Quote:
Originally Posted by jwb
you aren't looking to be convinced. All you've done is dodge points, try to muddy the waters, and try to hide behind vauge allusions that suffering or harm are 'more nuaced' I.e. trying to expand the definition of those words to include whatever is needed to maintain your framework.
Have you ever read Bentham? This is not exactly a new topic/idea.
|
No, I actually haven't. I've completely explained everything and you just reject it in an attempt to over simplify things because nuance is something you can't seem to grasp.
You did the same exact **** with the IQ test debate.
Let me clarify. I would not kill a homeless person if I knew it'd cause less suffering than it prevented if they had the ability to do it because robbing him of a choice is a cause of human suffering that isn't necessary. Me not killing him doesn't make me responsible what so ever for his continued suffering because I didn't cause it and he is not dependent on my choice to end his own suffering. In the event where he would be dependent on me, such as assisted suicide or euthanasia, I would because at that point I'd be directly responsible for his prolonged suffering.
I've already said this but for ****s sake you're stubborn in wanting to hear it.
Also, as I've already explained but you don't want to listen, it's different than the kill a child to save 100 scenario because in that instance I know that they are dependent on my choice.
Nothing muddied, clear as day.