Turn on thread page Beta

Do you believe in greater good? watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Do you believe that there are some 'necessary evil' things we have to do, for the 'greater good'? Is this right or wrong?

    Quick examples:
    1) Kill 1 to save 100. (Or Kill 1 to save 2..)
    2) Stealing from the 'rich' to give to the 'poor' (I'm original )
    3) Killing 'bad' people to reduce crime and control society (..yep, deathnote :p: )

    'blah' is all relative so.. discuss? Or the thread will die quickly
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    There is no such thing as good and evil. Just perceived right and wrong actions from a human's point of view.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Sometimes, you have to be careful and evaluate every situation like that on its own though. If you get into that mindset you could easily justify Nazi eugenics or stuff like that.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    yep i would probably kill someone with a bomb in a supermarket just to save everyone else (only if negotiations and talk didn't work)...call me evil...
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Yes in terms of taxation, no in terms of killing.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    No in terms of taxation because that transgresses this moral discussion of act utilitarianism and enters political ideologies; but yes in many other situations. The difficulties emerge in the subjective nature of determining the 'greater good'. What I may think is a good end which will justify a certain evil means, you may well disagree and vice versa.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUpbOliTHJY

    These guys do.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    No. I think the end doesn't justify the means. You don't kill or steal, then proclaim to have seen justice carried out.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    To all those who replied yes to killing, could you take it upon yourself to do so.. if you could? or would your conscience, what other people will think and other factors stop you from doing so?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ape Gone Insane)
    Yes, I believe that the End Justifies the Means.
    (Original post by Joluk)
    Sometimes, you have to be careful and evaluate every situation like that on its own though. If you get into that mindset you could easily justify Nazi eugenics or stuff like that.
    What if you disagree with the situation but it is the only way to get to the end that you want?
    eg. Kill a baby to save a family member
    (this is getting a lil dark )
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    hell yh i think all the people with swine fool should be killed off, then the rest of the world will be safe, same goes for any disease thats contagious
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tsukuyomi)
    hell yh i think all the people with swine fool should be killed off, then the rest of the world will be safe, same goes for any disease thats contagious
    :O if worst comes to worst, do you think people would actually do this?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kevtp)
    :O if worst comes to worst, do you think people would actually do this?
    i dont know but if it was me, i would, we kill a couple of thousand to save millions , in life you have to sacrifice something to gain something
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    In some cases but not all.

    The term is used far too often espcially in war suituitions and frequently makes the whole thing far worse than what it previously was.

    For example the War on terrorism which was used to halt the deaths of those dying from terrorist attacks, yet the lives it claimed is equivilant to that of 150 twin tower attacks (300,000) and still not much progress has been made. So its hardly for the greater good.

    Another example is the War on Drugs.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    No way. I am of the opinion that no human has the right over any human life - not even his own. Saying that right and wrong are subjective opens a lot of doors for undermining morality i.e: I am totally justified to kill twin babies, as in my culture they are considered as a bad omen. a.) Who is to say this this is wrong and, b.) by what standards? (Based on a real-life example. Please google "Mary Slessor". She is the same lady featured on the Scottish £10 note).

    To live reasonable, meaningful, moral lives as human beings, we need absolutes. Absolute rights, and absolute wrongs. Obviously not every situation can be put into a box, but for a large proportion of the society, absolute rights and wrongs are essential to maintain meaningful co-habitation.

    Re: Greater good. Sometimes, nature has a way of using "small" disasters to keep our planet habitable i.e through volcanoes, landslides etc. "Nature" isn't one of us - It's a force outside our circle of influence, and thus is not bound by our senses of morality etc. Hence, "natural" actions carried out "for a greater good" are completely justified. However, us pawns should have no right to judge between who lives and who dies, and who should benefit from who's death. If we think we do, then why don't we volunteer to die "for the greater good" (Without taking other unconsenting, innocent individuals along, of course).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    No, reading HP taught me otherwise...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kevtp)
    :O if worst comes to worst, do you think people would actually do this?
    YES!! Look up 'Milgram experiment' on Youtube/Google. People would do anything if they are not held responsible for their actions (ie. kill if they will not be held accountable).
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I guess I do believe in the greater good because reality is stranger than fiction and we don't really always get clear cut divisions between good and evil. Sometimes, it's just a choice between 'bad' and 'worse' so you gotta do what you gotta do, imo.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Ill have to side with my good friend Ozymandias on this one and say yes at times you do have to put the greater good above all else.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DAFOne)
    YES!! Look up 'Milgram experiment' on Youtube/Google. People would do anything if they are not held responsible for their actions (ie. kill if they will not be held accountable).
    Oh yeh.. in the Milgram experiment, a lot of people justified their actions with 'they were doing it to furthur science' (for the greater good).
    Responsibility is a buffer, it makes it harder or easier to do something.
    If people decide to halt the swine flu epidemic by killing, there will be someone who has to give the go-ahead and they will be accountable for either saving the human race or becoming an infamous mass murderer. Of course this is only if swine flu turns people into zombies or something
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.