Ethical Dilemma (Dostoyevsky)

2008-05-28 06:30:39

#1

Fosterthelegend: :); +97|6641|Kent, UK

"Imagine that you are creating a fabric of human destiny with the object of making men happy in the end, giving them peace and rest at last, but that it was essential and inevitable to tortue to death only one tiny creature - that baby beating its breast with its fist, for instance - and to found that edifice on its unavenged tears, would you consent to be the architect on those conditions? Tell me, and tell the truth."

Dostoyevsky, F. The Brothers Karamazov, Ch.4

Would you do it?

2008-05-28 06:35:24

#2

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,810|6132|eXtreme to the maX

No.
One persons happiness should not justify another's misery.
Rest is pointless, struggle is what makes us.

Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!

2008-05-28 06:41:19

#3

Fosterthelegend: :); +97|6641|Kent, UK

Dilbert_X wrote:
No.
One persons happiness should not justify another's misery.

What about billions of people's happiness?

2008-05-28 06:59:48

#4

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,810|6132|eXtreme to the maX

What if the baby is you?

Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!

2008-05-28 07:19:52

#5

Hakei: Banned; +295|6021

No, because if every man was forever 'happy', then being at the peak of happiness would be normal, correct? You wouldn't know anything else - you wouldn't understand that you can be unhappy, and everything would just be normal without the bonus of being able to be 'at the top', because you're already there.

Last edited by Hakei (2008-05-28 07:20:11)

2008-05-28 08:05:11

#6

SenorToenails: Veritas et Scientia; +444|6156|North Tonawanda, NY

No.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

2008-05-28 08:42:32

#7

Fosterthelegend: :); +97|6641|Kent, UK

Hakei wrote:
No, because if every man was forever 'happy', then being at the peak of happiness would be normal, correct? You wouldn't know anything else - you wouldn't understand that you can be unhappy, and everything would just be normal without the bonus of being able to be 'at the top', because you're already there.

So from this are you saying that you would prefer a world where people are constantly in pain; experience pain and unhappiness so greta that they wish they were dead. You would prefer a world where Hitler killed millions of Jews, to one where everyone is happy?

2008-05-28 08:45:33

#8

SenorToenails: Veritas et Scientia; +444|6156|North Tonawanda, NY

Fosterthelegend wrote:
Hakei wrote:
No, because if every man was forever 'happy', then being at the peak of happiness would be normal, correct? You wouldn't know anything else - you wouldn't understand that you can be unhappy, and everything would just be normal without the bonus of being able to be 'at the top', because you're already there.
So from this are you saying that you would prefer a world where people are constantly in pain; experience pain and unhappiness so greta that they wish they were dead. You would prefer a world where Hitler killed millions of Jews, to one where everyone is happy?

I think what he is saying is that the happiness scale is relative. How can you be truly happy if you never experienced anything negative?

2008-05-28 08:47:12

#9

fo0k: Member; +14|6773|London, England

A world where everyone is happy... Seriously., it sounds like a permanent existence in The Flanders Household.

We must have sadness to appreciate happiness.. evil to appreciate good.. hate to appreciate love.. girls with tiny boobs to appreciate girls with...

If we were all happy.. how would we know?

Last edited by fo0k (2008-05-28 08:47:48)

www.bfmods.com

2008-05-28 08:56:19

#10

chittydog: less busy; +586|6861|Kubra, Damn it!

Dilbert_X wrote:
What if the baby is you?

If you're a baby, how are you going to torture yourself to death?

2008-05-28 09:00:11

#11

SenorToenails: Veritas et Scientia; +444|6156|North Tonawanda, NY

chittydog wrote:
Dilbert_X wrote:
What if the baby is you?
If you're a baby, how are you going to torture yourself to death?

...

I hope you are kidding.

2008-05-28 09:27:47

#12

Fosterthelegend: :); +97|6641|Kent, UK

fo0k wrote:
A world where everyone is happy... Seriously., it sounds like a permanent existence in The Flanders Household.

We must have sadness to appreciate happiness.. evil to appreciate good.. hate to appreciate love.. girls with tiny boobs to appreciate girls with...

If we were all happy.. how would we know?

I don't know, as I don't think anyone has ever only experienced happiness, however because of that we cannot truly tell what it would be like.

Yes it's a fair flaw with the dilemma. However assuming that sadness was not needed to appreciate happiness and that we all understood the value of eternal peace and happiness....

would you?

2008-05-28 09:31:07

#13

jord: Member; +2,382|6704|The North, beyond the wall.

SenorToenails wrote:
Fosterthelegend wrote:
Hakei wrote:
No, because if every man was forever 'happy', then being at the peak of happiness would be normal, correct? You wouldn't know anything else - you wouldn't understand that you can be unhappy, and everything would just be normal without the bonus of being able to be 'at the top', because you're already there.
So from this are you saying that you would prefer a world where people are constantly in pain; experience pain and unhappiness so greta that they wish they were dead. You would prefer a world where Hitler killed millions of Jews, to one where everyone is happy?
I think what he is saying is that the happiness scale is relative. How can you be truly happy if you never experienced anything negative?

