Current Events > Morality: Is it ok to do something terrible to someone if it's to help them?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Hypothetical only, but say someone was in serious danger and the only way you can help them is to put them thru some hardcore bullshit. Is it better to do nothing and let them suffer the consequences or step in and do something terrible to help?

Similar vein but different. Is it ok to do something terrible (but survivable) to someone else to save someone you love? Not like someone is threatening them, like a completely unrelated bystander. Like if the choice is between someone you don't know going blind or saving someone you love's life? What if it's 100 people going blind?

Discuss
---

If the motives are altruistic, and no laws are broken, I think so. The ends will justify the means.
---

This is far too vague. Context is everything.
---

To me, morality is case by case.

People state it should be consistent all the time but that seems to rarely be the case when you get down to the initate darkness within us all.

That's not to mention the difference in perspective which skews things all the time. People will go to extraordinary length to justify, and in some cases, rationalize the situation as something completely different.

As for the questions:
1) I think it depends on the persons character in question. If they truly prefer to be content with whatever terrible misfortune they're experiencing you have to let them, denying that choice in-itself would be wrong. If they're just in a funk or can't see beyond the horizon so to speak I think it's justified to put them through hell and help them grow.

2) I can't answer that in all honesty without it occuring. I'll tell you I think it's wrong, you shouldn't deprive another of life (to some, vision is life). I will say if I had to make the choice in the moment with someone I'd give my life for I'd probably make the call to save them. I think most would.
---

I'm keeping it vague because I want a discussion about morality concepts. When you assign specifics to it, people quick just turn it into a judgement call and bail rather than actually talking about anything
---

if say someone caused me to get injured to save say their child, I wouldn't hold a grudge against them. not to say I would be happy with it, but as i've told people before its possible to simply be mad at the situation and not the people involved.

as for the first point. I think its one thing to attempt to help a person even if it means putting them through something hard but if they make it very clear they don't want your help you should back off.
---

fire_bolt posted...

I'm keeping it vague because I want a discussion about morality concepts. When you assign specifics to it, people quick just turn it into a judgement call and bail rather than actually talking about anything

Do you mean formal concepts? Like discussing established philosophies?

Or do you mean spitballing thoughts on mondern day morality?
---

Like, if they were stuck in a bear trap, and you gave them a hacksaw? Unless there was some other immanent danger, then they could just cut through the trap. Awfully convenient you just happened to have a saw just when they accidentally walked in to a trap don't you think?
---

TheCyborgNinja posted...

If the motives are altruistic, and no laws are broken, I think so. The ends will justify the means.

Lol at implying legality has anything to do with morality
---

Very tru e, Ghost. Laws are arbitrary and morality is often a judgement call
---

fire_bolt posted...

I'm keeping it vague because I want a discussion about morality concepts. When you assign specifics to it, people quick just turn it into a judgement call and bail rather than actually talking about anything

The problem with this is there are different situations where the overall conditions apply where the judgement would probably be different. You can't define morality in such broad strokes.
---

Problem is this...

Sometimes you want to help someone but you don't know what they need. So you just end up doing more harm than good.
---

You can't protect by killing.
---

Here, let me provide an example situation to help out:

A man is strapped to an electric chair, and he will receive a fatal dose of electricity in five minutes. The only way this can be avoided is if you press a button that crushes the man's balls.

Is it morally acceptable to crush the man's balls?
---

Is it ok to hurt a child by poking them with a needle in order to vaccinate them?

Is it ok to slash a drunk, belligerent, and unreasonable friends tires in order from keeping them from driving home from a bar?

I don't see a way where a single answer could cover all instances or even where a simple distinct line could be drawn.

Dragonblade01 posted...

Is it morally acceptable to crush the man's balls?

It seems like a cop out but Is it moral to make that decision for him? i't feel as if I shouldn't have that authority over him.

You could argue that saving a human life is the greater moral choice, but what if that mans only desire in life is to bear a child and now he is unable to do so?

What's considered "helpful" can be catastrophically relative.
Contrary to militant attitudes, what's "good for the goose" is not always good for the gander.

People hastily applying generic solutions for a peer's unusual dilemma is not uncommon.
And sometimes what sounds like a run-of-the-mill common case needs to be approached differently due to quirks of the individuals involved.

Lots of people assume they know exactly what a peer needs to fix a life issue. However, they're coming from a secondhand perspective that is not as clear as the peer's. Sometimes observers consider something an issue that the peer themselves don't consider a problem at all. Sometimes that's because it's an issue that's only real in the observer's perspective. When you enact an uncomfortable "solution" on someone for a problem that's not there...you're not being a hero full of wisdom, you're just being an ass full of shit.

When your usual go-to solution for peer problems is tough love, you eventually become a villain yourself because you're willfully overlooking all the large square pegs you keep shoving into small round holes just for the sake of saying you helped. You start making the same mistakes typical of wanton vigilantism. Your methods eventually start scaling to excessive, unapologetic, and reckless. You ignore all the collateral damage you cause. You become a problem to avoid yourself.
---

Good insights, Hare
---

If it helps them, is it terrible?

I mean surgeons cut people's bodies open with a giant knife all the time.
---

ClockworkHare posted...

What's considered "helpful" can be catastrophically relative.
Contrary to militant attitudes, what's "good for the goose" is not always good for the gander.

People hastily applying generic solutions for a peer's unusual dilemma is not uncommon.
And sometimes what sounds like a run-of-the-mill common case needs to be approached differently due to quirks of the individuals involved.

Lots of people assume they know exactly what a peer needs to fix a life issue. However, they're coming from a secondhand perspective that is not as clear as the peer's. Sometimes observers consider something an issue that the peer themselves don't consider a problem at all. Sometimes that's because it's an issue that's only real in the observer's perspective. When you enact an uncomfortable "solution" on someone for a problem that's not there...you're not being a hero full of wisdom, you're just being an ass full of shit.

When your usual go-to solution for peer problems is tough love, you eventually become a villain yourself because you're willfully overlooking all the large square pegs you keep shoving into small round holes just for the sake of saying you helped. You start making the same mistakes typical of wanton vigilantism. Your methods eventually start scaling to excessive, unapologetic, and reckless. You ignore all the collateral damage you cause. You become a problem to avoid yourself.

thats why I said its one thing to try and help a person, but once they make it clear they don't want it, you should back off.
---

Bump
---