Ethical Question... - Page 2

why do people insist on "he would sell it to somebody else anyway" that is a fucking terrible argument you people have no morals or something?

On November 20 2008 20:38 Baal wrote: why do people insist on "he would sell it to somebody else anyway" that is a fucking terrible argument you people have no morals or something?

why is that a terrible argument?

i dont have 30$ to waste on guitar hero

On November 20 2008 20:08 sawseech wrote: this is not an ethical question talk him down to 25

hahahahah

because people who argue that see drug use as bad and then enable it.

The dude has some good times with drugs and you get a nice discount on ...wait a minute.

I would say yes, buy it, but this is guitar hero. Guitar Hero is retarded as hell, if it was a cool game though I'd stick the snappler on right here.

Preorder GH4 via him and spend that money on a telegram to his family that he has overdosed himself to death.

you don't have any responsibility for how he spends the money you pay with

money is a totally liquid form of value, he can use it to trade for whatever he wants; drugs, food, a new game etc.

"buy it coz if u don't, some one else will" is not unethical in this instance; it's totally irrelevant. Why? It's already been established that you have no responsibility for what he does with the money you pay with.

On November 20 2008 20:42 asdf2000 wrote: Show nested quote + On November 20 2008 20:38 Baal wrote: why do people insist on "he would sell it to somebody else anyway" that is a fucking terrible argument you people have no morals or something? why is that a terrible argument?

If you dont deal heroine somebody else will... does that gives you moral immunity to dealing heroine?

On November 20 2008 22:26 Baal wrote: Show nested quote + On November 20 2008 20:42 asdf2000 wrote:   On November 20 2008 20:38 Baal wrote: why do people insist on "he would sell it to somebody else anyway" that is a fucking terrible argument you people have no morals or something? why is that a terrible argument? If you dont deal heroine somebody else will... does that gives you moral immunity to dealing heroine?

is that even close to the same situation?

no. try again.

i think the real question is, why are you friends with a crack/meth addict?

watch the company you keep man

and if youre not friends with him then who cares

wait a week and ask him if hes got anything else for sale

On November 20 2008 18:42 Floofy wrote: if you dont take the deal someone else will

WOW FLAWLESS...............

On November 20 2008 19:01 Floofy wrote: why is it a retarded justification baal? Lets make a bigger example lets supose one of your friends breaks up with his gf and goes completly depressed and wants to sell his car that reminds him of his gf for only 3000$ (and its worth 10000). He makes the offer to you first because your his freind, but you know hes going to make the offer to other people if you refuse. why not accept? if you dont, another person will profit of the deal and im sure your friend would prefer that one of his friends profits from it, not some random strangers...

You dont take him up on the deal, you convince him not te be retarded.



jezus floofy

On November 20 2008 23:29 asdf2000 wrote: Show nested quote + On November 20 2008 22:26 Baal wrote:   On November 20 2008 20:42 asdf2000 wrote:   On November 20 2008 20:38 Baal wrote: why do people insist on "he would sell it to somebody else anyway" that is a fucking terrible argument you people have no morals or something? why is that a terrible argument? If you dont deal heroine somebody else will... does that gives you moral immunity to dealing heroine? is that even close to the same situation? no. try again.

It is the same argument for the same type of situation, your making money by enabling something thats bad for someone else.


try again.

Floofy: Your best friends girlfriend just broke up, now do you fuck her because if not someone else will?

On November 20 2008 19:21 Baal wrote: Show nested quote + On November 20 2008 19:01 Floofy wrote: why is it a retarded justification baal? Lets make a bigger example lets supose one of your friends breaks up with his gf and goes completly depressed and wants to sell his car that reminds him of his gf for only 3000$ (and its worth 10000). He makes the offer to you first because your his freind, but you know hes going to make the offer to other people if you refuse. why not accept? if you dont, another person will profit of the deal and im sure your friend would prefer that one of his friends profits from it, not some random strangers... well Mail already said why its a terrible excuse. in that particula example, i would convince him that its a stupid idea bla bla bla, if he still refuses i take the car and id let him buy it back from me at the same prize as soon as he gets out of his depression.

If you're any kind of a friend, this.

I instabuy because if he wants to spend his money on drugs it his own business and he has all the freedom to do so. I'm not my brothers guard.

If you dont deal heroine somebody else will... does that gives you moral immunity to dealing heroine?

is that even close to the same situation?

"A is ok because if I do not do it someone else will".

"A" can be "buying guitar hero from a drug addict" or it can be "selling heroin". What does it matter if these situations are close or not? The argument is imo invalid whatever you place as "A". Or if you think that one can use "A is ok because if I do not do it someone else will" as moral principle then what kind of other examples would you accept as "A" - "selling heroin" being invalid for some reason while "buying guitar hero from drug addict" is ok?

ie. In what kind of situations can we accept "A is ok because if I do not do it someone else will" as justification (you suggest that it is only valid in cases determined by some sort of a rule that rules "selling heroin" out)?

Perhaps you meant that "selling heroin" is not valid example because this "A is ok because if I do not do it someone else will"-reasoning only applies to situations where the action placed as "A" is legal? Then would you have sex with your best friends girlfriend? If you do not do it she will probably cheat him with someone else?

"A is ok because if I do not do it someone else will" does not seem to be valid when A is "having sex with your best friends GF" so there has to be some less obvious rule to follow than that "A" has to be legal?

When we hear the rule by which the cases suitable for "A is ok because if I do not do it someone else will" are determined we can start wondering if there is any point in following a moral principle only valid in so few situations and if such principle makes any sense at all (let alone being helpful).

On November 20 2008 21:48 PokerDoc88 wrote: you don't have any responsibility for how he spends the money you pay with money is a totally liquid form of value, he can use it to trade for whatever he wants; drugs, food, a new game etc.

This answer is obviously best

although if you really want to help try to do an intervention or whatever and get him in rehab

I sense a poker analogy coming