RE: Jenseits von Gut und Böse? Teil 3 | Beyond good and evil? pt 3
A lot to think about... Much to analyze.
Asking a mother to abort her child, because it is known what its future will be, would hardly be acceptable, even if it is considered that it will be for the good of a grown-up. Besides, we, human beings, always maintain hopes, and surely that would be what this mother would think, since her unborn child could have a good upbringing base that would guide him on another path, or at least that is what she would think, even though that does not imply who he would relate to in the future and where he would get those ideologies from.
On the other hand, receiving the order, does not imply that you must necessarily comply with it, that is your decision, although I imagine that in that time of war it was very difficult to question compliance, not to say impossible, because they could easily send you to be shot or even to be subjected to the same circumstances, and as everyone who is alive and likes to be alive, wants to stay that way, then the action whether you like it or not, you would hardly refuse to comply; an obligation to quite atrocious if we think about it. Now to give that kind of order because you don't like that kind of person is simply not worthy of God's forgiveness. In any case, everyone would be equally condemned.
As for the airplane incident, I for one, if you saw the opportunity to confront the terrorists, I would try, because in the end, I would still be dead.... Although you have to be on the spot and hope is the last thing you lose.
Thanks for reading my -- and sharing your thoughts!
Here we find the core of ethics, as I would like to say: Which value is higher, my life or my freedom (to act as good as I can)? Am I inclined to give up my life, or would I rather give up my commitment to act good though I would have to live on as part of a murderers' chain? Will I do good only if that does not do too much harm to myself?
Life will always have a higher value, although without freedom it would not be full, but hopes will always be there, they are the last thing to be lost.
In this sense, it is all a matter of self-determination and perspective:
If you do it and participate in genocides: you are bad, if because if.... Someone without own criteria, sad, but that's how it is, there is no justification. Although the consequences, if they come, may take a while.
If you don't: you simply condemn yourself as a traitor, and the consequences will be immediate.
Sometimes you can't choose sides, you are simply on the wrong one, by fate's bad luck.
For believers in God, as I do, we understand that taking a life is a condemnation. Giving it up and taking your own life is also a condemnation. Holding on to life and respecting it is part of the conduct necessary to go from heaven to earth (words of a theologian).
There are circumstances where there is no clear option to choose, if we evaluate the closest consequences.
Leadership has a lot to do there, and there have always been good and bad leaders, this talking about masses, but as individuals we can also decide even if that implies irreversible consequences.
But, as I said before: The one who is alive and wishes to live, would do anything to stay that way in the vast majority of cases.... Not everyone is willing to make sacrifices, something like: "if you see your neighbor's beard burning, soak your own in water".
The questions are quite complex to answer, I don't think there is a precise answer to them, because there is a lot to think about and a lot to analyze.
I for one, if I saw an escape hatch I would try to do the right thing, but if there is nowhere to escape what else could I do but go with the flow. What would you do? Would you give up your life to do the right thing or would you do what at the moment will allow you to go on living? I think in this case it depends on the circumstances and the moment in which we find ourselves.
That is the main problem.
"fate's bad luck" cannot be misused as excuse to apologize my being on the wrong side (if one might speak in this manner). Finding myself on the wrong side has ethically viewed only one consequence: 'change side or dy trying'.
I agree.
That's my post about. ;-)
Thanks for reading and co-thinking. ;-))
So you would try this in your own interest to survive, not with the main intention to do good? And did you take into account that "in the end" you still WILL be dead, even if you would get out of the situation - since immortality is out of our range?
I suppose you are a philosophy student or perhaps a professor???? This given the complexity of the questions.
Airplanes were designed with the purpose of not failing and suffering intentional or unintentional accidents from any cause: the chances of survival are almost nil; it is not the same as a car, a motorcycle, a boat or a horse, so to speak, where the chances are greater. In that sense, why not try to do something, if in the end the most likely result is that you will die. Sometimes it is not only about doing the common good but also about doing what is necessary to survive and, at the same time, the greatest number of people survive. Can you imagine if we were like ants? If so, a few terrorists would not be able to fight against the multitude of people, because even if some would die, others would survive.
So, being like that, it all depends on the perspective: How to do good? If you are not alive or if you cannot guarantee your own survival, and you simply give up by letting yourself be subdued. Death is the only change we have for sure in this life, because for that all we need is to be alive.
The way of thinking can vary in all people my friend, since each head is a world, a universe, and each decision, a myriad of possibilities, and I try to take mine to a 50% probability if possible, although there are never guarantees of anything.