What seperates villains from heroes?

[Tropico]

If you could have saved millions of lives and chose not to, it is your fault through inaction.

Not in this case, since he was given only two choices. Had had only two actions to take, kill one person or damn a million for not killing one person.

 

[The Question]

Not in this case, since he was given only two choices. Had had only two actions to take, kill one person or damn a million for not killing one person.

Well, he's still somewhat responsible for their deaths.

 

[Tropico]

Well, he's still somewhat responsible for their deaths.

Um, ok? That's not what I was arguing, but....ok?

 

[The Question]

Um, ok? That's not what I was arguing, but....ok?

Sorry. A misunderstanding on my part.

 

[32CAGE]

The shame is when one is willing to blatantly make black and white gestures about the world. In an imperfect world, there is zero (read it again) ZERO perfect solutions. Humans are not math, they can not be perfectly quantified or rounded. Humans do not follow strict laws world wide. They do not abide by the same rules. They act similarly, they act in certain fashions in certain pockets of the world. Humans will not, nor possibly ever WILL be something close to perfect. They will plan, they will scheme, they will act. This is how it's always been, and for the vast majority of evidence provided by even this very forum, they will most likely NEVER be different. That means, when you are faced with several situations in the big leagues, compromises will be made. Because if you wait around for the PERFECT thing to happen for you, if you wait for the stars to align, if you wait for God to wave his hand and make it all better, you will, in fact, make it worse for all involved.

I agree, striving for better is a noble feat, but that does not mean that there will ever BE a perfect world for people to live in. If there were said world to even exist, you and I would not have this little conversation, since it would be inapplicable. Pride, bias, prejudice, determination, extreme thoughts. All of these will push people, and indeed, societies to create and do things that will force sacrifice on it's target just to survive.

To prevent total resource usage and far more destruction of lives, America launched two atomic weapons against Japan, saving MILLIONS of lives. You have something to say about this later, so I'll respond to it there.




This paints an odd picture, because YOU'RE given a choice to choose life and death. And while you give some sort of moral justification that it's not your job, it indeed, is. You've been given the choice, so that means YOU get to choose who lives. It's not just them, it's not just the one. Both get placed into YOUR hands to deal with, and you alone get to make that choice. Kill the person before you, or assuredly, killing millions of others. While you can say "Technically, it wouldn't be ME killing them", technicalities should only be used by rapists, murderers, and other assorted criminals when their arguments do not stand on their own.

These "external circumstances" you've injected into Corpulent1's question is nothing more than the product of your justification. The only external circumstance is what is going to kill them if you do not act. The only things for sure is if you do not act, they will die, and if you do, they will live.

While you may like to feel comfortable with the idea that it's off your shoulders, rest very much assured, because it would be. Because it all depends on YOUR actions. Not theirs.

I don't believe in BS relativism. I didn't say everything is black and white. But everything is not gray either as you imply. I absolutely disagree with your proposition that there are zero perfect solutions. It depends on what the question or problem is.

Granted humans are not math and that is why under the hypothetical The Corpulent1 gave, i am unwilling to place more value on the lives of the millions over the lives of the one. The one's life is no less valuable than the million.

As for humans following strict laws world wide, I never said that they did. But what is right or wrong is not defined by how many people do it. If 65% of married men beat their wives, because the majority does it does not make it right. At the end of the day we have absolutely no control over what others do but we do have control over what we do and we should expect to be held accountable for it.

I never said anything about waiting for the perfect situation to occur. My point is that we individually have to be responsible in the choices that we make. This thread deals with the question of what characteristic defines a hero and i submit that one of the most significant ones is placing the needs of others above his or her own. Although this is not a perfect world, we in our small way either contribute to making it better or contribute to making it worse.

Lastly, I will not hesitate to state that i believe in GOD and that my very soul and everyone elses rests in His hands. I believe in the sovereignty of GOD and that nothing happens that he does not allow to happen for his own unfathomable reasons and ultimate glory. With that i also believe in the perfect Justice and Rightousness of GOD, and that he exacts perfect justice at some point in time either on this or on the other side of eternity. If He tells me not to kill, my job is to obey in faith and leave the rest in His perfectly capable hands.

In TheCorpulent1's hypo i see no inconsistency in my position by respecting the dignity of life of every individual and not taking the life of the one that my GOD in his moral law has ordered that i not take. GOD would have the power to save and deliver the million if it is His will. He also, if the million are not saved has the power to avenge the million by punishing the one's directly responsible for killing them.

