hesitation with regard to the morality or propriety of a course of action.

Another total hypothetical what if to just discuss(possibly)

There is a camp of thought that believes there is a certain morality/immorality to inaction.

I happen to believe that actions can be moral or immoral but inaction is neither one nor the other.

Consider this extreme: Say you have someone who is terminating the lives of 10 people a day, but they are keeping at bay a dozen others who each intend to terminate the lives of a thousand per day, do you think it would be equally 'wrong' to do nothing, allowing that moral failing to be only directly on the persons choosing to take life,

Or do you take out that person to save the ten a day, even though a thousand a day will take their place?

some 'moral' decisions come to doing something that has an immediate affect but opens the door for more long term damage. Do you think about the long term, or only the right now?

Yes, Im bored ...lol. About to sleep.

Haha, I was about to ask "You must be bored out of your mind?" but you already say so yourself...
I'm thinking maybe it's time for you to go out on a date, or go out, have some fun, a few drinks, dance. Enjoy the simple fun side of life and get out of your head. Maybe some physical pleasures... Women can often abstain for a long time -maybe we've been nuns / priestesses in past lives too often?- but when you do indulge you feel so much better and lighter. And definitely out of your head, haha

Msharmony on a date :
But, what if?
He has the wrong shoes on
His children have a nanny so he has very little input
He's an ex soldier who killed 10 to save thousands
He's the wrong religion
He's a judge who jailed the wrong guy
He's a lawyer who got the guilty guy off

Just to many what ifs

This would be a good question for a sniper who wipes out what he is told is pure evil.

The problem would be in knowing with absolute certainty that the ones being taken out would save more than those killed.

It’s impossible to know unless their plan is already in action. Then it’s defensive action, which most would agree with defending lives with whatever force necessary.

This brings forth the debate on what is “necessary”.

The needs of the many outweigh...the needs of the few or the one..

hey i 'm single looking for women to chat

Hi, if you post in the new members area you may have more luck

Yeah, I picked up a box, got a good deal.
A whole gross, all brand new.

Gotta warn ya tho, I applied two and now they won't come off...even with hot soapy water. Not sure what I'm gunna do with the remaining 142?

I considered using them to protect my feelings but I only have one left and I have that wrapped in bubble wrap and hidden away in a wooden box.
One woman, knowing it was my last feeling and very fragile, tried to step on it. Hey, thats it. I could give her some scruples.

Anyone know how many scruples you give a woman that tries to crush your feelings? I'm thinking a dozen.
Someone get back to me soon, I heard they multiply.
I don't wanna be overrun with scruples.

Well, I disagree about inaction being neither, since inaction IS an action.

That is, when you have the power and the ability to act, and you choose not to, you are acting. You are holding still.

Best example of inaction being an action, and being a destructive action:

government officials choose NOT to stop people committing crimes. That is a direct act in support of the crimes, or can be.

Examples from history: police refusing to prevent business owners from hiring and unleashing violent attackers against union protesters. Also, police failing to act to stop lynchings, and courts failing to prosecute such murderers.

when action, inaction along with morality are evenly tied denial is a sanctuary which will allow sleep. Hopefully to awaken later to a fresh weighing of morality that will bypass procrastination. Providing of course such delay has not sunk your ship

I’ll try to stop both

I think it would be wrong to do nothing if you feel it's right to do something.

I think it would be wrong to do nothing if the person doing nothing was elected or hired specifically to do something and it was known they were doing nothing because they wanted to specifically avoid doing something.


Why wouldn't I just save the ten a day and turn loose the guy taking out the ten to take out the one wanting to take out a thousand?
Then hire the winner to work in the prison system and go state to state fulfilling the death penalty?
IOW find a different way?


Depends on the decision and what my experience tells me is relevant to think about.

A big difficulty is justifying a decision based on long term to someone that really only wants to (or can only) focus on the "right now." Or vice versa.

There's also difficulty when there are different perspectives on consequences of "right now" and long term.