Would you kill someone to save someone you love?

[Pliny]

If a man would kill another man to save his child's/loved one's life, but not "an attractive young woman," then that doesn't say much for the man.

But there could be a man like that.

[Pliny]

You guys remind me of a Miller Lite commercial, but not nearly as funny:

That was funny!

[Guest American Woman]

But there could be a man like that.

Sure there could be, but that doesn't mean it's part of the "moral dilemma" of whether or not one would kill to save their daughter's/loved one's life. It just means that they chose the life of an "attractive young woman" over their daughter's/loved one's. That's all I'm saying; that's been my only point. Only whether or not one would kill, regardless of who it is, to save the life of their daughter/loved one is part of the "moral dilemma." The rest is just about the person's character, which is a different issue.

In other words, to say a man would be willing to kill another man but not an "attractive young woman" to save his daughter's et al life says a lot about his character, not his morals. I say this because of the attachment of "attractive," so I'm assuming it would be different if the woman were fat and ugly. Again, that's not about morals; it's about character. And if a man would chose to let his daughter et al die because the person was an "attractive young woman" rather than "a man," that doesn't say much about his character.

[Pliny]

Sure there could be, but that doesn't mean it's part of the "moral dilemma" of whether or not one would kill to save their daughter's/loved one's life. It just means that they chose the life of an "attractive young woman" over their daughter's/loved one's. That's all I'm saying; that's been my only point. Only whether or not one would kill, regardless of who it is, to save the life of their daughter/loved one is part of the "moral dilemma." The rest is just about the person's character, which is a different issue.

In other words, to say a man would be willing to kill another man but not an "attractive young woman" to save his daughter's et al life says a lot about his character, not his morals. I say this because of the attachment of "attractive," so I'm assuming it would be different if the woman were fat and ugly. Again, that's not about morals; it's about character. And if a man would chose to let his daughter et al die because the person was an "attractive young woman" rather than "a man," that doesn't say much about his character.

I see.

The person is either willing or not willing to kill another to save his daughter. That is the moral standard. The "dilemma" occurs if a circumstance would cause him to abandon his moral standard and his abandonment is indicative of his character and not his mores. Is that correct?

I think the argument lies more in the question of what circumstance would have to occur before one experienced a dilemma in upholding his moral standards. That would be an indication of his character.

[bush_cheney2004]

...I think the argument lies more in the question of what circumstance would have to occur before one experienced a dilemma in upholding his moral standards. That would be an indication of his character.

OK...but those very same circumstances would likely render any moral standard obsolete.

[GostHacked]

This sounds like a SAW movie in the making.

[Pliny]

OK...but those very same circumstances would likely render any moral standard obsolete.

Not obsolete. It is a standard. I think moral relativism is an attempt to make a standard obsolete and eliminate the concept of any standard.

Because one fails to uphold his standards doesn't render the standard obsolete.