 

[The Question]

I don't believe in BS relativism. I didn't say everything is black and white. But everything is not gray either as you imply. I absolutely disagree with your proposition that there are zero perfect solutions. It depends on what the question or problem is.

Granted humans are not math and that is why under the hypothetical The Corpulent1 gave, i am unwilling to place more value on the lives of the millions over the lives of the one. The one's life is no less valuable than the million.

As for humans following strict laws world wide, I never said that they did. But what is right or wrong is not defined by how many people do it. If 65% of married men beat their wives, because the majority does it does not make it right. At the end of the day we have absolutely no control over what others do but we do have control over what we do and we should expect to be held accountable for it.

I never said anything about waiting for the perfect situation to occur. My point is that we individually have to be responsible in the choices that we make. This thread deals with the question of what characteristic defines a hero and i submit that one of the most significant ones is placing the needs of others above his or her own. Although this is not a perfect world, we in our small way either contribute to making it better or contribute to making it worse.

Lastly, I will not hesitate to state that i believe in GOD and that my very soul and everyone elses rests in His hands. I believe in the sovereignty of GOD and that nothing happens that he does not allow to happen for his own unfathomable reasons and ultimate glory. With that i also believe in the perfect Justice and Rightousness of GOD, and that he exacts perfect justice at some point in time either on this or on the other side of eternity. If He tells me not to kill, my job is to obey in faith and leave the rest in His perfectly capable hands.

In TheCorpulent1's hypo i see no inconsistency in my position by respecting the dignity of life of every individual and not taking the life of the one that my GOD in his moral law has ordered that i not take. GOD would have the power to save and deliver the million if it is His will. He also, if the million are not saved has the power to avenge the million by punishing the one's directly responsible for killing them.

Yeah. God also has the power to stop pretty much any tragedy imaginable. But if it's in your powwer to stop it, why shouldn't you? Thing is, if you're actually in that situation, then at the end of the day, all those lives are on your head. They died because of your inaction.

 

[Fading]

You guys are giving him impossible situations and asking for a definite answer. I'm with him that I couldn't murder an innocent to save others, that one person did nothing to deserve death I'm assuming, so why is his/her death more deserved?

Thing is tho, who is going to be put in a situation with a gun in one hand and a button in another and asked to choose 1 vs. 1,000,000 ppl? That's like asking if your on a space shuttle and 10 ppl are in the ship spiraling out of control and one person is spiraling out of control in space, do you strap on a jet pack and rush to the guy, or rush in the ship and get it under control (assuming there's a space station in reach for you to go in safely). Who of us is really going to be in a space shuttle, or in charge of millions or billions of lives.

It's an impossible question to answer really because many instances require you to be there rather than hypothesize what you could or would do. It's no better than the, "If God can't die, but can do anything, can he create a rock large enough to kill himself?" question, it's just something you can't really answer. I mean assuming it was real and the person you had to kill was a 10 year old girl, and the method the ppl who put you in this situation told you to kill her by was slow dismemberment? Is is still an easy choice?

I'm with him that the world has a lot more black and white situations that many give it credit for. Are there grey spots? Sure, but the entire world isn't grey. Sometimes there just isn't an easy way out, and comprimising what you believe or represent isn't right IMO either. Criminals and comic villains are the ones willing to throw away lives to achieve their goal, a hero or cop or fireman never stops looking for a way to save lives even at the risk of their own.

Plus you guys never toss in the other variables to this 1 vs. 1 mil situation. Are you tied down? Is it a nuke under a city? Is it a group of aliens about to annhilate Earth? Is there a possibility of giving your life for the others? Can you charge the person about to pull the plug on the millions? It's not always so grey when there are other variables that can lead you to doing whats right and still saving everyone.

 

[LouFerignoDemon]

And yet you hate technicalities. Interesting.

There was no technicality. The technicality is saying that I didn't actually kill him, because I didn't pull the trigger.

Black and white is basically an extreme, something without circumstance, or perfect consequence. A truth is an entirety laid out. A technicality is a bending of the situation to work in one's favour.

Such as, "I didn't actually kill him, I hired Corpy to do it for me." The end result was I had him killed, which is no different from me killing him, as it was my hand that set forth the action itself. Technically, I didn't kill anybody. In all truth, he died because of me. But since I didn't pull the trigger, am I any less at fault?

I don't believe in BS relativism. I didn't say everything is black and white. But everything is not gray either as you imply. I absolutely disagree with your proposition that there are zero perfect solutions. It depends on what the question or problem is.

