PDA

View Full Version : Spock: "... logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few".



Arch Lich Thoth-Amon
05-14-2009, 08:22 PM
Spock: "... logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few".
Kirk: "Or the one".

How many on P&PG agree with Spock? How many would disagree?

And why?

I felt like i needed to start another thread for my Means-Ends-Ends-Means question, which questioned good and evil, whereas this thread poses a specific question regarding sacrifice.

So everyone, please dig deep down inside as ask yourself if you are solidly on one side of the issue or the other, or somewhere in-between. Or are their exceptions that exist and can be found within the fog of unusual circumstances.

What share you?

Webhead
05-14-2009, 08:45 PM
This speaks closely...but not identically...to my feelings about "ends" and "means". In this instance however, it is primarly the nature of the "sacrifice" that is the crucial matter.

The question seems to assume (judging by one of the poll response options) that "sacrifice" is referring to life, but this is not always the case. Obviously, if the sacrifice is of something trivial, temporary or non-infringing upon human life or basic rights, then the question is much more pliable.

Ultimately, one may feel it "neccessary" to sacrifice the needs of a few people to meet the needs of a much larger number. It might be considered "logical", "practical", "desirable" or even "sensible" to do so. In fact, one may even see it as "irresponsible" not to make such a sacrifice.

When it comes to human life, I believe that it is never "right" to deliberately sacrifice even one unwilling person for the benefit of many, though it might be considered excusable or preferable on external analysis.

To use a "human life" example, say five people are stranded on a raft in the middle of the ocean and are surrounded by hungry sharks. They drift close to an island but the sharks begin tearing apart the raft. They won't be able to reach the island in time unless they leave the raft and swim for it but the sharks will surely get them. Is it "right" for four of them to pitch one unwilling person over to distract the sharks into a feeding frenzy while the others swim to safety? A matter of survival neccessity for the other four maybe, but does the fact that the four will survive make the sacrifice of the fifth anymore "appropriate" or "redeemable"?

Thoughts...

Grazak
05-14-2009, 09:45 PM
In this case I think the sacrifice is only acceptable if the person making the sacrifice is sacrificing something of which he has ownership.

Meaning I can sacrifice myself or my property if I so choose but can never sacrifice the life or the property of another. I think that is the key distinction if what you choose to sacrifice is yours to give to whom you choose than it is a noble thing to do. Conversely if what you choose to sacrifice does not belong to you then it is a borderline immoral thing to do.

The taking of one persons property to give to another for greater good is one of my biggest qualms with communism/socialism.

Webhead
05-14-2009, 10:04 PM
In this case I think the sacrifice is only acceptable if the person making the sacrifice is sacrificing something of which he has ownership.

Meaning I can sacrifice myself or my property if I so choose but can never sacrifice the life or the property of another. I think that is the key distinction if what you choose to sacrifice is yours to give to whom you choose than it is a noble thing to do. Conversely if what you choose to sacrifice does not belong to you then it is a borderline immoral thing to do.

Indeed.

Panthro82
05-18-2009, 02:01 AM
Is anyone on here familiar with the butterfly effect? No, not the movie!(which was spawned from the theory itself) It is also referred to as the Chaos theory? Well let me pose a theoretical situation that might make you think twice about just accepting human sacrifice on any level, for any reason(which is why I am shocked, seeing as how Spock is supposed to be the absolute knowledge source for the show)....

Ok, lets start out by saying that there is a virus plaguing a small town. It has spread so rapidly that the entire town is now infected and are dying and dropping like flies. The virus is only in this town, but it can spread rapidly and will eventually go on to infect the state, country, world in a very small amount of time(this is like a virus king. a virus above all others. nothing humanity has ever seen before). People are dying within 48 hours of becoming infected from this virus(this includes the healthy and twenty somethings). The president has a state of the union address and tells the country that they are planning on dropping a bomb onto the town, which will cause no collateral damage outside of the town and will neutralize the virus. He tells everyone that the people in this town were going to die anyways and this is for the greater good. The sacrifice of this small town will save billions of lives all over the world. So everyone goes along with it. The town is blown up and the world rejoices....

