bibliobibulimaniac

Nice of you to assume I have an alcohol addiction. 

I am 15. 

I like to read. 

Go bully somebody else. 

It's an essay I have to write, and it's going quite well. I am happy with my arguments. I have yet to hand it in. Thank you for asking though. 

I don't really see the point of explaining my username to you since you obviously have a good idea of what it means already, and are simply waiting to ridicule me for one thing or another.

But you seem like the stubborn type so I'll go ahead. 

Username: Bibliobibulimaniac

Bibliobibuli can loosely be translated as 'drunk on books' which allows you to infer that I am a book lover. 

Maniac, well I think you know what that means. If not, well, I'm not surprised. 

I honestly don't see the problem, and have no energy to argue further with you. 

If you continue this you are looking for a fight, which is silly. If you want to be silly, go ahead. Just don't expect the drunk on books maniac to join. 

 

Yes, I can. It is related to the word bibliophilia which is the love of books or reading. Don't see why this is a problem. 

Say the zealot killed because he thought it was the right thing to do, and he felt he was 'helping' his country, whereas the other individuals killed because he didn't want to be punished. 

Both of them killed. Is there one that is worse?

Thank you so very much for being nothing but annoying in every forum I see your name.

If you have nothing useful to contribute to this conversation, then why bother to post. 

This thread is aligned with a previous one called moral ambiguity vs intense fanaticism. 

Since not many people understood what I was asking / were able to answer it, I am going to rephrase the question. 

Here is the situation: 

You have two individuals: an antisemitic zealot who is driven by his ideology and lives by it; a morally ambiguous individual who is more clear-headed. 

The zealot believes that killing Jewish people is the only right option, and is ethically correct. The other individuals understands that killing the Jewish is deemed wrong, and understands that it is not ethically correct. 

Both individuals send 100 Jewish people off to their deaths. Both for different reasons. 

Someday we will all die. 

And none of this will matter. 

But it matters now. Because we know that we won't die soon. Or we think. We could die in an hour. Or a minute. Or a year. 

Life spins on the roll of a dice. Our actions and decisions could save our lives or destroy it. 

Like dominos falling. 

One thing affects another. 

An unstoppable pattern that is only unstoppable because we cannot comprehend it or see it unfold before us. 

HIPPOPOTOMONSTROSESQUIPPPEDALIOPHOBIA. 

The best word in the English language. 

It is the fear of long words. 

So ironic. I love it. 

Maybe the morally enigmatic individuals are not so focused on doing what feels good. 

The zealots are so immersed in their own realities, and they completely feel as if they are doing the right thing despite their actions being ethical wrong.

In comparison to this, those with a slightly better moral compass tend to be able to correctly differentiate between wrong and right, and usually act unethically while knowing that what they are doing is wrong. 

I wouldn't say that both groups have given up on considering what is right or wrong. 

I understand it's a confusing question, and that is why I have brought it on here. 

I have a school assignment which is based around evaluating who was responsible for the Holocaust. I wanted to take a moral approach and analyse that area, and it lead me to that question. 

While I know it's confusing I have to tie it around responsibility as that is the assignment focus. 

Do you believe morally ambiguous individuals are more responsible for their actions than those driven by an intense fanaticism or zealotry? 

I know it might differ depending on the situation, however let's just look at the Holocaust. 

You have individuals who play an essential part in the genocidal process, and may send thousands of innocent people off to their deaths, yet they might save a few children or somebody they used to know. Then you have individuals who are driven by this intense anti-semitic ideology who don't stop to consider their actions, who wouldn't spare anybody, who genuinely believes they are doing the right thing. 

Who would be more responsible for their OWN actions? 

I guess you could say that morally enigmatic individuals would be because they usually have a full understanding of the ramifications of their actions, while fanatics tend to get caught up in their own single-mindedness to fully comprehend their situation. 

However it is also the fanatics own fault for allowing themselves to succumb to this single-mindedness. However I am unsure if this is even related. 

Would really appreciate some advice and opinions on this topic.