You can't have it both ways. Because either the world is black and white, or shades of gray. If neither, then it's nothing. The world is built up of multitudes of ideas and motives ranging in each and every individual on Earth, given their position and disposition of life as they understand it.

I will agree that the situation determines the solution, but the situation at hand is nothing light, nor is it anything perfect. Someone has to die. A perfect solution is everybody lives, or everybody dies, making it "fair" both ways. Since it's an either or, a life weighed on your shoulders, it becomes very imperfect.

Granted humans are not math and that is why under the hypothetical The Corpulent1 gave, i am unwilling to place more value on the lives of the millions over the lives of the one. The one's life is no less valuable than the million.

And while I agree that no life is seemingly more important, it now becomes the quantity of life. To save a single life, would you snuff out a million? The answer is no, because one life simply isn't worth a million. A million people will die for a single person, and what of them? Could you honestly face them, and say, "I could not save you, because I would not choose him"? And their families, millions, possibly billions of people worldwide at a massive loss. Driven to suicide in several cases, downturn and lives destroyed, affecting even more people? A single life would only have a few dozen collateral casualties. The question simply is how many casualties are you willing to cause? Are you ready to condemn millions for one single person? Sacrifice them for him?

As for humans following strict laws world wide, I never said that they did. But what is right or wrong is not defined by how many people do it. If 65% of married men beat their wives, because the majority does it does not make it right. At the end of the day we have absolutely no control over what others do but we do have control over what we do and we should expect to be held accountable for it.

I never said right and wrong was defined by the sheer amount of people. I would be the last to say simply because a majority says so, would they be right, when several times, I'm the only one saying something, and the only one who's right in points of fact.

However, to say we have no control over another is absolutely naive. We have tons of control and influence on one another. For instance, if Tropico were to come online, my entire disposition would change dramatically. If I were a killer, I'd probably not kill. If I were suicidal, I might not change my mind. Each other's presence simply alters people around us, and our actions do even more. When the choice is literally placed on you, what you do affects others. In this case, millions of others. It's not simply your life anymore, not just you, no selfishness can prevade and corrupt you here, for it will cost lives if it does.

I never said anything about waiting for the perfect situation to occur. My point is that we individually have to be responsible in the choices that we make. This thread deals with the question of what characteristic defines a hero and i submit that one of the most significant ones is placing the needs of others above his or her own. Although this is not a perfect world, we in our small way either contribute to making it better or contribute to making it worse.

And how would letting them die place the needs of others above your own? You made the choice not to kill, and doom them yourself. Your choice, your responsibility. You decided not to act, and lay a million lives to the afterlife. The choice was simple. You let one die, or you let a million die.

Lastly, I will not hesitate to state that i believe in GOD and that my very soul and everyone elses rests in His hands. I believe in the sovereignty of GOD and that nothing happens that he does not allow to happen for his own unfathomable reasons and ultimate glory. With that i also believe in the perfect Justice and Rightousness of GOD, and that he exacts perfect justice at some point in time either on this or on the other side of eternity. If He tells me not to kill, my job is to obey in faith and leave the rest in His perfectly capable hands.

So then it is your religion and personal beliefs that have doomed several, and that is no different. While I enjoy the honesty and devotion you place in your faith, the result is no different. For this, there is no argument, as the cause of a being higher than our own would undoubtedly be unquestionable. But for such a high being to exist, the idea that we understand what they want from us would be as you said, "unfathomable". A book says not to kill, a book says not to let others suffer. However, here is the contradiction. You decide to kill, a few suffer. You decide not to kill, you allow millions to suffer. A holy obligation is nothing of a laughing matter, but if you truly felt that your God wanted you to be morally ambiguous, this would be it. Because you wouldn't require morals, you wouldn't require anything even relating to them, as you simply do not act with them at all. So there is nothing moral about it. Condeming to death is almost no different than killing yourself, save a technicality or two.

In TheCorpulent1's hypo i see no inconsistency in my position by respecting the dignity of life of every individual and not taking the life of the one that my GOD in his moral law has ordered that i not take. GOD would have the power to save and deliver the million if it is His will. He also, if the million are not saved has the power to avenge the million by punishing the one's directly responsible for killing them.

He also said he would never interfere in human business ever again. Meaning there will be no deus ex machina, that we have been left to defend and progress ourselves, as our very nature caused him to leave us alone.

While I definitely can see you see things in a bigger picture than most, the burden is still yours to bear. The choice was left to you, and the responsibility of their lives is on your shoulders. While you didn't pull the trigger, you DID point the gun.