Then the next town over mysteriously reports cases of the virus. Within 24 hours the entire town is infected. Within a month over 32 million people in the United States die because of the virus. Within 2 months 124 million are dead. The virus goes on to claim over 3.9 billion lives(more that half the human population on the planet). Now lets reverse the decision.

The president does the state of the union address and tells the people he wants to bomb this town. There is a resounding outcry against the decision by the public. The senate gives a resounding no and shoots it down. within an hour after the bomb would have decimated the town there are reports that 1 person within the town was completely unaffected. They do studies on the person and the tests reveal that this person has a strand of DNA that is immune to the virus. They draw blood from this person and concoct an anti-virus. Within 36 hours 90% of the people infected are cured. Only 3138 people die....(Not convinced? give me any scenario and I can butterfly effect it)

In a world where anything is possible why be so quick to kill?

Malruhn
06-10-2009, 07:28 PM
However, Panthro, in the second scenario you are working off of slim chances. What were the actual chances of finding ONE person with the appropriate DNA? Aren't the chances much better that first scenario will be true, unless we take action RIGHT NOW??

Which scenario is more likely? Shouldn't that be the one that we plan for?

Tell you what - let's all stop going to work, and stop producing and buying food - because there is a chance that space aliens will show up with near magical technology and wipe out all poverty and sickness and give us all the food we need??

Sorry, I'm planning for the long haul - and will be going to work tomorrow.

Just like I will consider the loss of one town versus the loss of the species.

tesral
06-10-2009, 09:29 PM
Spock: "... logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few".
Kirk: "Or the one".

How many on P&PG agree with Spock? How many would disagree?

And why?


I disagree. Rights are not cumulative. Each person's rights are the same as any other and the rights of two people do not out weight the rights of one person. All three people have equal rights.

Allowing right to be cumulative can result is such statements as "for the good of the many it has been decided that you get thrown to the lions." I much prefer "How many before it is wrong?"

It is wrong the minute you violate one person's rights.

Now that said it is fine if you wish to offer yourself up to save many, but it is never, and can never be a requirement.

Malruhn
06-10-2009, 11:53 PM
I disagree, Tesral. For a society to continue to exist, the wants of some HAVE to be curtailed to the good of all.

Let's say, you, Thoth and I want to go out to dinner. You and Thoth want Italian, but I want Thai... how do we successfully get this done? Someone is out of luck - and either one, two or all three of us is eating something that we don't want.

It works the same way with being thrown to the lions. We all want to remain alive - but for the continued existence of the society, someone has to be kitty-chow. We have a choice - all die, or some die. Sorry, some, but we need to continue living.

And I fully understand that _I_ may be part of the "some".

Panthro82
06-11-2009, 12:13 AM
Thats an incredibly dangerous way of thinking. Someone willing to sacrifice others. I completely agree with Tesral and that is why I made the point I made. Who are you, or who is anyone to decide that someone else or a small group of people must be sacrificed in order to save humanity? I completely agree with someone willing to sacrifice themself, but someone willing to sacrifice others? Sounds like the type of thinking that Hitler had...In his mind it was justifiable to kill off people in order to preserve humanity as he saw it. If you are willing to sacrifice others you must stop and wonder if you are truly thinking with a sound mind.

As Gandalf said in LOTR, "Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends."

tesral
06-11-2009, 08:23 AM
I disagree, Tesral. For a society to continue to exist, the wants of some HAVE to be curtailed to the good of all.

Let's say, you, Thoth and I want to go out to dinner. You and Thoth want Italian, but I want Thai... how do we successfully get this done? Someone is out of luck - and either one, two or all three of us is eating something that we don't want.

It works the same way with being thrown to the lions. We all want to remain alive - but for the continued existence of the society, someone has to be kitty-chow. We have a choice - all die, or some die. Sorry, some, but we need to continue living.

And I fully understand that _I_ may be part of the "some".


OK, Thoth and I vote that you are paying. Are we in the same ball park here? After all the needs of the many, and the needs of the one.

Wants are one thing, rights are another. No one has the right, to Thai food or any "kind" of food. Most people on this planet are lucky to get food.

One does have the right to the sanctity of their lives and person, that can not and must not be voted away by the majority.