Well It would work for this current generation as we've all experianced unhappiness.

2008-05-28 09:46:04

#14

Mekstizzle: WALKER; +3,611|6647|London, England

kill everyone

2008-05-28 10:30:40

#15

SenorToenails: Veritas et Scientia; +444|6156|North Tonawanda, NY

jord wrote:
Well It would work for this current generation as we've all experianced unhappiness.

Could you live with yourself if you tortured a child to obtain happiness for everyone else? I know for certain that I would not be happy.

2008-05-28 12:02:33

#16

jord: Member; +2,382|6704|The North, beyond the wall.

SenorToenails wrote:
jord wrote:
Well It would work for this current generation as we've all experianced unhappiness.
Could you live with yourself if you tortured a child to obtain happiness for everyone else? I know for certain that I would not be happy.

Maybe I couldn't live with myself and I'd end my own life. People have sacrificed their life over less.

2008-05-28 13:37:50

#17

RoosterCantrell: Goodbye :); +399|6506|Somewhere else

Dilbert_X wrote:
No.
One persons happiness should not justify another's misery.
Rest is pointless, struggle is what makes us.

Well said. I further say that peace and rest are unnatural and unsuitable for human beings. As much as humans long for happiness and peace, I think it is also true that the human race cannot function as it is without strife or struggle. It's what humans are, unless the race as whole were to evolve. Maybe IF evolution of the human psyche is part of this question, then it seems to be more of a realistic question, of sorts.

Further, Unless the human race could somehow all come to the same consensus on what the definition of "making men happy in the end, giving them peace and rest" then it is impossible anyway.

But I guess all that is not the point of the question asked.

Tough question.

2008-05-28 13:49:12

#18

Masques: Black Panzer Party; +184|6748|Eastern PA

Fuck yeah...but only if you can eat the baby when you're done!

2008-05-28 15:50:51

#19

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6431|North Carolina

Masques wrote:
Fuck yeah...but only if you can eat the baby when you're done!

I want my baby back baby back riiiiibs....

2008-05-28 17:17:16

#20

Ratzinger: Member; +43|6418|Wollongong, NSW, Australia

Who cares? This tragic species only has another century or two and then we'll be as forgotten as the first amoeba....

2008-05-28 17:22:47

#21

Mutantbear: Semi Constructive Criticism; +1,431|5991|London, England

This sounds like something I read once by Socrates called The Cave (I believe) and how not knowing anything besides the inside of a cave refocuses your reality to just that cave and even though it is torture it becomes your life regardless.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

2008-05-28 17:26:30

#22

Flaming_Maniac: prince of insufficient light; +2,490|6733|67.222.138.85

Yes

The sacrifice of a few for the good of the many.

I challenge any one of you hypocrites to justify our armed forces that I'm sure you support so much.

edit: also, jesus

2008-05-28 21:52:15

#23

SenorToenails: Veritas et Scientia; +444|6156|North Tonawanda, NY

Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Yes

The sacrifice of a few for the good of the many.

I challenge any one of you hypocrites to justify our armed forces that I'm sure you support so much.

edit: also, jesus

Armed forces do not torture babies to obtain peace and happiness.

But where does 'sacrifice of a few' break down? Would you accept someone else choosing you as one of those 'lucky' few?

2008-05-28 22:30:49

#24

Smithereener: Member; +138|6342|California

In my mind, yes. Like Flaming said, it's for the greater good. I'd like to think that if I were to be the one selected, I would go willingly to be tortured if that meant that everyone else would become happy (WWJD?!).

But in reality, I know that I would probably never be able to accept being the sacrifice, nor is it in my personality to inflict pain on another human. It would be extremely difficult to accept any of those circumstances. Plus, being a guy that gets guilty easily (perhaps trying to hard to be empathetic/sympathetic), I wouldn't be able to live properly after having something despicable. I suppose this is my more selfish nature.

2008-05-28 22:43:10

#25

ZombieVampire!: The Gecko; +69|5853

SenorToenails wrote:
Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Yes

The sacrifice of a few for the good of the many.

I challenge any one of you hypocrites to justify our armed forces that I'm sure you support so much.

edit: also, jesus
Armed forces do not torture babies to obtain peace and happiness.

But where does 'sacrifice of a few' break down? Would you accept someone else choosing you as one of those 'lucky' few?

The fact that he wouldn't volunteer doesn't necessarily make it wrong.

BF2S Forums Ethical Dilemma (Dostoyevsky)

Dilbert_X wrote:

Hakei wrote:

Fosterthelegend wrote:

Hakei wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

chittydog wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

fo0k wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:

Fosterthelegend wrote:

Hakei wrote:

jord wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:

jord wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Masques wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Board footer