 

[LouFerignoDemon]

You guys are giving him impossible situations and asking for a definite answer. I'm with him that I couldn't murder an innocent to save others, that one person did nothing to deserve death I'm assuming, so why is his/her death more deserved?

Thing is tho, who is going to be put in a situation with a gun in one hand and a button in another and asked to choose 1 vs. 1,000,000 ppl? That's like asking if your on a space shuttle and 10 ppl are in the ship spiraling out of control and one person is spiraling out of control in space, do you strap on a jet pack and rush to the guy, or rush in the ship and get it under control (assuming there's a space station in reach for you to go in safely). Who of us is really going to be in a space shuttle, or in charge of millions or billions of lives.

It's an impossible question to answer really because many instances require you to be there rather than hypothesize what you could or would do. It's no better than the, "If God can't die, but can do anything, can he create a rock large enough to kill himself?" question, it's just something you can't really answer. I mean assuming it was real and the person you had to kill was a 10 year old girl, and the method the ppl who put you in this situation told you to kill her by was slow dismemberment? Is is still an easy choice?

I'm with him that the world has a lot more black and white situations that many give it credit for. Are there grey spots? Sure, but the entire world isn't grey. Sometimes there just isn't an easy way out, and comprimising what you believe or represent isn't right IMO either. Criminals and comic villains are the ones willing to throw away lives to achieve their goal, a hero or cop or fireman never stops looking for a way to save lives even at the risk of their own.

Plus you guys never toss in the other variables to this 1 vs. 1 mil situation. Are you tied down? Is it a nuke under a city? Is it a group of aliens about to annhilate Earth? Is there a possibility of giving your life for the others? Can you charge the person about to pull the plug on the millions? It's not always so grey when there are other variables that can lead you to doing whats right and still saving everyone.

There is no need for an outside scenario, the question was fairly simple and definite. The question was, "Do you choose one to die, or one million?" There was no, "But if you..." It was simply just, "One, or one million. Your choice."

The entire point was, that it wasn't an easy question, that there is no right and wrong answer. That you can't definitely say which is good or bad. Since both choices yielded a positive and negative response. But if we pushed this one step further, we COULD add, "If you don't act, they all die." And then it's a pure negative answer.

To me, it's the obvious test of, "Who actually has hard choices to make?" For some of us, who've held harder leadership decisions, faced with hard choices, and have had to act on hard choices, the answer feels obvious. Go with logic, and preserve the most lives possible, since we have to decide. Those of us who've unfortunately/fortunately have had this opportunity know the severity of this sort of role, to be placed in such a situation.

In some situations, his actions would prove better for mankind as a whole. But in this unfortunate situation, there is nothing to learn, just lives to be lost.

 

[32CAGE]

Yeah. God also has the power to stop pretty much any tragedy imaginable. But if it's in your powwer to stop it, why shouldn't you? Thing is, if you're actually in that situation, then at the end of the day, all those lives are on your head. They died because of your inaction.

Because it is not my job to try to do GOD's job when it requires me to do something inconsistent with his moral law. It gets back to my point that the ends does not justify the means.

Moreover, i answered the question based on TheCorpulent1's hypothetical that presumes several things:
1) That the one whose death will save millions is an innocent
2) That i am not a soldier operating under the authority of my government and the one is not an enemy combat.

With the existence of the other two senarios i would be permitted under GOD's law to take the life of the one. Here i am not.

No i am not responsible for the death of the millions. Their live's under TheCorpulent1's hypo rests in GOD's hands. TheCorpulent1 does not explain how the million's lives will be threatened. If it is due to some kind of natural disaster then it may be GOD's will that they die. If it is due to some dastardly plot of others then GOD though His providence will or will not intervene in strict comformance with HIS moral law. He will not call or condone my breaking HIS law regardless of how well intended i may be.

 

[32CAGE]

There was no technicality. The technicality is saying that I didn't actually kill him, because I didn't pull the trigger.

Black and white is basically an extreme, something without circumstance, or perfect consequence. A truth is an entirety laid out. A technicality is a bending of the situation to work in one's favour.

Such as, "I didn't actually kill him, I hired Corpy to do it for me." The end result was I had him killed, which is no different from me killing him, as it was my hand that set forth the action itself. Technically, I didn't kill anybody. In all truth, he died because of me. But since I didn't pull the trigger, am I any less at fault?



You can't have it both ways. Because either the world is black and white, or shades of gray. If neither, then it's nothing. The world is built up of multitudes of ideas and motives ranging in each and every individual on Earth, given their position and disposition of life as they understand it.

