Nigel Farage

It is an interesting moral test though about the greater good.

If you had the chance to kill Hitler before he founded the Nazi party would you do it?

Would it have been better for Farage not to have survived his plane crash? (Without even moral qualms about your being an agent in securing the greater good.)
If you’re comparing Farage with Hitler then you’re moral compass is up there with the other Geezer who wants him dead.
Perhaps you should throw your question out to the Jewish followers of the Club who could answer that question far better than I could.
The silence from other posters in condemnation of his death wish, speaks volumes for the characters of some who frequent the politics threads.
 
If you’re comparing Farage with Hitler then you’re moral compass is up there with the other Geezer who wants him dead.
Perhaps you should throw your question out to the Jewish followers of the Club who could answer that question far better than I could.
The silence from other posters in condemnation of his death wish, speaks volumes for the characters of some who frequent the politics threads.
I think you miss the point of ethical test cases.

The underlying question is whether it is ever right to harm another person based on what they might do (and maybe with hindsight of knowing what they did do) in order to protect others. Then if you do accept that it may be right to do harm to avoid greater harm, then ask how much harm (to do in order to prevent greater harm). Then if you are merely asking whether it would be better for someone not to be killed but by chance to have died, without anyone harming them.... and so on. I'd expect about 1500 words.
 
I think you miss the point of ethical test cases.

The underlying question is whether it is ever right to harm another person based on what they might do (and maybe with hindsight of knowing what they did do) in order to protect others. Then if you do accept that it may be right to do harm to avoid greater harm, then ask how much harm (to do in order to prevent greater harm). Then if you are merely asking whether it would be better for someone not to be killed but by chance to have died, without anyone harming them.... and so on. I'd expect about 1500 words.
What I don’t get is someone thinking it’s morally OK for someone to be physically harmed because of their beliefs.
Then again I think I must live in a parallel Universe because I don’t let any politician or Party get in to my head , so much so that I wish harm on them.
I often wonder whether the views expressed on here with such vitriol, are just for the cosy club audience or are freely repeated amongst friends and family.
 
I think you miss the point of ethical test cases.

The underlying question is whether it is ever right to harm another person based on what they might do (and maybe with hindsight of knowing what they did do) in order to protect others. Then if you do accept that it may be right to do harm to avoid greater harm, then ask how much harm (to do in order to prevent greater harm). Then if you are merely asking whether it would be better for someone not to be killed but by chance to have died, without anyone harming them.... and so on. I'd expect about 1500 words.
Sorry mate, but you are barking at the moon with this one. As distasteful, shallow and opportunistic as farage is, his death is/was not the answer. The answer lies in making sure the population has a high enough level of education and info to see through him (and Hitler). Without that, the individual death just creates a vacuum for someone else as bad or worse even.
 
What I don’t get is someone thinking it’s morally OK for someone to be physically harmed because of their beliefs.
Then again I think I must live in a parallel Universe because I don’t let any politician or Party get in to my head , so much so that I wish harm on them.
I often wonder whether the views expressed on here with such vitriol, are just for the cosy club audience or are freely repeated amongst friends and family.
There's a moral distinction between wishing someone to have a plane crash and wondering if it were better for someone not to have survived a plane crash.
 
Sorry mate, but you are barking at the moon with this one. As distasteful, shallow and opportunistic as farage is, his death is/was not the answer. The answer lies in making sure the population has a high enough level of education and info to see through him (and Hitler). Without that, the individual death just creates a vacuum for someone else as bad or worse even.
You'd need to include that in your essay as a possible consequence of a supposedly "greater good" choice.

As my ethics tutor would say, just because you find something distasteful it doesn't make it immoral.
 
The underlying question is whether it is ever right to harm another person based on what they might do (and maybe with hindsight of knowing what they did do) in order to protect others.
Yep.
 
If you’re comparing Farage with Hitler then you’re moral compass is up there with the other Geezer who wants him dead.
Perhaps you should throw your question out to the Jewish followers of the Club who could answer that question far better than I could.
The silence from other posters in condemnation of his death wish, speaks volumes for the characters of some who frequent the politics threads.
farage has committed treason by knowingly making UK citizens much worse off for his own personal gain. He has been a catalyst for misery and destitution for millions as well as stripping freedoms from me. Treason should be punishable by execution, hence I think the Russian sock puppet should be executed.

hope that answers your question.
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.