Chaos Theory and George Zimmerman

Post Reply New Topic

Easily astounded by how some people look at things differently and thinking he couldn't be like such people because some test decreed that he can't.

When I was a religious believer, I bet I was a different "personality type" than I am today.

MCalavera, let's say you're trying to understand how person x thinks because person x was able to be successful in things like the workplace. This person's thought process at least partially led to his success. It may not even be the workplace. It could be other things as well. He may metaphorically have the Rosetta Stone that could help a lot of us out.

You ask this person questions and he gives responses you don't follow. You ask for clarification but you receive nothing or receive one liners that make no sense to me. What can one do? All he can do is speculate and I do admit it is not the best way to do things.

How about not worrying about it? If someone only keeps giving me vague answers, I could just ignore.

Yeah, you're right my friend. I do have other people who give better answers so I have to ask myself why do I fixate. The answer that I have so far is I do not know. Sometimes, I miss the forest for the trees and this is one possibility. Oh well, back to the topic.

What is a good resolution to my original topic? Can one ever use negative inputs to ever achieve positive outcomes? Another way of putting it is can the ends ever justify the means?

If the answer is yes, what specific means can and should be used? By this logic, would enhanced interrogation techniques be okay to save lives? Was the dropping of the Atomic Bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki okay to do? It saved lives it seems like. Another thing, would it be practical to account for all possibilities?

If the answer is no, would negative outcomes have to just be accepted as part of life then and there is nothing one can do to avoid all of them? This means negative outcomes can arrive by inaction because it was not possible to take action to avoid the specific actions that led to the negative outcomes. If some negative outcomes are unavoidable due to ignorance of the specifics is it a form of immorality? Can ignorance ever be an excuse for negative outcomes?

Is it better to go more by morality or by outcomes? What if the two intertwine?

The answer depends on how you feel about it. It's similar to the question: "What is the meaning of life?" Some will say there's no meaning, and others will say there is and provide their own explanations for what that meaning could be.

Personally, any moral decision I am compelled to make in case of moral dilemmas would depend on whether it suits me and the people I care about or not. I would rather the end never justify any harmful means, but if it greatly benefits the ones I care about (i.e. it will keep them alive or healthy or well, etc.) even at the expense of others, then so be it.

About your OP, here's a question for you:

What if Martin was still alive and he ended up saving more lives than Zimmerman did?