If you are walking past an alley in the middle of the night and you hear a child being raped by a bum...

what if you kill the bum and there ends up being some unforseen consequence, such as perhaps the bums long lost brother murders your family for revenge?

There are children dying of starvation in Africa. Are you doing anything to help them? Hell, animals are dying for you to eat if you're not vegetarian. You are a grandstanding hypocritical faggot who is too childish to accept the nature of reality.

>There are children dying of starvation in Africa. Are you doing anything to help them?
i don't have proximity to them though. in the OP scenario you are immediately next to the supposed "injustice"

Yeah, of course I'll do something if I can, but it's not on me if I fail due to not trying hard enough or if don't feel like it. Unless I caused the situation, of course.

There is nothing I can do to help people starving in different countries. When the barrier to assist is literally pressing 3 buttons and saying a sentence, it's pretty morally wrong. You lose nothing by saying anything. Even a yell would spook the guy probably and have him run off.

Give me a reason to not help someone in need, and I'll think about it. But not helping someone purely because its none of your business is just morally fucked. I dont see why it bothers you to be morally in the wrong here.

Wow what a great thesis statement. You really intrigue whoevers reading your shallow question want to reply, knowing that an argument with you would go nowhere due to how fucking retarded you are. No we aren't doing anything to help them in Africa because it's not directly in our face like a fucking bum raping a child in alley would be while you're walking down the street. Don't ever post on Jow Forums again until you're 18 buddy

You could donate a significant portion of your income to an effective charity service, but you won't because you don't really mean what you say, you just say it to feel good about yourself. Are you a vegetarian? Do you volunteer at your local soup kitchen? All of these are things you can do. Do you have to date someone you don't like to acquiesce to their needs? I am a vegetarian, but freely admit that I do it to feel better about my moral standing. Read up on psychological egoism. It isn't always true, but does provide some insight.

if, in one scenario, the "barrier to assist" is pressing a button to save someones life, and in another, it's obtain a lot of money somehow and feed starving kids with said money, then where is the line drawn between a "barrier to assist" that is too great to cross and therefore perfectly moral to not help and one that is easy enough to cross where helping is morally imperative?

do you believe in an objective moral law?

See:
No such thing as objective morality, brainlets.

Quite frankly no it's not immoral. A few years ago I would have thought it is. However who's to say that kids life is more valuable than yours? Why should you put yourself at risk to do anything about it? Even if you tried to help her and did, you could still get punished for it.

So your excuse to not help anyone is that you wouldn't use hundreds of hours or thousands of dollars to help people, so why help anyone?

People like you should honestly be shot and the world would be a better place.

You wont get punished for fucking calling the police you autist.

Just because I can do something (no matter how easy it is) doesn't mean I'm obliged to. I'll save the child because I want to, because I think it's the right thing to do, and because it'll make me feel good about myself. No other reason.

No.

It ultimately comes down to how you define morality and philosophy so there isn't a right answer. I personally would think you're a cowardly cunt and hope you'd get raped yourself though.

if there were no objective moral law built into your mind, then what reason would you have to feel good about helping the child?

The core of my argument is that there is no objective morality, only varying subjective moralities based on emotions and upbringing. I would save the child, as said in . Because there is no objective morality, one cannot lawfully punish someone for failing or refusing to save the child. I'd still think they're a terrible person and avoid associating with them though. But they still have the personal freedom to opt out of saving the child, as they did not really cause that situation in any way.

there's either a right answer, or no right answer. if you believe there's no right answer, you can't really hold it against someone for not helping

explain to me how you can still think they're a terrible person if morality is subjective

>r9k constantly has threads about killing someone
>finally come across a justified reason
>beat a man to death that no one will miss
>widely publicized that you are a hero
>even if you do some jail time women would write to you
>you'd get a girlfriend who loves a bit of the rough

Only a subjective moral law, based on the values instilled in me by my parents and society as I was raised, mixed with pragmatism. My selfish emotions also play a role. I'd like to think of myself as a decent person. That's why I'm a vegetarian. Of course I could do more good as say, a vegan, but I choose to kinda ignore that as it does not fit the narrative of me being a decent person. Savvy?

