"I don't like talking about just grotesque scenarios since they aren't very uplifting situations that benefit the human spirit"

This is probably one of our major personality differences. I LOVE subjects like these! Particularly when talking to a moral absolutist, they are a lot of fun to bring up. I think your answer of attacking the assailant works in this particular scenario, but missed the more important sub-issue, that is, is it better to kill 100 by omission of action, or to kill 1 through direct action? If you are forced into such a decision, can any choice be said to be "moral," especially in the eyes of a benevolent, good God?

Let's say the assailant was one of the above:
1) Bruce Lee.
2) A knife-proof superhuman android.

Then you're screwed, Harv. :) Ya gotta make a choice. Or would rushing suicidally against the android be the only option?

My personal answer to this question is that it makes no difference whose hands the blood is on: what matters is that more lives were saved. If I were presented with the opportunity to murder Stalin's mother, I would be lying if I said that it would not be a very hard choice to make.

• Harv took the wimpy way out! - smartguy - June 17, 2003 - 01:52 UTC
  • Different issue - harvey1 - June 17, 2003 - 03:40 UTC
• Wrong choice Mario - harvey1 - June 17, 2003 - 03:34 UTC
  • Maybe. I do sit on the fence somewhat here. - stormcrow - June 17, 2003 - 04:34 UTC
    • Can't and shouldn't - harvey1 - June 17, 2003 - 11:12 UTC
      • Horrible Neccesities - stormcrow - June 18, 2003 - 04:05 UTC
        • Your like a saint - harvey1 - June 18, 2003 - 13:51 UTC
          • Interesting, isn't it? - stormcrow - June 20, 2003 - 03:31 UTC
            • Humanism - harvey1 - June 20, 2003 - 15:08 UTC
• Can't do math with life! - villa-lobos - June 17, 2003 - 14:48 UTC
  • Gary Larson - stormcrow - June 17, 2003 - 16:05 UTC