I will agree that the situation determines the solution, but the situation at hand is nothing light, nor is it anything perfect. Someone has to die. A perfect solution is everybody lives, or everybody dies, making it "fair" both ways. Since it's an either or, a life weighed on your shoulders, it becomes very imperfect.



And while I agree that no life is seemingly more important, it now becomes the quantity of life. To save a single life, would you snuff out a million? The answer is no, because one life simply isn't worth a million. A million people will die for a single person, and what of them? Could you honestly face them, and say, "I could not save you, because I would not choose him"? And their families, millions, possibly billions of people worldwide at a massive loss. Driven to suicide in several cases, downturn and lives destroyed, affecting even more people? A single life would only have a few dozen collateral casualties. The question simply is how many casualties are you willing to cause? Are you ready to condemn millions for one single person? Sacrifice them for him?



I never said right and wrong was defined by the sheer amount of people. I would be the last to say simply because a majority says so, would they be right, when several times, I'm the only one saying something, and the only one who's right in points of fact.

However, to say we have no control over another is absolutely naive. We have tons of control and influence on one another. For instance, if Tropico were to come online, my entire disposition would change dramatically. If I were a killer, I'd probably not kill. If I were suicidal, I might not change my mind. Each other's presence simply alters people around us, and our actions do even more. When the choice is literally placed on you, what you do affects others. In this case, millions of others. It's not simply your life anymore, not just you, no selfishness can prevade and corrupt you here, for it will cost lives if it does.


And how would letting them die place the needs of others above your own? You made the choice not to kill, and doom them yourself. Your choice, your responsibility. You decided not to act, and lay a million lives to the afterlife. The choice was simple. You let one die, or you let a million die.


So then it is your religion and personal beliefs that have doomed several, and that is no different. While I enjoy the honesty and devotion you place in your faith, the result is no different. For this, there is no argument, as the cause of a being higher than our own would undoubtedly be unquestionable. But for such a high being to exist, the idea that we understand what they want from us would be as you said, "unfathomable". A book says not to kill, a book says not to let others suffer. However, here is the contradiction. You decide to kill, a few suffer. You decide not to kill, you allow millions to suffer. A holy obligation is nothing of a laughing matter, but if you truly felt that your God wanted you to be morally ambiguous, this would be it. Because you wouldn't require morals, you wouldn't require anything even relating to them, as you simply do not act with them at all. So there is nothing moral about it. Condeming to death is almost no different than killing yourself, save a technicality or two.


He also said he would never interfere in human business ever again. Meaning there will be no deus ex machina, that we have been left to defend and progress ourselves, as our very nature caused him to leave us alone.

While I definitely can see you see things in a bigger picture than most, the burden is still yours to bear. The choice was left to you, and the responsibility of their lives is on your shoulders. While you didn't pull the trigger, you DID point the gun.

Yes I can have it both ways. Life does have some senarios that are black and white and some that are gray. It is your value judgment that the perfect solution is that everyone lives. It may not be. Only GOD whose foresight and knowledge is unlimited, who is all powerful, and who reads the hearts and thoughts of all men and women can exact perfect justice. When it comes to fairness, only GOD is perfectly fair. He has all of the facts and we don't. Furthermore, in this fallen world we all die and according to GOD's providential will He determines when and how.

As for accusing me of causing the causalties you are wrong. I am not lifting a single finger against the million. Nor am a taking any action against GOD's expressed law not to kill under the arrogant belief that i know better than Him and must do something that He cannot do. See my response to The Question.

To the contrary, i suggest you are naive to believe that you can control anyone's will or that anyone can control yours unless you let them. When i use the term control, i am not taling about physical restraint. Certainly we can physically restrain someone if we are physically more powerful. But we can't make someone do something. They either choose to do it or they choose not to. Obviously we can make the consequences of non-compliance almost unbearable but in the final anaylsis they either give in or they don't by choice. A Biblical example is the 3 Jewish boys that refused to worship against their faith under threat of death. Although GOD in this instance delivered them from the fiery furnance, they were prepared to die even if He did not intervene because they were more concerned about their eternal soul and obediance to GOD (Daniel 3:8-18).

I can't more strongly disagree with your statement that GOD said that He would never interfere in human business again. Where did you get this?

GOD hasn't abandoned us. We have abandoned Him with a lack of faith, trust and obediance. GOD is a rewarder of those who diligently and sincerely seek Him. Most choose to deny the existence and involvement of GOD because to believe otherwise brings a recognition that they will be eternally judged for all that they do.