What if the bum is only a homeless pedophile due to being abused and molested as a child and tossed out of home? Of course this doesn't justify his actions, but it might begin to explain them. Not everyone has had the same opportunites as us. The world isn't black and white user.

Pedophilia is one thing the public hasnt backed down from witchhunts on yet. There would be no sympathy for a man raping a little girl.

I like to think of myself as a non-confrontational person. But I am really just a spring waiting for the right reasons to fuck with someone's life. Most recently I made a guy think I was trying to set his house on fire while his family slept inside. Sold meth to one of my cousin's friends... my cousin is 14. If you spend all of your time thinking of why, you'll miss out on making a meth user paranoid for funsies.

>trolley.jpg

The autism in this thread is off the fucking charts, jeebuz

I know, but I have a suspicion that those who are loudest in publicly decrying a pedophiles behavior would not want to adopt his victims or help with their rehabilitation or pay for their therapy. It's very easy to virtue signal and say you will do good things, if given the opprtunity. It's much harder to actually follow through with your actions and sacrifice for others. Most people subconsiously want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to be deemed highly moral by society without actually engaging in good actions. They also want a whipping boy to take their personal problems out on through 'retribution' in this case, the pedophile.

You sound like a retarded fuck. Get off meth before you go to jail or get murdered for fucking with people

>doesn't even weigh in on descussion

... I don't use meth? I thought I pointed out that he sold my cousin meth. I don't do drugs other than occasional beer or 6

Would you pull the lever user?

Doesnt matter on the reasons for peoples witchhunting, the pedophile deserves it, it violates my NAP to rape someone. I'd gladly put a bullet in his brain in "self defense" thank god for concealed carry in IL.

you can feed an African child for less than the cost of one cup of coffee a day, and with just one simple phone call

I personally would deem that immoral, as it is a negative action rather than inaction in the face of a negative situation not caused by you.

>trusting charities
actual scams. Go find africans online and give it to them directly, some villages in poor african nations have internet access via community centers.

All I did was slit 3 of his tires, doused his front, back, and garage door in gasoline, left striked matched at the scene. If you sell meth you aren't going to the god damn police. He ended up going full on paranoid, got arrested selling drugs out of a small motel here - now he's doing 4 years for distribution. He never knew my name or my face, but I looked into full well who he was.

sounds like the makings of a pretty badass movie with sequal desu

that isn't how it works you fuck. You dont just walk by a crime and go oh well not my problem and not even call the cops or something. Yeah def an autist who will never get it. Best of luck in life user

Yes.
Evil if allowed to flourish will grow and soon lead to evil everywhere.
That act will destroy everyone involved user. Including the observer who would do nothing.
The bum will go on to do more evil acts.
The victim will carry the evil act in themselves and it will twist them if the moment that hurt them is left to fester without the light of reason and love shone upun it.
And it will corrupt the viewer. Who will do nothing and will act as a tacit accomplice to it.
It will let you get away with thinking that something like that is the norm.
That you should not only allow it but want to participate or create a situation where it is good and right to do.

This is why I don't watch cynical stupidly mindlessly violent media or violent bullshit gifs and webms. Not because I don't have the stomach for it. But because it will leave an imprint upon me that will change me forever.

the pedo is violating the child's NAP not yours. what right do you have to kill him? for all you know, those are two consenting parties

Attached: 1504583642271.jpg (750x893, 91K)

>The pedophile deserves it
This is what I'm talking about. Instead of trying to understand and rectify the reasons for the action (which is still terrible by the way), you immediately jump to self righteous judgement to make yourself feel better in comparison.
>inb4 UR A PEDO APOLOGIST ECKS DEE!!1!

Yes, the smelly bum raping a little girl in public is clearly consensual.

