VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, [9], 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 09:31:17 10/28/05 Fri
Author: Celebaelin
Subject: Hard facts
In reply to: manwitch 's message, "Should potential failure be a consideration in one's moral stance?" on 07:46:17 10/28/05 Fri

Morally when the decision is being made by an individual for his or herself then only that individuals decision is of relevance really. The accusation that someone ought to have behaved in such and such a manner is as much an oppression of that individual as any other constaint they might (or might not) elect to oppose.

The opinion that all men aspire to a state of equality, brotherhood and justice is by no means universally held; indeed the 20th century experiment seems to have disproved this in all practical terms. This does not mean that the ideal is not a good one, just that it is not in human nature to behave with such largesse in the majority of cases.

In the broader instance I think that the likelihood of success is of the greatest significance, even if that is tempered by relative advantage to be gained in the event that the long-shot does pay off. It is interesting to me that you quote a politician on an essentially military matter - policy in the long term is one thing, execution of policy in a rational manner in the short term is another. In simple terms he who (fights and) runs away lives to fight another day. If every battle were fought to the last man on a moral imperative wars would be lost which otherwise could and should have been won. This is why wars are composed of a series of battles rather than a single sickening bloodbath leaving, to paraphrase Red Dwarf, a corpse strewn field where each man is free to decompose in the sure and certain knowledge that he died in the cause of freedom.

Most battles are won from a start-point of military superiority, there are very few exceptions to this (and most of those were won by The Duke of Wellington). Gallant rearguard actions are not uncommon but what they do is save lives relatively speaking by sacrificing a smaller number of troops. Few people would actively seek to place themselves in such a position, even those who have confidence that their training or abilities would result in a 'surprise' victory.

I understand and agree with your point about the choice confronting the potentials even before the events of Chosen, I just don't necessarily think that there is a philosophical obligation, it depends on your opinion of your fellow man - or in Spidey's case it depends on whether you are trying to compensate for a previous failing.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.