Hello and welcome to our community! Is this your first visit?
Register
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17
  1. #1
    Senior Member Dildo Babies's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Neptune.
    Posts
    428

    Is there a difference between bringing something on yourself

    and deserving it? Recently, during an argument this was what my opinion was at the time, but now I'm unsure on the matter, if somebody does something bad and something bad happens to them, does it mean they deserved it? Or was it just brought upon themselves. DISCUSS.


    Click for my thread.^

  2. #2
    Veteran Enthusiast


    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Perth, WA
    Posts
    6,385

    Re: Is there a difference between bringing something on your

    I love the thought of karma. That if you act inappropriately, then something bad will happen to you. Just like if you act in a kind and caring manner, people will treat you in the same way.
    My problem is I love being the one to deal out the negative karma and then get effected by negative karma.

    So basically, if the action they committed is in equality of malice and evil or whatever with the action that is dealt upon them, then it is completely deserved.

  3. #3
    Senior Member Dildo Babies's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Neptune.
    Posts
    428

    Re: Is there a difference between bringing something on your

    Quote Originally Posted by Blot
    I love the thought of karma. That if you act inappropriately, then something bad will happen to you. Just like if you act in a kind and caring manner, people will treat you in the same way.
    My problem is I love being the one to deal out the negative karma and then get effected by negative karma.

    So basically, if the action they committed is in equality of malice and evil or whatever with the action that is dealt upon them, then it is completely deserved.
    Well, that's what I was unsure about, because the question that pops up is "Who are we to decide if bad things happen to people or not? Shouldn't it bet left to the law, or let time do damage itself rather than interfering?"


    Click for my thread.^

  4. #4
    Veteran Enthusiast


    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Perth, WA
    Posts
    6,385

    Re: Is there a difference between bringing something on your

    Law is law, that will sort itself out. Occasionally I do feel like I have to take it into my own hands. I had a conversation with Krust a few days ago. A mate of mine died, and someone posted on facebook disrespecting him. His address got leaked, and me and my mates were ready to go and mob the fuck out of this guy. We didn't but we were so close to. If we did this, then the cycle wouldn't end. They did something bad, so we do something bad to get back at them for their bad action, and then we will have something bad happen to us.

  5. #5
    lucien is queen Hazzystan's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    2,977

    Re: Is there a difference between bringing something on your

    Can I rephrase your question as: Do people always deserve the consequences of their actions?

    I seriously thought about this at first after having a discussion with someone about Russian roulette. If someone is playing Russian roulette and they end up shooting themselves in the head out of bad luck, did they deserve to die? Most people seem to think yes: if you do something to yourself and you're fully aware of what the consequences may be, you deserve whatever consequences you get.

    However, I think there's a problem with that reasoning. Say someone plays Russian roulette and this time they're lucky: the bullet was in a different chamber and they survived. They had the exact same motive, they performed the exact same action but in this case they were lucky. Since the motive was the same, and since luck shouldn't have anything to do with morality, does this person still deserve to die? By that logic it would be okay for someone else to pick up a gun and shoot him in the head afterwards.

    It's my opinion that just because something is your fault, it doesn't mean that you deserve the severity of the consequences. People seem to pair those two together like one directly correlates from the other.
    what is homo love?

  6. #6
    Veteran Enthusiast


    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Perth, WA
    Posts
    6,385

    Re: Is there a difference between bringing something on your

    Whoa. That really made me think Hazzy. Thanks for sharing that.

  7. #7
    Enthusiast

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    1,240

    Re: Is there a difference between bringing something on your

    Quote Originally Posted by Hazzystan
    Can I rephrase your question as: Do people always deserve the consequences of their actions?

    I think there's a problem with that reasoning. Say someone plays Russian roulette and this time they're lucky: the bullet was in a different chamber and they survived. They had the exact same motive, they performed the exact same action but in this case they were lucky. Since the motive was the same, and since luck shouldn't have anything to do with morality, does this person still deserve to die? By that logic it would be okay for someone else to pick up a gun and shoot him in the head afterwards.
    Little bit of circular logic there.
    The guy deserves to live, he also deserves to die. That's the essence of chance.


    You asked,
    They shoot themselves, did they deserve to die? yes

    You didn't ask,
    They survive, did they deserve to live? yes

    While many may answer ambiguously, if your aim is true fairness/Karma, then the answer will be yes.

  8. #8
    Neo
    Neo is offline
    Enthusiast Neo's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    England
    Posts
    2,377

    Re: Is there a difference between bringing something on your

    Quote Originally Posted by Hazzystan
    Can I rephrase your question as: Do people always deserve the consequences of their actions?

    I seriously thought about this at first after having a discussion with someone about Russian roulette. If someone is playing Russian roulette and they end up shooting themselves in the head out of bad luck, did they deserve to die? Most people seem to think yes: if you do something to yourself and you're fully aware of what the consequences may be, you deserve whatever consequences you get.

