Hypothetical Situation

[dairygirl4u2c]

most of my arguments essentially boil down to:

if you assume that the ends to not justify the mean, and that self defense is okay, then it would seem that there's nothing that would separate killing from lying, or whatever. in this case, rigggin the election against murderers.

or, again if you assume the ends do not justify, why isn't killing in self defense considered justifying the means? or, why isn't it said simply to be an exception to teh rule?

either as an exception to the general rule or part of it, it don't see the distinction.

killing innocent people, i could see being argued as not fitting as per an exception or the rule itself, but most of the stuff we're talking about isn't the same game as killing an innocent.

[kafka]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1760571' date='Jan 24 2009, 09:18 PM']i agree specifics are needed to really talk effectively.

what i gathered from your theories though, is that it's okay to kill in self defense, but it's not okay to engage in fraud or deception etc, in self defense. and you didn't really say why other than to assume that the one is okay but the other isn't. ie, why self defense killing isn't justifying the means, etc. 'hitler says he's going to kill someone. he hasn't killed them yet, but has killed before, and it's not an emergency situation in the sense of an imminent danger. you have a gun. he's surrounded by soliders so you can't capture him. hyou know that even if not imminent, he's going to kill lots of people. do you shoot him? assume that in your calculation, shooting him would cause some chaos, but surely be effective given how pivital hitler was as a leader" why is it wrong to shoot him, but not lie to him, or deceive him (or, i'd argue, torture) etc?[/quote]
no. Did you see my other post? Murder and killing one in self defense or in a just war are two substantially different moral acts.

I truly DISRESPECT you dairygirl. For in the posts, I've seen you post in (in the past couple of days), it is clear to me, that you really do care for truth. You do not care for dialogue. You admit yourself, you are a fallen away Catholic. No one is fallen away is they stop sincerely seeking Truth.

Yes, I would even go as far as saying you seek (in spite of yourself) to undermine truth. That is how I see you, and I dont think I've ever explicitly, said that about anyone here.

[dairygirl4u2c]

self defense killing is in fact doing something proactively against someone even, whereas rigging the election is merely preventing them, and no one's dying.

it seems like what's socially acceptable to the religious traditions is even worse than what's being asked in this thread. yet, there's no principled reasons being involved here per distinctions.

it's so random, in fact, that if anyone is being relativistic, it's the folks arguing that rigging the election is wrong.

Edited January 25, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[kafka]

[quote name='kafka' post='1760599' date='Jan 24 2009, 09:33 PM']no. Did you see my other post? Murder and killing one in self defense or in a just war are two substantially different moral acts.

I truly DISRESPECT you dairygirl. For in the posts, I've seen you post in (in the past couple of days), it is clear to me, that you really do care for truth. You do not care for dialogue. You admit yourself, you are a fallen away Catholic. No one is fallen away is they stop sincerely seeking Truth.

Yes, I would even go as far as saying you seek (in spite of yourself) to undermine truth. That is how I see you, and I dont think I've ever explicitly, said that about anyone here.[/quote]

[dairygirl4u2c]

we might be talking past each other.
when i say 'deceive in self defense', i'm saying doing what you said here:

[quote]Nihil Obstat laid out his hypothetical in very general terms so it is difficult to speak in particulars. If the agent would change the existing votes e.g. tamper with them or rig them namely change them in a secret way to change the outcome of an election, it would still be falsification, fraud, corruption, etc. The overall act in and of itself no matter what the intentions or consequences are would still immoral.[/quote]

i am not referring to deceiving etc in response to open political warfare.

the above is the context of my last three or so posts

[Winchester]

Voting isn't sacred.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i don't disrespect you, but i think your positions here are disgraceful.
yes, i do undermine truth often despite myself and all that stuff that you say. you have very valid observations.
i have a tendency of confusing and doing all that stuff you say, but i think you and most here have a tendency of not thinking out of the box, or wanting to be inconvenienced by the truth, or valid counter points. it messes up the system they've built up, etc.

Edited January 25, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]no. Did you see my other post? Murder and killing one in self defense or in a just war are two substantially different moral acts.[/quote]

i didn't say anything recently, in the posts you've just responded to, about 'murder' v. killing. i've been conscientious to differentiate and to say kill. so your bring this up is misuided, i don't see the point, anyway.
there's more i could say on this distinction, but i'd think it'd confuse the issue.
the above few posts need addressed.
i think you need to go back and reread the recent posts, cause i don't think you read them very close. that you rbought this quoted material here up indicates that you didn't.

Edited January 25, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]'hitler says he's going to kill someone. he hasn't killed them yet, but has killed before, and it's not an emergency situation in the sense of an imminent danger. you have a gun. he's surrounded by soliders so you can't capture him. hyou know that even if not imminent, he's going to kill lots of people. do you shoot him? assume that in your calculation, shooting him would cause some chaos, but surely be effective given how pivital hitler was as a leader" why is it wrong to shoot him, but not lie to him, or deceive him (or, i'd argue, torture, or at least borderline enhanced methods) etc?[/quote]

i mean, i hope this isn't what you're doing: "you can kill him, cause we've just labeled that as kill, not murder. you can't lie, cause that's a sin by definition. "
if that's what you're doing, then why can't you "not tell the truth" or some other euphemism, to him?
i agree there's a difference between murder and killing, but i don't see the difference between killing him, and merely deceiving him (you don't have to call it lying).

my argument, is essentially at its best what the fellow argued, a few posts ago, about the 'ticking time bomb' stuff. if i'm not making it clear, maybe i could refer to that, if it helps.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i am willing to continue to engage in dialouge here. you said i'm not willing to, but i am.
if i'm missing something or misunderstanding your or whatever, just show me the error or my ways.
otherwise i'd question your willingness to engage in dialouge.

[Monoxide]

It is a slippery slope. We are fallible, so we should go out of our way to not have to make judgment calls on who should live and who should die.

However, regarding the poll in question;

If the rigging was undetectable and forgotten in time with no hopes of being ressurected? I think that might be a tolerable instance, strictly as it is for the 'greater good' so to say.

[Deb]

I am pretty sure I would rig it, pray I didn't get caught and then confess and beg absolution. It might be hard being contrite in that situation though.