I have the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You have that right, Thoth has that right. However Thoth and myself do not have twice the right you do. Our rights do not accumulate even if we want the same thing. After all if you want Thai bad enough, you can go eat yourself. We do not have the right to compel you to eat Italian. "Lunch" is a voluntary association. The minute it becomes compulsory it is wrong.

templeorder
06-11-2009, 09:36 AM
I disagree simply on the grounds that i don't believe in absolutes.
As Thoth is so fond of putting in the polls.. "Other: There's always an 'other'..."

Sascha
06-11-2009, 12:34 PM
"There is no right that, when the abolition of it is advantageous to society, should not be abolished."
- Jeremy Bentham, Society, Law, and Morality, "Anarchical Fallacies"


One does have the right to the sanctity of their lives and person, that can not and must not be voted away by the majority.

I have the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You have that right, Thoth has that right. However Thoth and myself do not have twice the right you do. Our rights do not accumulate even if we want the same thing. After all if you want Thai bad enough, you can go eat yourself. We do not have the right to compel you to eat Italian. "Lunch" is a voluntary association. The minute it becomes compulsory it is wrong.
From where do these rights stem? What are the criteria for justifying a right? Are they, as Jefferson wrote, indeed inalienable? I don't believe any right is self-evident or inalienable.

That said, I don't agree with Bentham's willingness to discard a right if it serves the Greater Good. They have to be treated as inalienable, insofar as the law is concerned, but they don't really exist outside our duty to honor them and the duty comes quite from the community in which we live.

[edit: wuwu, thought finished~ (mostly :P)]

Razmus
06-11-2009, 01:22 PM
OK, Thoth and I vote that you are paying. Are we in the same ball park here? After all the needs of the many, and the needs of the one.

I guess in general I would believe that I only have rights to things which are mine. I can choose to sacrifice myself (except in countries in which suicide is illegal, I still don't understand how individuals ever gave up rights over their OWN continued existence), I can choose to sacrifice my own personal property.

And I'm all for discussing things to work out optimal agreements.

I also hate the hypothetical situation where decisions have to be made IMMEDIATELY. "Okay, either everyone on the whole planet dies to an alien space ray, in five minutes, -- or your planet sacrifices _two_ people to the aliens right now."
"Okay, the town of Podunk is infected by with some super contagious, infectious disease (kills the host, and turns their corpse into walking dead which infects everyone else), and someone has to decide to NUKE THE SITE FROM ABOVE, or the projects are that the whole human race will be wiped out in a week. Take all the time you want, but projections say that in 10 minutes, the nukes would arrive after infection reaches the next town... say Reno, NV."

Yeah, contrived, but the 'middle ground', I suppose, are the military officers who have to make the decision on which units go where into harm's way. Yes, the soldiers signed up to fight for something greater than themselves, and I honor their sacrifice... but the civilians in those areas didn't.

I also believe one of the functions of good government, in whatever form that might take, is to legally make those decisions in a hurry. Frequently that trust is unfounded, but it's the only system we got at the moment. (Until we get to a global telepathic hive mind, I suppose.)

Panthro82
06-12-2009, 12:40 AM
I agree with Tesral. There is no right to take human life. All life is equal. If you sacrifice yourself willingly then fine, but in no way should a large group have the ability to decide on the life or lives of a smaller group. There are variables in the equation humans have no way of seeing or understanding. It is never as simple as sacrificing other humans rights to life in order to preserve the lives of many others. There are many other variables that a feeble mind will overlook.

Sascha
06-12-2009, 10:42 AM
I agree with Tesral. There is no right to take human life. All life is equal. If you sacrifice yourself willingly then fine, but in no way should a large group have the ability to decide on the life or lives of a smaller group. There are variables in the equation humans have no way of seeing or understanding. It is never as simple as sacrificing other humans rights to life in order to preserve the lives of many others. There are many other variables that a feeble mind will overlook.
If there are variables that no human can see or understand, how do we know they even exist?

tesral
06-12-2009, 11:44 AM
First rule: No human being has the right -- under any circumstances -- to initiate force against another human being, nor to advocate, threaten, or delegate its initiation. All other rules are secondary, and if the first rule is followed, truly unnecessary.

