Gustaf's philosophical question number 4 (NO TROLLEYS) (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 27, 2024, 07:26:40 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  Religion & Philosophy (Moderator: Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.)
  Gustaf's philosophical question number 4 (NO TROLLEYS) (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: Is there a moral difference between the two acts?
#1
Yes		  
#2
No		  
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results
Total Voters: 14

Author Topic: Gustaf's philosophical question number 4 (NO TROLLEYS)  (Read 2976 times)
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,076
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70
« on: May 31, 2008, 09:26:05 AM »
Yes, and it is recognized in the law. Being a proactive actor is different than refusing to be the good samaritan for selfish motives. Maybe it is more of a practical distinction than a moral one.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,076
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70
« Reply #1 on: May 31, 2008, 01:34:54 PM »
Quote from: 583 Objects... on May 31, 2008, 01:28:22 PM
There is no moral difference. The intent and end result were exactly the same. Legally there is unfortunately.

It's not unfortunate. It's practical. If the law came down on all those moral defectives who failed to act, folks would have a nervous breakdown, along with the courts, the jails, etc. The problems of proof would also be near  insurmountable, as to intent, knowledge, etc. Sometimes the perfect is the enemy of the good.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.017 seconds with 14 queries.