It is my basic philosophy that everyone is their own worst enemy.
Same question, if anyone has an opposing view. ;)
Printable View
It is my basic philosophy that everyone is their own worst enemy.
Same question, if anyone has an opposing view. ;)
I love me. Me, me, me. Best friend. :D :D
Same Q
oh. good one...
Both must be both...
Cause no one can get me like i see myself but i'm the only resposable for my creapy side so...
Gotta be both...
SaME QueSTion PleAzE:
Both, and very often simultaneously. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Shakira
To the person below me: if something unfortunate occurred that someone/something could have prevented, would you most often blame yourself, blame others, or blame the situation?
I try not to place blame and instead try to find the cause and do something about it, placing blame serves little purpose in that regard.
Same Q.
I wouldn't blame anyone or anything. Things that are meant to happen will happen nevertheless. So why blame?
Same ques.
That's hard to answer in the abstract. I think it would be situation specific. If I could have prevented it, I would blame myself.
Same Q
Que sera, sera. Blame serves no real function as it cannot change the situation. :nod:
Would you consider yourself over protective of those you really care for?
not really. i don't think i'm over protective. i guess that's because i don't like it when others are overprotective of me, too.
same question, pbm.
Good question, Pen.
Yes I tend to be over protective of those I care.
same Q
I consider myself very overprotective, especially of my family and good friends, also frequently finding myself in a chronic state of worrying. :eek2:
To the person below me: same question (good one) --
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendragon
I am overprotective of loved ones to the point that I have to reason with myself when my fears are unsubstantiated and irrational.
Could you do something very bad for a very good reason? Think of like allowing 100 people to die so that 1000 could live.
The question would be then: would I have the courage to do it?
Would you?
I have had many conversations regarding the precise same subject - the immense debate between the utilitarianism of John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham and the deontological morals of Immanuel Kant in ethical philosophy.
To answer your question, no, I would not sacrifice 100 people so 1,000 people could live (in other words, I do not consider myself utilitarian). If a great number of people had to inevitable die, I would, at least, avoid the outcome coming into my hands and control.
To the person below me: I love this question, so I will pass it to continue --
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psycheinaboat
This seems to be does the end justify the means type of question? The major problem I have with this sort of situation, is who decides who is more worthy to live than another?
Let us take the following senerio: A highly-intelligent single person who is 75 requires a heart transplant to live. At the same time, a poor man who has a family and is only 40 needs the heart as well. Only one may live. Who gets it? Do we give it do the 75 year old, extending that person's life a decade, perhaps, hoping they do something for the greater good, or do we allow this man enjoy his family for a few more decades? I don't want to make the decisions...
Same question.
Quote:
:
Originally Posted by Psycheinaboat
Could you do something very bad for a very good reason? Think of like allowing 100 people to die so that 1000 could live.