So if you have to "make" me or anyone else do something, you are wrong and it is wrong to do. The good of the many is no excuse for breaking rule one. Indeed if the rule that a person owns their own life and that aggression is wrong is followed the good of the many will follow.

Point in case the first Emperor of the Han effectually hamstrung the government for 200 years. The result is universally hailed as the golden age of China. Without the ability to raise taxes the government was impotent. It could not raise armies, so there was no war. As taxes were low, people prospered. Public works where done by private money when needed. So things that needed doing got done. Things that did not need doing, like a huge palace and waste of public resources did not get done. Without the government seizing money by force the country prospered and the good of the many was assured. Until of course someone got greedy and overthrew the Han, jacked the taxes took the prosperity and tanked it.

Malruhn
06-12-2009, 05:14 PM
OK, Thoth and I vote that you are paying. Are we in the same ball park here? After all the needs of the many, and the needs of the one.

Wants are one thing, rights are another. No one has the right, to Thai food or any "kind" of food. Most people on this planet are lucky to get food.

One does have the right to the sanctity of their lives and person, that can not and must not be voted away by the majority.
It is up to me as to whether or not to agree to to the conditions of my continued membership of our society. If not - I can place myself in exile and leave the society.

We all have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness - but they aren't equal. Our pursuit of happiness is trumped by both life and liberty. If I am made happy by keeping Britney Spears in my basement - I can end up in prison. If I decide that a person needs to die - I can end up losing my life.

So - my pursuit of happiness is trumped by the other two - and the irony of the punishment being identical to the "crimes" is worthy of quite a giggle!!

Society has a price. We have to curtail our own rights to maintain our society. I can't yell "Movie!" in a crowded firehouse, and I can't let my dingle-dangle just hangle out in public. My happiness is curtailed. My right to freedom of free worship and practice is curtailed as well - and I can't sacrifice chickens and virgins to placate my chosen deity... nor can I burn down the house next door to request a boon from my chosen deity.

I used dinner as an analogy - but the analogy runs true. Yes, choice of dinner is a choice - but it belongs under the heading of, "Pursuit of Happiness." In this, the community-at-large has levied a tax, and now it is my choice to remain part of this society.

Today's society has prices - willingness to pay taxes, willingness to curtail our sexuality (I can't snog in the library), willingness to pay prices for goods or services, and all sorts of stuff. A violation of any one of these can lead to having to pay additional prices to get back in the good graces of society (fines/prison/death).

And don't forget that there are exceptions to these rights... I have the right to life - as long as I don't try to harm you - which gives you the approval of society to curtail my right to life. I have the right to liberty - as long as I am willing to follow the myriad other rules and strictures our society has imposed upon us - or I can go to prison. And for Pursuit of Happiness, see the rest of this novel posted above!!

*(and can I thank you guys for allowing me the chance to debate on here? I've wanted a good argument for a LONG time, and I just want to say, WOOT!!)

Sascha
06-12-2009, 09:12 PM
Point in case the first Emperor of the Han effectually hamstrung the government for 200 years. The result is universally hailed as the golden age of China. Without the ability to raise taxes the government was impotent. It could not raise armies, so there was no war. As taxes were low, people prospered. Public works where done by private money when needed. So things that needed doing got done. Things that did not need doing, like a huge palace and waste of public resources did not get done. Without the government seizing money by force the country prospered and the good of the many was assured. Until of course someone got greedy and overthrew the Han, jacked the taxes took the prosperity and tanked it.

Sorta - the details there are a bit off. The Han Dynasty did have an army (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_the_Han_Dynasty#Military), with both military service (one year training, followed by one year terms, for ages 20/23 to 56) and labor service (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_and_culture_of_the_Han_Dynasty#Farmers_and _landowners) (one month a year, from ages 15 to 56; publicly funded construction or renovation projects (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_Han_Dynasty#Public_construction_pro jects), including palaces and tombs for the Imperial family), though these were avoidable during Eastern Han due to commutable taxes and a shift to a largely volunteer army. There's also the whole Sino-Xiongnu War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Xiongnu_War) thingie, too.