You need to work on grammar, this isn't a verbal conversation you dumb hick. You literally said "sold my cousin meth" which changed the whole tone

Equating not stopping an active rape with not going out of your way to donate to africa is bullshit. Listing extremely unlikely consequences as reasons for inaction is equally so. OP is so obviously autistic because he can't mesh multiple real-world concepts

Why user? Hope you've stopped selling drugs.

Do I need to understand anything when a man murders two people and robs a bank? Not really. A crime is a crime, understanding why they did it changes nothing. They deserve death. People should be publicly executed as a show of force so people are less likely to take risks like that. Honestly muslims do alright things sometimes. Thieves should have their hands cut off, rapists should be castrated. People should fear breaking the law, because telling them its wrong doesnt work enough.

I'm failing to see, in every grammatical aspect that you are trying to convey - where I said that I use meth.

HAHAHA oooh, I just re-read it - gotcha

Why not? I don't have a moral duty to stop every mugging I walk by, just like Stacy doesn't have a moral duty to date incels. I'll stop a mugging if I feel like it (which is usually, by the way).

>e. Sold meth to one of my cousin's friends... my cousin is 14
I'm admittedly stupid but you didn't specify there and thought you were talking about yourself the whole time

Keyword is "I" his perception of morality is different from his

Let A be the other guy and let B be the guy who walks away

If A thinks B did something immoral, yet B thinks B is moral, then there is a difference in morality there, and because morality is not objective but rather subjective, this logic can exist. A can refuse to associate with B simply because their sets of morals differ too greatly.

Only if you have the means to help, trying to do something without proper equipment or a plan will only get you killed

what if the two people said man murdered were "rehabilitated pedos?" is it morally a crime what he did to them? isn't right and wrong more important than some man-made laws?

>Why not? I don't have a moral duty to stop every mugging I walk by
You don't but it would still be considered conventionally morally wrong, by not at least calling for help . You also may have a legal obligation

That's a helluva lot of what-ifs and hypotheticals to force people to do something, authoritarian.

By what convention would doing nothing be wrong?

Define "wrong", and define "Morality"

Yeah, apologies. The gentleman sold my cousin's friend meth. My cousin attempted to smoke it, I felt the need to mess with the drug dealer.

I dont understand your question at all. Me wanting to shoot pedophiles in the head does not relate to laws at all, and im pretty sure the police would not be on my side in court for executing a pedophile who wasnt threatening me, and I'd do it anyways if I saw it.

What the fuck is a rehabilitated pedophile, Anyone who commits a crime should be dealt with in a permanent physical manner. Rapists and pedophiles should be castrated, and not allowed testosterone treatments. Honestly they should be executed, but I doubt you could ever create a law like that.

its not about whether or not you HAVE to stop the rape, it's about whether or not you SHOULD stop the rape.

I'm not prepared for this level of autism, consult a professional

I have my reasoning for hating pedos, what is yours? It is probably founded on fallacious grounds.
Nice ad hominem, consult a philosophy textbook, brainlet.

See the following comments:

if objective morality doesn't exist, then it wouldn't be "wrong" to do nothing. the only case in which stopping the rape is "right," is if morality is objective. without objective morality, there can be no right or wrong, and we all clearly know that it is wrong to do nothing.

My reasoning is that a pedophile he actually acts on his fantasies is permanently effecting a childs life for the worse. Children who are victims of sexual abuse are overwhelmingly turned into deviants of society, drug addicts, whores, low income alcoholics who cant hold jobs. When a pedophile acts on his sexual desires he is actively making society worse. They should be shot dead. And it should be publically acceptable, and legal to destroy pedophiles.

You are a) an authoritarian, so I hate you b) not interested in understanding the motives for actions. We're done here.

You actually could get accused of something for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

actions have consequences. when a man rapes a child, does he not accept some kind of potential risk of punishment? would it be an injustice to die swimming in shark infested waters if you knew full well the danger?

