kjm@ut-ngp.UUCP (Ken Montgomery) (02/06/85)
[] >From: kjm@ut-ngp.UUCP ("Shredder-of-hapless-smurfs" Ken Montgomery) >> Why is the distinction between doing harm and refusing aid >> irrelevant? Why do you think the two are [morally -pvt] the same? > >Because the results are the same, and they're what count. > > Paul V Torek, ihnp4!wucs!wucec1!pvt1047 Are you saying that you believe that the ends justify the means? -- The above viewpoints are mine. They are unrelated to those of anyone else, including my cats and my employer. Ken Montgomery "Shredder-of-hapless-smurfs" ...!{ihnp4,allegra,seismo!ut-sally}!ut-ngp!kjm [Usenet, when working] kjm@ut-ngp.ARPA [for Arpanauts only]
daf@ccice6.UUCP (David Fader) (02/08/85)
> >> Why is the distinction between doing harm and refusing aid > >> irrelevant? Why do you think the two are [morally -pvt] the same? > >Because the results are the same, and they're what count. > Are you saying that you believe that the ends justify the means? Ken, let me explain what Mr. Torek is saying. Assume the the existence of the following scenarios. A.) A car goes off the road and overturns in a stream. The water looks swift an dangerous so you do nothing and the persom in the car drowns. B.) You tie cement blocks to a persons feet and throw them off a dock. The person drowns. In either case they are dead. The law does not quibble over semantics. In either case you will be charged with murder. I acknowledge the fact that it would be first degee murder in one case and second degree murder in the other case, but that is not relevent to the point. The fact that the person is dead is all that matters, not how or why. -- The Watcher seismo!rochester!ccice5!ccice6!daf
cjk@ccice2.UUCP (Chris Kreilick) (02/10/85)
> > >> Why is the distinction between doing harm and refusing aid > > >> irrelevant? Why do you think the two are [morally -pvt] the same? > > > >Because the results are the same, and they're what count. > > > Are you saying that you believe that the ends justify the means? > > Ken, let me explain what Mr. Torek is saying. Assume the > the existence of the following scenarios. > A.) A car goes off the road and overturns in a stream. > The water looks swift an dangerous so you do nothing > and the persom in the car drowns. > B.) You tie cement blocks to a persons feet and throw > them off a dock. The person drowns. > In either case they are dead. The law does not quibble over > semantics. In either case you will be charged with murder. > I acknowledge the fact that it would be first degee murder in > one case and second degree murder in the other case, but that > is not relevent to the point. The fact that the person is dead > is all that matters, not how or why. > -- > The Watcher > seismo!rochester!ccice5!ccice6!daf THAT'S RIGHT MR. FADER! You've hit the nail almost squarely on the head. I think what "Son of Stone" really meant, however, can be seen through the following example. A.) Some individual, (we'll call him Brad), has a nuclear device so powerful that its detonation will cause the Earth to leave it's present orbit, move farther from the sun and cause another ice age. Mankind as we know it will disappear. Only those of a "stone age" mentality will survive. B.) Mr. Torek, desiring this situation to come to pass allows Brad to detonate the device. In either case we are guilty. That's right, you and I. We have continued to read their articles, and done nothing about them. We have continued to spend our valuable time in a worthless pursuit. The law does not quibble over semantics. In either case it means the extinction of the Brontos. -- Bronto rider