Also, while the Han dynasty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_Han_Dynasty) for the most part alleviated land taxes, they taxed property (ships, carts, carriages, shops, etc; merchant-held property, looks like ...) more, siezed and redistributed noble lands, and nationalized the salt and iron industries (partly for the public works, but also to pay for the war effort; the combined revenue rivaled that of the gov't, itself). The first half(ish) of Eastern Han returned salt and iron to private hands, and leaned harder on merchants to make up the lost revenue; after Emperor Zhang (third of Eastern Han), salt and iron was nationalized again and remained so.

All said and done, I'm not sure the lessons mentioned are the ones the Han dynasty actually teaches. Still, much, much more preferable than the following Three Kingdoms era.


My right to freedom of free worship and practice is curtailed as well - and I can't sacrifice chickens and virgins to placate my chosen deity... nor can I burn down the house next door to request a boon from my chosen deity.
Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Lukumi_Babalu_Aye_v._City_of_Hialeah) would disagree with the chickens bit. The virgins and your neighbor's house are still quite safe from your religion, though ;)

Panthro82
06-12-2009, 09:17 PM
True Malruhn, but what the government does in the sense that it takes your life when you take others is them going against the very code their forefathers laid out.

Sascha just because people see no other way to solve something, like sacrificing lives in order to save a larger group of life. It doesn't mean that there is no other way to solve the problem. Why be so quick to deal out death when it cannot be reversed? Sure in roleplaying it can most times, but in real life there is no resurrect spell. Most times in life people act out because they are too inexperienced(I was going to say young, but stupid people get old sometimes) or they don't think with a clear mind.

Think back to all the wars and crusades this world has seen throughout history. Everybody on every single side thought at the moment that that was the only course of action possible. They thought genocide and murder would solve their problems....Did it? And were they all justified?

It is human nature to be flawed. That doesn't mean we have to just resign ourselves to it and put no thought into our actions...

Windstar
06-12-2009, 09:23 PM
Well, having served for a long time in the Navy, sacrifice is a part of life. You don't always get the option to choose, even if your a civilian. But some things just need to be done, may not like them or even agree with them but they still need to be done.

Panthro82
06-12-2009, 09:36 PM
I agree with that wind, but we have come a long way even in terms of military. They now put in alot of thought into their strategies and as a world we now strive(at least try to) to find a peaceful way out of situations. When you sign up for the military though, you are essentially giving consent to self sacrifice though. You are putting yourself up to the whims of your commanding officers.

Also In the "Golden Age", when the Han first ruled over China, the people were oppressed. If someone grew up poor yet was a brilliant strategist or an amazing thinker or leader, they would be overlooked or cast aside. The people had no way of influencing life. It was a dictatorship. Only royalty had a say in what transpired.

The Three Kingdoms era was unfortunate, but it was started for those very reasons. Zhang Jiao formed a rebel army and took control of the Imperial Seal. From there 3 armies formed, who, honestly fought to create and provide an almost identical vision as one another. Most of them were loyal to the Han, but they also fought because there were parts of the Han that were flawed greatly. The people had no voice, and that is why the Three Kingdoms Era transpired. All 3 ultimately wanted peace. All three also wanted a world where the people had a say, and could rise up to great heights regardless of social or economic background. All 3 actually were from the school of all life is equal...

tesral
06-13-2009, 12:10 AM
Think back to all the wars and crusades this world has seen throughout history. Everybody on every single side thought at the moment that that was the only course of action possible. They thought genocide and murder would solve their problems....Did it? And were they all justified?


I have yet to find a war that could be justified. Every war out there comes down to someone deciding that someone else's stuff would be better in their hands and using violence to get it.

War is never "For the good of the many". It is the pain of the many for the good for the few.

Sascha
06-13-2009, 01:44 AM
Sascha just because people see no other way to solve something, like sacrificing lives in order to save a larger group of life. It doesn't mean that there is no other way to solve the problem. Why be so quick to deal out death when it cannot be reversed? Sure in roleplaying it can most times, but in real life there is no resurrect spell. Most times in life people act out because they are too inexperienced(I was going to say young, but stupid people get old sometimes) or they don't think with a clear mind.

Think back to all the wars and crusades this world has seen throughout history. Everybody on every single side thought at the moment that that was the only course of action possible. They thought genocide and murder would solve their problems....Did it? And were they all justified?

