What a fantastic artform! I so enjoyed watching that!
It was rather well done, I must admit. It must be nice to have talents...
You have talents.Hey, I have a bone to pick with you.
yeah...I read what you posted at Z's about you performing CPR on a guy. (here's where I nag you....)I'll skip to the good part.I hope you don't really think it's your fault that he died.
I actually really do think that I bear some responsibility. I was WAY out of my depth. And as you can tell, it's left an indelible impression upon me concerning the unintended adverse consequences sometimes resulting from the best intentions.
Just as I also believe that the vast majority of Leftists believe that they are performing a grand and noble thing.
I've come to the conclusion that "results" matter more than mere "intentions". Perhaps that explains my often seemingly "contrarian" approach to things.In other words, "ends matter" at least (if not more) than "means" (or "intentions"). And although I'd love to NEVER treat others as a mere "means to an end", I'm willing to be immoral and violate that aspiration if I have confidence it might achieve a "good" (better) end.
okay, back to you.You may have been in over your head, but you were the only one willing/able to help.Honestly, I think we're always in over our heads.In my opinion, nobody holds power over life and death.I guess it's just that I can relate. I felt like I caused Angel's death.I know the burden of carrying that responsibility.
I hope we can both put down that burden...even if it's an exercise in surrender.
I didn't see your comment at 12:49 until just now.My question is, is it achieving a better end for them, or for you?
My question is, is it achieving a better end for them, or for you? I think that the answer is, "both". I know one shouldn't play with moral "puzzles," but I do. For example, suppose you were standing adjacent the switch to a train bearing down on a group of children playing on the tracks. Imagine you could divert the train onto another track, but THAT would mean that an innocent "vagrant" would be hit. Would you flip the switch?I've also seen the puzzle posed as follows. Imagine you were on an overpass with the same vagrant and you could force the train to stop if you pushed him over. Would you? Now, I would "jump" (achieving the same result).Or imaging you were trapped in an underwater cave with numerous people, and a fat gentleman got stuck in the only exit. The tide is comping in and the cave is filling with water. You have a knife. Would you kill the fat man blocking the exit to save the group?Now you begin to understand a bit about the nature of "leadership". There are situations in which there are no "good" answers, only "less bad" ones.
It's like a moral "string theory" that starts with an intention, flows through the means, and arrives at an end. I like to consider the whole "string".
But my willingness to self-sacrifice does only extend "so far". There's the "lifeboat" dilemna where the sea is filled with survivors from a wreck. What criteria would you use for "rescuing" survivors knowing tha you couldn't save them all, or you'd overload/swamp your boat? Would you rescue the women? Children? Young? Aged? Those that could aid the probability of lifeboat survival (ie- crew)? Family members?
The lifeboat scenario is one near and dear my own heart, as I was a Merchant Seaman often at sea, and a certified "Lifeboatman".
Now you begin to understand a bit about the nature of "leadership". There are situations in which there are no "good" answers, only "less bad" ones.--------Doesn't this describe most presidential elections? ;-)
I've also seen the puzzle posed as follows. Imagine you were on an overpass with the same vagrant and you could force the train to stop if you pushed him over. Would you? Now, I would "jump" (achieving the same result).------I think I would jump, too.The one that gets me is the mother holding her newborn, hiding from rebel forces. Her baby starts to cry, putting her and the rest of the villiage at risk. Does she smother her baby to save the people or let the baby cry, risking the lives of everyone.
That's an easy one. The leader of the village grabs the baby and smothers it...The purpose of government is to do the evil...so that the people can be "good". Else power wouldn't be "as corrupting" as it is.Here's a Russian military question. You control an artillery battery. Three units call you for "fire support". One is taking heavy casualties, another has fought to a standstill, and a third is advancing. To support which unit do you direct your artillery fire? Answer - The "advancing" one, of course (although in the US you'd likely get a different answer).
...There have been many such grey zones, historically.
The Nazis were experts at highlighting the grey zones.I can see why the Russian answer would be to lend support to the advancing troops. The US answer would be to support the troups with heavy casualties, I'm guessing.
On grey zones... Isaiah Berlin letter to George Kennan:Why does this deception, which may in fact have diminished the anguish of the victims, arouse a really utterable kind of horror in us?... Surely because we cannot bear the thought of human beings denied their last rights - of knowing the truth, of acting with at least the freedom of the condemned, of being able to face their destruction with fear or courage, according to their temperments, but at least as human beings, armed with the power of choice.
...and it is allowing others to exercise this "power of choice" that makes questions of Western morality so seemingly puzzling... ;)
For not all choices are "informed" choices (my great objection to "progressivism").