First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next  Last
Heinz Dilemma
38425 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Hughesville, Penn...
Offline
Posted 3/11/13

Syndicaidramon wrote:

Oh, and you don't? Where did this "he needs money for himself and his family or they might die" scenario come from, then? TOTALLY an unfounded assumption. Stop being such a hypocrite.

From what we know, there is NOTHING that indicates that the pharmacist is in dire need of money. Both because it's not presented neither in the telling of the story, nor in the words of the pharmacist himself.
Thus, the most logical conclution is that he is NOT in dire need of money, which then justifies the theft of the medicine, as it would save the wife's life.


And I never said that this particular situation was true, so stop putting words in my mouth. Please don't assume that your assumptions are true in evaluating the situation, because they could end up being wrong, so there is no point in even having them to begin with. There is nothing logical about inserting your own fabrications into the narrative, it only shows your incompetence in understanding ethics.
10114 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
46 / M / Oklahoma
Offline
Posted 3/11/13
The pharmacist is an idiot.... If the wife dies he doesnt make any money from it.... Little money or money over time is alot better then no money at all.... The pharmacist is a moron.
3910 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 3/12/13

lordseth23 wrote:


Syndicaidramon wrote:

Oh, and you don't? Where did this "he needs money for himself and his family or they might die" scenario come from, then? TOTALLY an unfounded assumption. Stop being such a hypocrite.

From what we know, there is NOTHING that indicates that the pharmacist is in dire need of money. Both because it's not presented neither in the telling of the story, nor in the words of the pharmacist himself.
Thus, the most logical conclution is that he is NOT in dire need of money, which then justifies the theft of the medicine, as it would save the wife's life.


And I never said that this particular situation was true, so stop putting words in my mouth. Please don't assume that your assumptions are true in evaluating the situation, because they could end up being wrong, so there is no point in even having them to begin with. There is nothing logical about inserting your own fabrications into the narrative, it only shows your incompetence in understanding ethics.


If you were not suggesting it as a situation that was true, then you were just wasting time.
What you fail to understand is that drastic situations requires drastic measures, which is why evaluations are indeed needed.
Yes, they could be wrong, but they could also NOT be wrong. And what then? He would have wasted the opportunity to save his wife's life. Even though all indications points toward the pharmacist not being in dire need.

Sometimes, you just have to take chances based on your own best judgement. That's life. There is no escaping it.
38425 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Hughesville, Penn...
Offline
Posted 3/12/13

Syndicaidramon wrote:


If you were not suggesting it as a situation that was true, then you were just wasting time.
What you fail to understand is that drastic situations requires drastic measures, which is why evaluations are indeed needed.
Yes, they could be wrong, but they could also NOT be wrong. And what then? He would have wasted the opportunity to save his wife's life. Even though all indications points toward the pharmacist not being in dire need.

Sometimes, you just have to take chances based on your own best judgement. That's life. There is no escaping it.


So why should you waste time by thinking up fabrications for the narrative?

Your evaluation depends solely on your fabrications, making it flawed and unnecessary. You shouldn't be willing to use a person as a means to an end, regardless of the circumstance.
3910 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 3/12/13

lordseth23 wrote:


Syndicaidramon wrote:


If you were not suggesting it as a situation that was true, then you were just wasting time.
What you fail to understand is that drastic situations requires drastic measures, which is why evaluations are indeed needed.
Yes, they could be wrong, but they could also NOT be wrong. And what then? He would have wasted the opportunity to save his wife's life. Even though all indications points toward the pharmacist not being in dire need.

Sometimes, you just have to take chances based on your own best judgement. That's life. There is no escaping it.


So why should you waste time by thinking up fabrications for the narrative?

Your evaluation depends solely on your fabrications, making it flawed and unnecessary. You shouldn't be willing to use a person as a means to an end, regardless of the circumstance.


YOU are the one thinking up fabrications for the narrative by suggesting scenarios that have no root in what we observe from the story as it's being told. Stop being such a hypocrite.

And let me ask you something: Do you actually have any life-experience? Do you ever get out and actually LIVE outside your house?
38425 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Hughesville, Penn...
Offline
Posted 3/12/13

Syndicaidramon wrote:

YOU are the one thinking up fabrications for the narrative by suggesting scenarios that have no root in what we observe from the story as it's being told. Stop being such a hypocrite.

And let me ask you something: Do you actually have any life-experience? Do you ever get out and actually LIVE outside your house?


And I never said they were true, so I am not subjected to the same fallacy that you are. Please don't assume that your fabrications are true.

