Ethical question

[AsraArdwulfLeberecht]

There was an online ethics test, I'm sure you've all seen it, with the train and the 5 people tied to the track versus the 1 person tied on track, then with the 5 people tied on track vs the 1 person you can push to stop the train etc
Now one question went like this : "One person hid a ticking bomb in a crowded city, and it would explode in 1 hour. The criminal doesn't want to admit where they placed it so would you resort to torture (with a 75% chance of them saying the truth) so you can save the populace?" and I said yes.
And I was wondering, from the SS perspective, is torture (under certain circumstances) ethical?
Disclaimer no, I won't get myself in legal trouble :lol:

 

[darkmonkey666]

It should be for some of the true traitors and enemies against human kind. Though I kind of doubt this will be allowed legally ever as it can psychologically mess up or scar people doing it. It will probably happen anyways though just by people losing their control.

So maybe this isn't ethical at all.

 

[darkmonkey666]

Xtianity Islam communism and the Jews invented the idea of torturing people. I think we should be above our enemies and not fully act on an "animal" level.

 

[Enigmatic_Rabbit]

This is INFP unfretted kikery you just involved yourself in with (((muh trolley))) question. The question was developed to railroad (pun intended) people into one of two bullshit options of which there is no other recourse. It's a "non-question" meant to capture the less intelligent/intuitive people in a nonsensical arbitrary loop of "Is ThiS MoAr EtHiCaL" when the same question, IN A REAL WORLD SCENARIO, could NEVER be played out as such. It's mostly "mental masturbation" at the HIGHEST level that has Zero touch of reality.

Now for your actual question, is torture okay? It depends on who you ask. The people who are controlled by the water element (water element primaries) are going to say "yes", those who are controlled by fire will say "no", those of earth "who cares?", and air will say "depends on the situation". Each one of these has a valid and compelling reason for each of their own.

As an SS, I have my own opinion but as such I will not speak for the whole nor will I give my specific beliefs as they could be taken out of context by the enemy and thus used against JoS.

Cute question tho.

 

[Jade9779]

The trolley problem is an example of act-utilitarianism, an ethical theory I have completely adopted. It is the question of the common phrase 'the lesser of two evils'.

Take, for example, an illness spreading through a hospital only to babies. The doctors have only two possible options as to what this is, both of which have the same symptoms. They have to test their theory on one of the babies which would mean if it is option A, the baby dies and it is option B so the other five babies are treated for that illness and live.

While easy to comprehend on paper, it could be problematic when trying to apply this in real life. I, for one, completely agree with it. It means the most good of a bad situation. It means, while not all the babies could be saved, there are still babies that can be saved, albeit at the sacrifice of one.

This type of mentality is one that Christianity is utterly against. Xians would rather put all their focus on the one baby dying rather than the five others that get the opportunity to live. Completely ignoring the good this brings. It is that kind of thinking which leads to inaction and nothing being solved.

I'd even go as far as to say that we, as Satanists, are Utilitarians.