It is human nature to be flawed. That doesn't mean we have to just resign ourselves to it and put no thought into our actions...
I never said we shouldn't think about our actions; in fact, quite the opposite. What I asked for was the source of the right, the moral authority behind it.

Also, you mentioned upthread the unseeable variables that humans cannot understand; an unobservable, unknowable variable is a special plea, and requires further explanation to be considered.

Criticizing the claim that a right is self-evident or inalienable, as has been asserted, is not automatically a rejection of the right. I, in fact, made the claim that the right to exist is neither self-evident nor inalienable, that it stems from society's value of life and therefore the duty to honor that right.

Razmus
06-13-2009, 06:41 AM
Why be so quick to deal out death when it cannot be reversed? Sure in roleplaying it can most times, but in real life there is no resurrect spell.
In real life, we can't prove the existence of a soul. In RPGs, the soul can be destroyed or placed where no resurrect spell can work.

I have yet to find a war that could be justified. Every war out there comes down to someone deciding that someone else's stuff would be better in their hands and using violence to get it.
Sometimes just on one side. Sometimes the OTHER side is just trying to defend the status quo, or keep the aggressors from wiping out some other group because they don't like the way they hang their toilet paper, or the other group follows a gourd instead of a sandle. Sometimes the aggressors starts doing 'stupid aggressive things', just to be recognized as part of the (international) community. Sometimes human toddlers do the same thing, so I'm not sure it isn't 'human nature'.

But this is starting to get into the realm of 'sometimes the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many.' -- Is there an obligation of the old ponderous empire to defend the small minority groups? To keep them from getting wiped out by quasi-insane murderous fanatics? Or are the insane ramblings of fanatics part of natural selection? I didn't originally mark this option in the poll, but now the idealistic little paladin inside me wants to say that, 'Yeah, sometimes the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many.' But sometimes the many have to inconvenience themselves a little so they can sleep peacefully at night.

tesral
06-13-2009, 08:27 AM
I never said we shouldn't think about our actions; in fact, quite the opposite. What I asked for was the source of the right, the moral authority behind it.


Why is a moral authority required?

Malruhn
06-15-2009, 08:44 PM
Moral authority seems to be from whence you are deriving your unalienable rights. It's anathema to do anything to threaten violence against another - that seems pretty moral, as there is no other basis for the rule. You don't say that it is to support the society - it's just wrong...

This is where most folks that argue morality fall apart. They don't know WHY it's wrong, it just is. How do we deal with racism? How do we deal with electing our leaders? How do we deal with those that don't choose to follow your attempt at a stand-alone edict? To do these things, we either have to create more rules or break out one edict, in which case we're not working properly... according to you (if you follow the first rule, you don't need any others...)

What sayest thou?

tesral
06-15-2009, 09:35 PM
What sayest thou?

"Principles and morals are not followed because "they" do, or do not do. Principles and morals are followed because they are the right and good thing to do, not due to the action or to cause the reaction of others. That is the nature of true enlightenment. Morals are first for one's self." --The Tao of Phoenix


I do not see the need for a moral authority. However if one wishes one I can offer several.


"Hurt not others in that you yourself would find hurtful." -- Udanavarga
"As you would wish that men would do unto you, do so to them." -- Luke 6:31
"Do not unto others what you would not have them do unto you." -- Analects 15:2
"Do naught unto others which would cause you pain if done to you." -- Mahabharata 5:1517
"No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself." -- Sunan
"That which is hateful unto you, do not impose on others." -- Talmud, Shabbat 31a


Every major religion in the world echoes the Golden Rule. Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Islam, Judaism. Every moral authority points to the idea. Therefor yes, there is something inalienable about the very idea. The Zero Aggression Principle is simply a restatement of the Golden Rule more clearly demarcating the limits, No aggression, direct or delegated.


May I also offer:



"First corollary of the golden rule; Your right to swing your arm ends at the other fellow's nose."


"Each man demands his rights, as well he should. But if each man gave those rights to each of his fellow men, then none would need demand anything, and we would live in peace. In truth, it is better to give than receive" -- The Tao of Phoenix

Panthro82
06-15-2009, 10:23 PM
Im just kind of surprised that people need a clear definition as to why people shouldnt kill other people...