What life experience are you referring to? I do live outside my house on a regular basis, so what is your point?
kvi 
60725 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / Planet Mars
Offline
Posted 3/12/13
Syn, he's either baiting or stuck in his own world. You're not going to get any serious debate with him.
3910 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 3/12/13

lordseth23 wrote:


Syndicaidramon wrote:

YOU are the one thinking up fabrications for the narrative by suggesting scenarios that have no root in what we observe from the story as it's being told. Stop being such a hypocrite.

And let me ask you something: Do you actually have any life-experience? Do you ever get out and actually LIVE outside your house?


And I never said they were true, so I am not subjected to the same fallacy that you are. Please don't assume that your fabrications are true.

What life experience are you referring to? I do live outside my house on a regular basis, so what is your point?


I didn't say they were certainly true. It is however the most likely scenario based on what we know, unlike the scenarios you came up with, which had no basis what so ever, and were pretty much contrary to what we heard in the story.
Not to mention that you try using that scenario as a counter-argument. So yes, you ARE guilty of the same fallacy. If you weren't, you wouldn't be using it as an argument. Because it's nothing but pure speculation based on absolutely nothing.

What I wonder is if you actually have any real life experience. Do you leave your house except for going to the store, going to your friend's house and staying inside there or any such thing?
Do you actually do things, meet people, and have experienced the kind of life most people have?
38425 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Hughesville, Penn...
Offline
Posted 3/12/13

Syndicaidramon wrote:

I didn't say they were certainly true. It is however the most likely scenario based on what we know, unlike the scenarios you came up with, which had no basis what so ever, and were pretty much contrary to what we heard in the story.
Not to mention that you try using that scenario as a counter-argument. So yes, you ARE guilty of the same fallacy. If you weren't, you wouldn't be using it as an argument. Because it's nothing but pure speculation based on absolutely nothing.

What I wonder is if you actually have any real life experience. Do you leave your house except for going to the store, going to your friend's house and staying inside there or any such thing?
Do you actually do things, meet people, and have experienced the kind of life most people have?


So why would you punish the pharmacist if none of the assumptions that you made about him are true?

What things are you referring to? What do most people experience that I should know about?
3910 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 3/12/13 , edited 3/12/13

lordseth23 wrote:


Syndicaidramon wrote:

I didn't say they were certainly true. It is however the most likely scenario based on what we know, unlike the scenarios you came up with, which had no basis what so ever, and were pretty much contrary to what we heard in the story.
Not to mention that you try using that scenario as a counter-argument. So yes, you ARE guilty of the same fallacy. If you weren't, you wouldn't be using it as an argument. Because it's nothing but pure speculation based on absolutely nothing.

What I wonder is if you actually have any real life experience. Do you leave your house except for going to the store, going to your friend's house and staying inside there or any such thing?
Do you actually do things, meet people, and have experienced the kind of life most people have?


So why would you punish the pharmacist if none of the assumptions that you made about him are true?

What things are you referring to? What do most people experience that I should know about?


I would because the likelyhood of any of the scenarios you put forward are not very likely. In fact, they are UNLIKELY, taken into account the information we have. And even IF it was, which is doubtful, SOMEONE is getting screwed over regardless.

Thus, it is better to take that chance and at least save your wife. Because then you know for certain that at least someone is saved. Unlike the scenario where you DIDN'T take that chance and it turns out that the pharmacist weren't in such a situation. Thus, you wasted the chance to save your wife over some stupid black/white moral absolutism that doesn't apply in the real world.

One does not take the chance of someone dying simply because the other MIGHT (with no reason to believe so, mind you) be in a bad situation. Not when a human life is on the line.



And there are lots of things that I mean by real life experiences.
The experience of suffering severe injury. The experience of sex. The experience of being intoxicated. The experience of being at parties and socializing with others. The experience of love. The experience of traveling to new places and having to deal with other people. People that you don't know. The experience of encountering serious and severe moral dilemmas, etc.
38425 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Hughesville, Penn...
Offline
Posted 3/12/13

Syndicaidramon wrote:

I would because the likelyhood of any of the scenarios you put forward are not very likely. In fact, they are UNLIKELY, taken into account the information we have. And even IF it was, which is doubtful, SOMEONE is getting screwed over regardless.

Thus, it is better to take that chance and at least save your wife. Because then you know for certain that at least someone is saved. Unlike the scenario where you DIDN'T take that chance and it turns out that the pharmacist weren't in such a situation. Thus, you wasted the chance to save your wife over some stupid black/white moral absolutism that doesn't apply in the real world.

