-=Dark_Angel=-, P.I.30 Jan 2005

lol yes I really do now see the connection between strength and fate. Pfft. Don't you see that your 'Fate' argument is 'cancelled out' by an equally powerful argument (i.e not powerful at all) the other way: a weakling is unable to save a crushed otter, who, had it been saved, would have gone on to warn the villagers of an impending Tsunami, thereby saving hundreds of thousands of lives.

Of course 'doing more' could have unpleasant consequences. Just as 'doing less' could have unpleasant consequences. While we cannot flawlessly predict the future, we do try to assess the moral consequences of a particular action, and make a decision - whether to do 'more', or 'less' - based on our particular value system. And such an assessment is not usually just a wild stab in the dark, unless the assessor is utterly thick, or there is simply no background information to help him. Either way, would he be any better off as a weakling? An individual armed with the capacity to perform tremendous feats of strength is in a better position, with regard to manipulating the world in the way he sees fit, than a weakling is. I'm not saying all feats of strength are morally desirable. I'm not saying all strong people make moral decisions I agree with. I'm saying strength is better than weakness, in the same sense that a Pentium 4 is better than a Pentium 2 :(