 

[The Question]

Yes I can have it both ways. Life does have some senarios that are black and white and some that are gray. It is your value judgment that the perfect solution is that everyone lives. It may not be. Only GOD whose foresight and knowledge is unlimited, who is all powerful, and who reads the hearts and thoughts of all men and women can exact perfect justice. When it comes to fairness, only GOD is perfectly fair. He has all of the facts and we don't. Furthermore, in this fallen world we all die and according to GOD's providential will He determines when and how.

As for accusing me of causing the causalties you are wrong. I am not lifting a single finger against the million. Nor am a taking any action against GOD's expressed law not to kill under the arrogant belief that i know better than Him and must do something that He cannot do. See my response to The Question.

To the contrary, i suggest you are naive to believe that you can control anyone's will or that anyone can control yours unless you let them. When i use the term control, i am not taling about physical restraint. Certainly we can physically restrain someone if we are physically more powerful. But we can't make someone do something. They either choose to do it or they choose not to. Obviously we can make the consequences of non-compliance almost unbearable but in the final anaylsis they either give in or they don't by choice. A Biblical example is the 3 Jewish boys that refused to worship against their faith under threat of death. Although GOD in this instance delivered them from the fiery furnance, they were prepared to die even if He did not intervene because they were more concerned about their eternal soul and obediance to GOD (Daniel 3:8-18).

I can't more strongly disagree with your statement that GOD said that He would never interfere in human business again. Where did you get this?

GOD hasn't abandoned us. We have abandoned Him with a lack of faith, trust and obediance. GOD is a rewarder of those who diligently and sincerely seek Him. Most choose to deny the existence and involvement of GOD because to believe otherwise brings a recognition that they will be eternally judged for all that they do.

Sure, you're not lifting a finger againts the million. But you're not lifting a finger to save them, either. And if we're getting all Bible quote-y here, take a gander at James 2:20:

"But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?"

Having faith isn't enough. You have to pro-actively try and do some good in the world. And letting one million people die when you could have saved them isn't good. Now, murdering someone also isn't good. But the point of the scenario is that it isn't an easy choice to make. The only thing you can do is choose the lesser of two evils.

 

[PhotoJones]

Wow. Religion and philosophy applied to superheroes. I'll continue to stay out of it.

 

[Kitsune]

Remember, The Brain wanted to take over the world for good, while Snowball wanted to take over the world for evil...

 

[TheCorpulent1]

Snowball sucked.

 

[32CAGE]

Sure, you're not lifting a finger againts the million. But you're not lifting a finger to save them, either. And if we're getting all Bible quote-y here, take a gander at James 2:20:

"But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?"

Having faith isn't enough. You have to pro-actively try and do some good in the world. And letting one million people die when you could have saved them isn't good. Now, murdering someone also isn't good. But the point of the scenario is that it isn't an easy choice to make. The only thing you can do is choose the lesser of two evils.

You are taking James 2:20 out of context. Your argument seems to suggest that if we sin on any one point (and we all do), then we might as well continue sinning because we are a sinner. You're perhaps forgetting one point. Only GOD has the power to forgive sin and it results from worshiping Him in spirit and in truth.

Read on to James 2:22. He cautions us to not merely listen to the word but to do what it says. If there was no specific moral law against killing then a person could rationalize killing the innocent. But there is such a law and i am required to observe it. I agree that faith without works is dead. But GOD never tells us to sin against his Word. Taking the life of the innocent would be doing just that.

 

[The Question]

You are taking James 2:20 out of context. Your argument seems to suggest that if we sin on any one point (and we all do), then we might as well continue sinning because we are a sinner. You're perhaps forgetting one point. Only GOD has the power to forgive sin and it results from worshiping Him in spirit and in truth.

I never said anything to even imply that.

Read on to James 2:22. He cautions us to not merely listen to the word but to do what it says. If there was no specific moral law against killing then a person could rationalize killing the innocent. But there is such a law and i am required to observe it. I agree that faith without works is dead. But GOD never tells us to sin against his Word. Taking the life of the innocent would be doing just that.

But letting millions of your fellow men and women die when you could have prevented it would be as well. Jesus tells you to help your fellow man. I think choosing not to save lives is pretty damn bad. Of course, killing someone is also bad. But that's the point. This is a "lose/lose" scenario.

 

[Kitsune]

Snowball sucked.

