Dear StarNet, For you today I pose a question of morality. Since you're all so good at it to begin with. There are 2 men, one with a gun and one with a knife. They are 15 meters apart. These 2 men both know the gun has a 50% chance to be loaded. The man with the gun has checked the gun and knows that it, in fact, IS loaded. Yet the man with the knife does not know this, he still thinks it's a 50/50 chance. Now the man with the knife isn't going to attack a man with a loaded gun, and would walk away from the man with the gun if he knew it was loaded and the man with the gun knows this about the man with the knife. Now if the man with the gun deliberately does not show evidence that his gun is loaded, (achieved by simply showing the man with the knife his loaded barrel by cocking the slide back just a bit. This will not provide an adequate window for the man with the knife to attack however.) then whose fault is it if the man with the knife gets the impression the man with the gun has an unloaded gun and attacks, thus getting himself shot. Keep in mind the man with the knife attacked the man with the gun, but the man with the gun deliberately didn't show evidence of his loaded gun to incentive-ize the knife wielding man to attack so he could kill him. Where does the blame go? Who's the "good guy?" -Captain
[Maz_AE_kial] Well for me to have an adequate answer I'm missing one key detail: What was the fight over? From what you've described this is more a question of tactics, not of morality.
Good point. I was also going to note that the point of a "good guy" is overrated. Some encounters don't need blame, or morality. There are just the events, the facts, the bodies. -Corvus
In my short but eventful life, arguably the most important lesson I have learned is that hypotheticals are fucking pointless and waste your time. The sooner you people stop worrying about "good" and "evil", "right" and "wrong" and decide to not give two shits and follow your own personal set of morals, the better off you'll all be. -Crosswell
The point of it is, there is no background info. Knife man would kill gun man if he knew the gun wasn't loaded, gun man knows this and also know knife man wouldn't kill him if he knew gun was loaded. It's a direct situation question, not a "what's the background details" problem. Its to asses long-term morality by asking a question with only shirt-term decisions, but there is a right answer in terms of long-term preservation. -Captain
-Jodora- Neither. Why would you use a knife against a gun? That doesn't make much sense in my opinion. But if gun man was deliberately doing this to be able to shoot knife man, then gun man is bad. It's also bad to make assumptions. It seems to get people shot nowadays. -Nazomi, via a recording- "T-They shouldn't be fighting in the first place..!"
[Maz_AE_kial] I would be inclined to disagree about the no good/evil or right/wrong point. I've found that there are absolutes, but the problem is everyone's pursuing completely different absolutes and refuse to agree with some person or another, thus breeding the idea of "relative truth". But that's a debate I won't get into unless mutually desired. Ah, so this is one of those "is it wrong to be deceptive and take advantage of the consistency of others, or to be consistent in your own doings and be narrow-minded in that sense?" questions or something to that effect, I assume. This isn't the kind of situation where you pick a "good guy", so morality doesn't exactly apply unless you stretch for implications. That said, tactically speaking Gunman would be clever to identify a pattern that could be used to fell his assailant. Deception is a tactic that can be used effectively if deployed in appropriate contexts. Knifeman should be more observant of the weakness and improve upon it so that deception does not become a weakness while also being more discerning to determine if deception is being used. In terms of a victor, or if you really wanted to make this a dilemma of morals, you'd have to consider if the Gunman would shoot anyway if Knifeman backed away, and why Knifeman was attacking in the first place.
Meh, I disagree. I think a certain moral compass, directed by empathy, is required to prevent the collapse of society. @Jodora, Hm, I find it interesting that you see the man with the most power as the villain. I mean, gun man could be an innocent with advanced tactical training, and knife man could be a 40-times serial killer who ate gun man's wife and child. It's all about context. Like, there's probably no good guy or bad guy if this is a petty dispute, but an intense prior event could justify judgement on the morality of either of them.
I wasn't denying the existence of the moral compass, but rather stating that it will benefit you more to follow your own morals, rather than worry about the absolutes or how the world perceives you in line with said absolutes. The world is always a shade of grey. Rarely is it black and white. -Crosswell
Remember, as much as the context is important to all real situations. This is a concept, and all of you are bringing your own outside bias into it... Not to say I wasn't expecting it. -Captain
Wait, did you expect people to look at this objectively, without any outside bias...? The very assignment of a good/evil role requires bias. That's silly.' -Corvus
However, "where does the blame go" wasn't in quotes. I'd argue that needs some emotions put into it. In fact, this wouldn't be a subjective question if it didn't require outside information, especially with the general structure. I digress, though, the fact that I'm arguing about this is kinda dumb. I also thought that, when you said "Not to say I wasn't expecting it.", you meant that in a dickish way. Heh. -Corvus
You wanna talk about society? Oh, ho ho... now you're in my territory... Laws and Government are what prevents collapse of society. Anyone will kill if they believe it is right morally. Look at the damn crusades and the churches "Holy Wars." People are murderous fucks and require laws to keep them in check. - "Unity"
which crusades and holy wars? there has been many such as the crusade of 2267 many perished. -Arizona
Hm? I never said anything about the law. I just said that a moral compass guided by empathy is a tool against societal collapse, not the sole requirement. That's why I said "guided by empathy", too. Like, I wouldn't want to be dropped off a tower for Big Bird, so I don't get involved in the entire Pigeon's Bible thing. -Corvus
