To continue with a random conversation
that I had with Audrey a while ago. She mentioned the idea that what I said wasn’t common sense, but my own value system, and that there was no way that a government could fairly implement what I said.
What I said was approximately this:
Given a situation where one could choose whether or not to kill a murderer to save an entire country, what would you do?
I would definitely kill the murderer. My response to my own question.
Audrey then stated that this was definitely a question of ethics, which I acknowledge. And since she mentioned that she’s studying it and that, presumably, there are solid arguments against my judgment and assumption of the term “common sense”, I’ll make my statement here, mostly because it’s 4 in the morning.
Audrey was under the impression that this decision wasn’t “common sense” to everyone. Agreed.
But honestly, I really don’t know why it should be. Common sense wouldn’t be common sense if everyone in the world thought it was fundamentally correct. That’s called undeniable fact, and people still have trouble with that. A more applicable term to common sense would be a no-duh answer to a reasonable person (I’m not going to have fights over who is or who is not “reasonable”; this is why druggies and criminals think everything is good in the right book. Your arguments defend and give people like them a chance; be a lawyer, not a policeman.)
Not everyone uses common sense; in fact, most people don’t. We usually call these people stupid. But, I digress.
Another thing Audrey mentioned was that, if I killed this murderer, wouldn’t I feel guilty?
Yes. ..I don’t know why I wouldn’t. But, I mean, to each his own.
Next, she mentions that a society implementing my sense of justice wouldn’t work, because I would also be at fault, after killing the murderer. Again, agreed.
Wouldn’t it be a vicious cycle then (not something she explicitly stated, but I’m assuming this is how far she was going,) if I was guilty, killed, then the person who killed me, killed, then…etc.
My take on the situation wasn’t something that was feasible in a government situation. I don’t know where that came from; it may have stemmed from my idea of common sense and her different take on it. But nowhere did I state that this is something every institution should uphold; different organizations require different things. What works in Microsoft doesn’t work with Apple. Even tiny things like that need company evangelists with very specific ways of thinking.
My point is this: value systems are just the opinions that matter to you. I can be a “consequentialist” or a “Christian” or whatever word you want to pin me to. Morals matter, because they protect you more than you will ever know. I know parties love hearing liberal views, but when you’re faced at gunpoint and the police are debating on the gunner’s rights?
You better damn well hope they’re on your side.
Next, she mentions that a society implementing my sense of justice wouldn’t work, because I would also be at fault, after killing the murderer. Again, agreed.
Wouldn’t it be a vicious cycle then (not something she explicitly stated, but I’m assuming this is how far she was going,) if I was guilty, killed, then the person who killed me, killed, then…etc.
are you still on your own question in that a murderer should be killed to save a whole country? if so, her argument wouldnt work since your original question is: “Given a situation where one could choose whether or not to kill a murderer to save an entire country, what would you do?” and not “If, in a country where the penalty for killing a man is death, would you, given the choice, kill a murderer in order to save the country?”
That wasn’t the point. The point was, who am I to judge? If I kill the murderer, that makes me a murderer as well. No one knows for sure if I will kill again (even if it was presumably done in good will.)
ah i see
bah cant even answer the question.=___= (wish i were better at debates) ill think about it later.
I was taking it from when you said “common sense,” since the word common implies something that is apparent to the majority. (And yes, you acknowledged that.) Thus I treated it like “common sense” and applied your ethical belief to society.
It’s fine and dandy to have it as part of your own moral scheme. Each to their own, and it might as well protect you when you’re faced with that murderer. If someone had a gun to my face and I had my own pistol in my pocket, you better believe I’d fire. You might even save a handful of people that would have been his future victims. But as an ethical theory– as common sense, it wouldn’t work because that’s putting far too much power in the hands of a government run by humans. And human nature equates to subjectivity, differing view points, self-interest, and all the other reasons why we’re not all holding hands and saying Joy to the World. And this is why most ethical theory never works.
/quick ramble go gets food soob
EDIT: Not only the gov’t; power in the hands of everyone.
MOAR EDITS: and the guilt part is less a component of the argument and more me questioning whether you’d feel guilty.