    However, I think there's a problem with that reasoning. Say someone plays Russian roulette and this time they're lucky: the bullet was in a different chamber and they survived. They had the exact same motive, they performed the exact same action but in this case they were lucky. Since the motive was the same, and since luck shouldn't have anything to do with morality, does this person still deserve to die? By that logic it would be okay for someone else to pick up a gun and shoot him in the head afterwards.

    It's my opinion that just because something is your fault, it doesn't mean that you deserve the severity of the consequences. People seem to pair those two together like one directly correlates from the other.
    that's quite an interesting point of view, never looked at it that way ...

    |Pivot|YouTube|Easytoon|Flash|Animation Blog|Want some CC?

    Ranks
    Spoiler:
    Intermediate: 11th November 2012

  9. #9
    lucien is queen Hazzystan's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    2,977

    Re: Is there a difference between bringing something on your

    Quote Originally Posted by MrHobbs
    Quote Originally Posted by Hazzystan
    Can I rephrase your question as: Do people always deserve the consequences of their actions?

    I think there's a problem with that reasoning. Say someone plays Russian roulette and this time they're lucky: the bullet was in a different chamber and they survived. They had the exact same motive, they performed the exact same action but in this case they were lucky. Since the motive was the same, and since luck shouldn't have anything to do with morality, does this person still deserve to die? By that logic it would be okay for someone else to pick up a gun and shoot him in the head afterwards.
    Little bit of circular logic there.
    The guy deserves to live, he also deserves to die. That's the essence of chance.
    I think we have to define our terms here. As far as I know, whether someone deserves something or not is based on whether their actions are right or wrong decided by some moral code. If you believe that chance determines whether someone deserves something, then obviously your moral code is very utilitarian and different to mine. Could you elaborate on why the essence of chance is deserving something and not deserving it at the same time?

    Quote Originally Posted by MrHobbs
    You asked,
    They shoot themselves, did they deserve to die? yes

    You didn't ask,
    They survive, did they deserve to live? yes

    While many may answer ambiguously, if your aim is true fairness/Karma, then the answer will be yes.
    My point is that justice (or, whether someone deserves something) shouldn't depend on pure chance. The actions of someone playing Russian roulette aren't immoral enough in my (or most people's) opinion to be deserving of death. Therefore since the actions and motive aren't deserving of death, and since morality shouldn't depend on chance, and since the actions and motives were exactly the same in both situations, the person playing doesn't deserve death.

    I don't see the circular logic in that, but then again I might be overlooking your point. Could you explain it in some more detail?
    what is homo love?

  10. #10
    Enthusiast

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    1,240

    Re: Is there a difference between bringing something on your

    Quote Originally Posted by Hazzystan
    I think we have to define our terms here. As far as I know, whether someone deserves something or not is based on whether their actions are right or wrong decided by some moral code. If you believe that chance determines whether someone deserves something, then obviously your moral code is very utilitarian and different to mine. Could you elaborate on why the essence of chance is deserving something and not deserving it at the same time?
    I agree with your definition. When you preform the action(partake in a game of chance), you deserve the outcome. However, when you flip a coin you only take one action, the flipping of the coin, but you gain two possible outcomes. When you take a chance, you deserve both outcomes(and neither of the outcomes). Both outcomes are equally valid, and only after the fact can you dictate which one is truly deserved.
    You flip a coin>you get heads>you deserve heads>you didn't deserve tails
    You flip a coin>you get tails>you deserve tails>you didn't deserve heads
    For this matter, I'm defining chance as multiple random outcomes.

    I might have worded that badly. I'm happy to have another go at describing it if you don't get my point.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hazzystan
    My point is that justice (or, whether someone deserves something) shouldn't depend on pure chance. The actions of someone playing Russian roulette aren't immoral enough in my (or most people's) opinion to be deserving of death.
    I think we're getting to the disagreement here. When you cross the road at a crossing, there is a very low(lets hope) risk you'll be hit by a car; lets say 1/9001. If you do get hit, they don't deserve it.
    You put a gun to your head, and there's a 1/6 chance you're going to die. Many would say the outcome is easily foreseeable(therefore deserving), because the chances are so high.

    Ask the bolded quote to people, and I'm sure the majority will disagree with you. (Although many may shy away from the word deserves, "No one deserves to die".)

    Quote Originally Posted by Hazzystan
    Therefore since the actions and motive aren't deserving of death, and since morality shouldn't depend on chance,
    I disagree, his actions are deserving (or at least foreseeable).
    Morality doesn't depend on chance, it depends on the choice to take that chance.
    ^I think that's one of my main points

    Quote Originally Posted by Hazzystan
    and since the actions and motives were exactly the same in both situations,
    True
    Quote Originally Posted by Hazzystan
    the person playing doesn't deserve death.
    False

    Quote Originally Posted by Hazzystan
    I don't see the circular logic in that, but then again I might be overlooking your point. Could you explain it in some more detail?
    You're basing your argument (see use of "therefore" three quotes above) to a fact which is incorrect(I don't agree with).

    Edit: I like you Stan, and I like a good debate. Hope I don't come off too badly.


 
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •