world that does exist in the process.

That's your privilege in the life you lead, but it's a futile waste.

Living in a society such as this one is a futile waste anyway.

[Petrosjko]

For as long as necessairy before it'll be changed into something better.

And what, oh pray, will change it? You renounce all use of violence, and those who would follow your philosophy would be pretty quickly wiped out if they strictly adhered to its tenets. Peaceful culture does not spring from anarchy, as thousands of years of human history tends to indicate.

To put it bluntly, anarchy is the very antithesis of the sort of society you espouse. What you are conjuring would have the best likelihood to emerge from something resembling modern western civilization, where people can have discourse over any number of zany notions without killing each other.

Living in a society such as this one is a futile waste anyway.

Untold hundreds of thousands of people around this world who have been freed from the plagues of smallpox and polio because of the efforts of western culture to combat those diseases tend to be an argument against that notion. And that's just two products of western philantropy.

I won't claim that western culture is perfect, far far far from it, but it is the best thing going right now.

[CmdrWilkens]

You're seeking a purity of ideal which cannot ever come to be, and refusing to accomodate the world that does exist in the process.

That's your privilege in the life you lead, but it's a futile waste.

Living in a society such as this one is a futile waste anyway.

If it is a futile waste then why continue to live in it? Morover what makes it a futile waste? Are you saying that because others disagree with you on several ethical issues that it makes yoru life in this society completely ponitless? If that's the case then perhaps I could suggest agreat big hug because that's a damn sad outlook on things.

[Darth Wong]

100% wrong. The company made a product.

Aha, action.

If they put more work and money into it, they COULD have made it safer. They did not bother; this is inaction.

Inaction related to the action shown above, thus still action.

Inaction which is "related to" action is a form of action? How do you define inaction "related to" action? This is exactly what I was talking about when I said that your system of ethics is a house of cards. You cannot define it in such a manner that anyone can tell what it will predict in any given situation. Instead, you manufacture a flimsy rationalization to force it to suit your preferred conclusion. And then you ignore the fact that your system of ethics would make society worse, not better.

In fact , even in your mythical world where everyone is peaceful and no one employs violence, your system of ethics would still be more harmful than mine, because things like the engineering code of ethics (which demands that we proactively take action to prevent dangers to the public if we become aware of them, regardless of whether we are personally responsible for them) would no longer be followed.