Indeed

 

[Tropico]

Black+White=Gray. There IS black and white in the real world, it's the shades of gray that have become predominant and we fail to see that. You can't get "kinda good" and "kinda bad" if there's not good or bad to judge it from. Shades of gray is just the most convenient for many (and growing in number) people.

While I don't adhere to religion in the same manner 32Cage does I can see his point and agree with it. My POV comes from a RL situation though; I was car jacked years ago with my best friend at gun point and kidnapped to later be dumped somewhere. That single instance crystallized in me that I don't want to die, no one else has the right to take my life nor do I have the right to take anyone's life. As for those of you who question if there's providence or not...The 2 people that took us at gunpoint where prison escapees that had been imprisoned on murder charges. When we got out of the ditch we were dumped at we recognized that we were in an avenue that was near where we had studied in High School.

To make it more relevant to the topic: They took our ID's, driver's license, etc. and threatened to get to our families if we reported the crime. We still went to the police. One of the 2 was captured, we never knew what happened with the other guy. Some of you will see it as putting our families at risk just so justice could be done. That's fine with me and my family. We all know we did the right thing, which is the main topic of this thread, despite the possible consequences to ourselves and them.

Like 32Cage said, only God can judge him for his decision. He's going by the commandments He left behind, he'd be damning himself and going against God's word by killing a person outright because, hypothetically, it would be better to save a million people. He's responsible for the life he takes. Does his refusal to kill that person condemn the others? Yes, because the person putting him in that situation does so. Is he responsible? No, the person putting him in that situation IS.

Is it a hard choice? Yes, it is. Want to make it harder? What if you lost your significant other and your newborn child is all that you have to fill that gap. You're sterile, you can't have any more children and you can't imagine continuing living without that baby, he/she's the only thing that's keeping you from ending it all; what if that's the person you have to kill? What are a million random faces against the only light in your life? Now do the reverse. A random stranger, or even someone you dislike, is in front of you and your whole family is part of the doomed 1 million? What do you do?

Who determines the value of that single person in front of you? Who has a definite answer as to which is more valuable? The repercussions of 1 million deaths are greater than one? Idle speculation and a biased argument that can benefit whichever side you want by giving positive/negative examples. For all you know the single person invents a cure that saves far more than the million lives weighed against it.

 

[BAH HUMBBUG!]

Capitilization.

 

[ANTOINE X]

What do you guys think seperates the good guys from the bad guys? I mean many villains if you look at the object from their point of view and told in the right way could be considered heroes (ie Doctor Doom and Magneto) So at what point does a hero become a villain or vice versa?

Its a really interesting question especially when we talk about magneto. To me magneto is evil because he Doesn[SIZE=-1]' t[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1][/SIZE]want to be equal to the human but he wants to dominate them. And that principle works the other way around to.

 

[The Geek Vault]

That would definitly be a tough decision, so many factors to think of for instance in those million people, how many of them are "good" pepole what if all million people who died would be child rapists? ?Then the choice would be easier. In the end I think you'd have to look at the big picture.

 

[The Geek Vault]

Its a really interesting question especially when we talk about magneto. To me magneto is evil because he Doesn[SIZE=-1]' t[/SIZE] want to be equal to the human but he wants to dominate them. And that principle works the other way around to.

I see both Magneto and Doom as misunderstood heroes

 

[Fading]

Black+White=Gray. There IS black and white in the real world, it's the shades of gray that have become predominant and we fail to see that. You can't get "kinda good" and "kinda bad" if there's not good or bad to judge it from. Shades of gray is just the most convenient for many (and growing in number) people.

While I don't adhere to religion in the same manner 32Cage does I can see his point and agree with it. My POV comes from a RL situation though; I was car jacked years ago with my best friend at gun point and kidnapped to later be dumped somewhere. That single instance crystallized in me that I don't want to die, no one else has the right to take my life nor do I have the right to take anyone's life. As for those of you who question if there's providence or not...The 2 people that took us at gunpoint where prison escapees that had been imprisoned on murder charges. When we got out of the ditch we were dumped at we recognized that we were in an avenue that was near where we had studied in High School.

To make it more relevant to the topic: They took our ID's, driver's license, etc. and threatened to get to our families if we reported the crime. We still went to the police. One of the 2 was captured, we never knew what happened with the other guy. Some of you will see it as putting our families at risk just so justice could be done. That's fine with me and my family. We all know we did the right thing, which is the main topic of this thread, despite the possible consequences to ourselves and them.