I don't believe in objective morality, and I definitely don't believe in forcing people to do anything (within reason). I think people (perhaps subconciously) feign outrage a lot to improve their social standing and make themselves feel good about themselves.

Itt: Op trying and failing to use logic to prove he isn't a piece of shit

You are the one who is beyond redemption. You most probably are an authoritarian hateful fuck who, among other failings, seeks to impose his will on others to compensate for his own shortcomings.

That is entirely subjective.

Also the "the man being murdered is a pedo xddd" caveat takes away from the essence of the question of objective morality as I think it adds the layer of "is pedophilia wrong?" which is a different can of worms entirely.

You are absolutely correct, nothing is "wrong" if the person believes they are doing nothing wrong. For example, ISIS beheads a reporter because she is a filthy kuffar and therefore he is doing nothing wrong. However, your morality will say that brutally beheading a woman who writes for some newspaper is wrong.

A lack of objective morality does not mean morality does not exist, get that in your head. Everyone has morality, and it differs from person to person. Superman's morals are different from The Punisher's.

>the only case blah blah blah objective
Wrong. My subjective morality is telling me that I should help this woman, and yours too, presumably, but if the person who has a low empathy towards others (and therefore a different set of morals) determines that letting it happen is okay, then that shows that there is not one single set of morals in the world that everyone universally follows.

>and we all clearly know that it is wrong to do nothing
I'd sound like a faggot for calling out fallacy after fallacy so I won't

What I'm trying to say is that by trying to prove me wrong you actually spoken the reality of the situation.

That is a sound reasoning.

Neither do I but I genuinely think you have autism. Iused to think the same way, but now im a dad and I can't even stand the pedos on here when they used to at least give me. a chuckle for triggering people

>Nice ad hominem, consult a philosophy textbook, brainlet.
> just want to explain why not stopping a rape is wrong
>called brainlet for not wanting to delve into deep philosophical concepts
ok bud

Most pedophiles are victims of child abuse and molestation themselves. Should all victims of child abuse be shot to prevent future pedophiles? There is a reason for their actions, though they still are terrible, they aren't born evil.

i merely posed a question. personally i believe in objective morality from God and i would stop the rape to the best of my ability

I thought we where talking about saving or not saving the girl not killing the bum.

See the following post originally:

>ok bud
>im a brainlet who only thinks about the surface level of a rhetorical question

Well how else would you save the girl? Would you talk the bum off of her, try to reason with him as he is balls deep in a screaming qt3.14?

okay so if your morality tells you that the pedo raping that child is wrong, then what right do you have to stop him if his morality tells him its okay to rape that child?

Maybe I do, idk. I would still save the child btw. I just don't want to force anyone to do the same.

>>im a brainlet who only thinks about the surface level of a rhetorical question
No I'm just not a child so I've been through this extremely uninteresting topic before

Because inaction is breaching my morality and my morality is superior to everyone else's in situations which I have control.

does the bum deserve to die?

Well, brainlets do seem to have quite an aversion to philosophy...

You're probably somewhat right, just don't doubt most normies capacity for hating pedos

T. Double digit IQ Brainlet

You could knock him out if you weren't so eager to 'be a hero' by killing pedos.

>when the issue became personal my moral views changed!!!
jesus christ get out normie faggot

But you could stop evil and decide not to stop it.

You are right I could, but it would be easier for me to put a bullet in his skull. The method of stopping the man is irrelevant anyways, don't move the goalposts.

so its okay for you to impose your morality onto others, but by your own admitted moral belief its not okay for others to impose their moralities onto others? in other words; your morality is that one's own morality is superior, yet you would deny another's ability to have superior morality. this is contradictory

No, it's not immoral. It's not your job to give a shit about every little fucking detail in life. You aren't fucking superman.
>oh you could have called
>oh you could have scared the bum by pretending to be a cop and smacking the side of a dumpster to make him think a gun went off.
THAT CHILD SHOULDN'T BE GETTING FUCKING RAPED WHILE I'M BUSY WITH MY FUCKING LIFE.