One does not take the chance of someone dying simply because the other MIGHT (with no reason to believe so, mind you) be in a bad situation. Not when a human life is on the line.



And there are lots of things that I mean by real life experiences.
The experience of suffering severe injury. The experience of sex. The experience of being intoxicated. The experience of being at parties and socializing with others. The experience of love. The experience of traveling to new places and having to deal with other people. People that you don't know. The experience of encountering serious and severe moral dilemmas, etc.


So why should you save the wife instead of another person?


What does any of those experiences have to do with this situation? Please explain yourself.
3910 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 3/12/13 , edited 3/12/13

lordseth23 wrote:


Syndicaidramon wrote:

I would because the likelyhood of any of the scenarios you put forward are not very likely. In fact, they are UNLIKELY, taken into account the information we have. And even IF it was, which is doubtful, SOMEONE is getting screwed over regardless.

Thus, it is better to take that chance and at least save your wife. Because then you know for certain that at least someone is saved. Unlike the scenario where you DIDN'T take that chance and it turns out that the pharmacist weren't in such a situation. Thus, you wasted the chance to save your wife over some stupid black/white moral absolutism that doesn't apply in the real world.

One does not take the chance of someone dying simply because the other MIGHT (with no reason to believe so, mind you) be in a bad situation. Not when a human life is on the line.



And there are lots of things that I mean by real life experiences.
The experience of suffering severe injury. The experience of sex. The experience of being intoxicated. The experience of being at parties and socializing with others. The experience of love. The experience of traveling to new places and having to deal with other people. People that you don't know. The experience of encountering serious and severe moral dilemmas, etc.


So why should you save the wife instead of another person?


What does any of those experiences have to do with this situation? Please explain yourself.


Because we have no reason to believe that there is another person in dire need.
If another person's life (or your own for that matter), you don't operate from the assumption that mere possibility that the other party is in a dire situation is actually true. You operate from what is the most likely from what you know. In this case being that the other person is NOT in dire need.
You do not take the chance of letting your wife die simply because you have an unfounded idea of a scenario that most likely isn't true.


As for those experiences... well they aren't related to this situation specificly. They ARE however relevant to one's psyche, as one's life experience has an impact on a person's way of thinking, one's wisdom, and degree of perspective on various different issues.
And thus, I am interested in knowing if you actually have any, and how your answer corresponds with your way of thinking that I have witnessed so far on this site.
38425 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Hughesville, Penn...
Offline
Posted 3/13/13

Syndicaidramon wrote:


Because we have no reason to believe that there is another person in dire need.
If another person's life (or your own for that matter), you don't operate from the assumption that mere possibility that the other party is in a dire situation is actually true. You operate from what is the most likely from what you know. In this case being that the other person is NOT in dire need.
You do not take the chance of letting your wife die simply because you have an unfounded idea of a scenario that most likely isn't true.


So why would you even make those assumptions in the first place if they could be wrong?
3910 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 3/13/13 , edited 3/13/13

lordseth23 wrote:


Syndicaidramon wrote:


Because we have no reason to believe that there is another person in dire need.
If another person's life (or your own for that matter), you don't operate from the assumption that mere possibility that the other party is in a dire situation is actually true. You operate from what is the most likely from what you know. In this case being that the other person is NOT in dire need.
You do not take the chance of letting your wife die simply because you have an unfounded idea of a scenario that most likely isn't true.


So why would you even make those assumptions in the first place if they could be wrong?


Because the likelyhood of the pharmacist being in trouble is less likely than him being in trouble.
You go by what you know and assess the situation based on that, and then act accordingly.
Not doing so is equal to sentencing your wife to certain death.

Seriously, why do I have to explain this to you?
Have you EVER been faced with an actual dilemma? In real life?
Life is full of uncertainty. And one has to deal with that to the best of one's ability.
38425 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Hughesville, Penn...
Offline
Posted 3/13/13

Syndicaidramon wrote:

Because the likelyhood of the pharmacist being in trouble is less likely than him being in trouble.
You go by what you know and assess the situation based on that, and then act accordingly.
Not doing so is equal to sentencing your wife to certain death.


But the fact of the matter is that you don't know enough about the pharmacist in order to completely disregard the need to compensate him. You should never even think of acting against someone until you fully understand the reasoning behind their actions. Since there is not enough information provided to completely understand the reason for the pharmacist's action, you should give him the benefit of the doubt and place your trust in him.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.