Like 32Cage said, only God can judge him for his decision. He's going by the commandments He left behind, he'd be damning himself and going against God's word by killing a person outright because, hypothetically, it would be better to save a million people. He's responsible for the life he takes. Does his refusal to kill that person condemn the others? Yes, because the person putting him in that situation does so. Is he responsible? No, the person putting him in that situation IS.

Is it a hard choice? Yes, it is. Want to make it harder? What if you lost your significant other and your newborn child is all that you have to fill that gap. You're sterile, you can't have any more children and you can't imagine continuing living without that baby, he/she's the only thing that's keeping you from ending it all; what if that's the person you have to kill? What are a million random faces against the only light in your life? Now do the reverse. A random stranger, or even someone you dislike, is in front of you and your whole family is part of the doomed 1 million? What do you do?

Who determines the value of that single person in front of you? Who has a definite answer as to which is more valuable? The repercussions of 1 million deaths are greater than one? Idle speculation and a biased argument that can benefit whichever side you want by giving positive/negative examples. For all you know the single person invents a cure that saves far more than the million lives weighed against it.

Exactly and well said, I like both you and 32Cage's answers. They want to stick lives into numbers, nicely organized row's, but it doesn't work like that. Just because 1 person's life is up against 1 mil doesn't make that 1 person's life meaningless. If you slaughter one person because a bad guy put you in a lose/lose situation, and you kill an innocent then you are a murderer despite if that action did or did not save lives. That 1 person did nothing wrong and was put in a bad situation like you, and their someone's wife, mother, father, husband, child, or a favorite uncle or aunt. They have a life time of memories with family that won't see them again, and no justification can make up for the loss of an innocent life.

Which partially saddens me that life is saw as equations, and numbers anymore. Each and every life is valuable, corny as that might sound to some of you, and we don't have the right to deem one life more valuable than another. You guys are trying to say there are no variables, it's just 1 vs. 1 mil, but there are variables. Who is that one person some of you are so willing to sacrifice to save the 1 mil?

That's the difference inbetween a hero and villain (sticking to topic heh). A hero is unwilling to give up and sacrifice one person, because to do so is to give up on a person who didn't deserve death and have ppl that care about him/her. A villain would see lives as numbers, as chess pawns, or a larger equation and would have no problem sacrificing one smaller component to let the rest of the machine move smoother. The ones who put you in that situation are the monsters, and if you kill an innocent then you become a monster in return as that innocent did nothing to warrant a response of death from you. Life can't be replaced, and is nothing to throw away at any time. That's an old world philosophy of bullets and a pair of boots being worth more than a man's life.

 

[The Question]

Exactly and well said, I like both you and 32Cage's answers. They want to stick lives into numbers, nicely organized row's, but it doesn't work like that. Just because 1 person's life is up against 1 mil doesn't make that 1 person's life meaningless. If you slaughter one person because a bad guy put you in a lose/lose situation, and you kill an innocent then you are a murderer despite if that action did or did not save lives. That 1 person did nothing wrong and was put in a bad situation like you, and their someone's wife, mother, father, husband, child, or a favorite uncle or aunt. They have a life time of memories with family that won't see them again, and no justification can make up for the loss of an innocent life.

Which partially saddens me that life is saw as equations, and numbers anymore. Each and every life is valuable, corny as that might sound to some of you, and we don't have the right to deem one life more valuable than another. You guys are trying to say there are no variables, it's just 1 vs. 1 mil, but there are variables. Who is that one person some of you are so willing to sacrifice to save the 1 mil?

That's the difference inbetween a hero and villain (sticking to topic heh). A hero is unwilling to give up and sacrifice one person, because to do so is to give up on a person who didn't deserve death and have ppl that care about him/her. A villain would see lives as numbers, as chess pawns, or a larger equation and would have no problem sacrificing one smaller component to let the rest of the machine move smoother. The ones who put you in that situation are the monsters, and if you kill an innocent then you become a monster in return as that innocent did nothing to warrant a response of death from you. Life can't be replaced, and is nothing to throw away at any time. That's an old world philosophy of bullets and a pair of boots being worth more than a man's life.

Yeah, but to play devil's advocate, what kind of person are you if you willingly let one million people die when you could have prevented it? I'm not saying that it's an easy answer, because it's not. That's the whole reason this hypothetical scenario was brought up. There aren't always easy answers or clear moral paths. Now, I'm not saying I'd be able to off the fellow in question or not. I can't really tell unless I ever find myself in that situation. But I can tell you this: It isn't as simple as "Hero VS. Villain." Neither option is at all favorable, and neither is one you could call the truely good thing to do. Killing someone and letting a large number of people die are both bad.