Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Well, if dying didn't matter, species wouldn't try to strive to live and continue evolving and adapting.

 

Chaos generally is avoided because it makes goals harder to achieve. Just look at Twitch Plays Pokemon. Because of the many people inputting commands at once, they went nowhere VERY quickly...certain areas were impossible to traverse because they only went in circles.

 

Generally, making goals harder to reach can mean things die out before getting close to achieving them, etc.

 

Now chaos CAN be a good thing. One can argue that life and the universe in general are just controlled chaos. I can agree with that, myself.

Share this post


Link to post

Somewhat of a tangent to the current set of talking points, I wonder about people who cherry-pick what parts of their holy-book they believe in. 

 

I mean, if that book IS the infallible word of their deity, then shouldn't ALL of it be equally valid? 

 

By the same logic, if one part is no longer valid, shouldn't the whole thing no longer be valid, as it shows the author of the book to be fallible?

 

Not picking on any one religion, though christianity is often the one I see that won't answer these questions (simply by population density of christians whom I interact with) I have found several religious groups who sidestep things when this is brought up.

I am a proud cherry picker. I refuse to "obey my husband". I won't harm him or cheat on him, but I'm not going to obey him. smile.gif If my God truly has an issue with this, I'll be taking it up with him after I die, considering I'm given a trial and a chance to defend myself.

Edited by LadyFoxfire

Share this post


Link to post
Then go ahead and -

 

I'm not going to finish that, but you can assume what I'm telling you. The goal of every living thing is survival, no? Well, every rational living thing.

Some rational creatures decide it's best to kill themselves or others. What makes their preference any worse than yours? You're making value judgments, but I'm still not seeing a fixed, knowable standard that you can claim to explain those judgments.

 

I totally don't get the cherry picking mindset at all.

 

You and me both.

Share this post


Link to post
Some rational creatures decide it's best to kill themselves or others. What makes their preference any worse than yours? You're making value judgments, but I'm still not seeing a fixed, knowable standard that you can claim to explain those judgments.

 

 

 

You and me both.

The rational creatures you are thinking of are most usually not herd animals. In humans, killing other is used for the preservation of your own herd (War is not killing creatures in your own herd, it is killing those in other herds). In other, solitary animals, killing is used to defend territory and keep the self alive. The only rational reason to kill yourself would be to defend the rest of the herd, otherwise it is completely useless and not a rational idea at all.

 

Morality is based on the herd. In solitary animals, the herd consists of yourself. This seems like a fine standard as I can define any one of my morals with it.

 

Can you name some rational creatures that kill themselves or others and why so I can illustrate this point further? Hell, I could do it with the cells in your body.

Share this post


Link to post
The rational creatures you are thinking of are most usually not herd animals. In humans, killing other is used for the preservation of your own herd (War is not killing creatures in your own herd, it is killing those in other herds). In other, solitary animals, killing is used to defend territory and keep the self alive. The only rational reason to kill yourself would be to defend the rest of the herd, otherwise it is completely useless and not a rational idea at all.

 

Morality is based on the herd. In solitary animals, the herd consists of yourself. This seems like a fine standard as I can define any one of my morals with it.

 

Can you name some rational creatures that kill themselves or others and why so I can illustrate this point further? Hell, I could do it with the cells in your body.

Humans are rational creatures. Some humans decide they prefer to kill themselves or kill others. Why is their preference worse than your preference?

Share this post


Link to post

Humans are rational creatures. Some humans decide they prefer to kill themselves or kill others. Why is their preference worse than your preference?

...Humans are not rational creatures. Nothing in our history points to us being rational.

 

But, killing people is done for the following reasons:

Defense and Offense

Any killing outside of these two does not classify as rational. In the case of defense, the killing is easily justified: You are protecting yourself or your herd. Killing yourself can classify in the defensive killing.

In the case of offense, the killing is not so easily justified. This is because they usually aren't rational killings at all. Even offensive killings can usually be justified in terms of defensive killings. If they cannot, they almost certainly are not rational.

Share this post


Link to post
...Humans are not rational creatures. Nothing in our history points to us being rational.

So you arrived at the conclusion that humans are not rational creatures by looking at historical facts and reasoning from there? You used your rational faculties to determine that humans aren't rational?

 

But, killing people is done for the following reasons:

Defense and Offense

Any killing outside of these two does not classify as rational. In the case of defense, the killing is easily justified: You are protecting yourself or your herd. Killing yourself can classify in the defensive killing.

In the case of offense, the killing is not so easily justified. This is because they usually aren't rational killings at all. Even offensive killings can usually be justified in terms of defensive killings. If they cannot, they almost certainly are not rational.

Are you saying that actions are wrong when they are irrational? You're still not clearly stating a standard here.

Share this post


Link to post

So you arrived at the conclusion that humans are not rational creatures by looking at historical facts and reasoning from there? You used your rational faculties to determine that humans aren't rational?

 

 

Are you saying that actions are wrong when they are irrational? You're still not clearly stating a standard here.

We have the ability to have rational thought but it is overwhelmed by illogical feelings and actions. I used a rational thought to deduce that humans are irrational. Emotions are not rational. Humans have emotions. Humans are not rational creatures. We can use rational argument but it the argument must be devoid of emotions. Notice how in my argument I avoided emotions?

 

I never said actions are wrong, I said that they cannot be justified. If you kill someone for no reason, there is no "moral" argument for it because it was not rational. Morality aligns with rationality. If something is irrational, it is amoral. That's the standard that I've been trying to describe and you don't seem to be getting.

Share this post


Link to post

I totally don't get the cherry picking mindset at all.

It's just because I've grown up only knowing one religion and disagree with a lot that's been taught about it. Others have told me that it's best to consider myself a Unitarian Universal instead. In title, at the moment, I'm Christian, but there are a LOT of things in the Bible I seriously disagree with. I'm on a quest for my own set of truths as it were. That's what's making me a cherry picker for now until I find something that I don't have to cherry pick my way through.

 

Edited for better grammar and typos. (Typo queen here.)

Edited by LadyFoxfire

Share this post


Link to post
I never said actions are wrong, I said that they cannot be justified. If you kill someone for no reason, there is no "moral" argument for it because it was not rational. Morality aligns with rationality. If something is irrational, it is amoral. That's the standard that I've been trying to describe and you don't seem to be getting.

I didn't get it because you hadn't stated it clearly. You neatly dodged it multiple times, but it took you this long to put it in those terms. If morality aligns with rationality, how does one determine whether or not an action is rational?

Share this post


Link to post

I didn't get it because you hadn't stated it clearly. You neatly dodged it multiple times, but it took you this long to put it in those terms. If morality aligns with rationality, how does one determine whether or not an action is rational?

Self preservation and group preservation are rational and those were exactly what I was describing. Don't pin you not understanding on me not describing it properly. It's about survival and that is exactly what I outlined here.

 

Rationality is simply logic and reasoning. It's looking at the possible outcomes of an action to see how it affects others. If you aren't able to determine weither an action is rational or not, it further proves the point that humans are irrational.

 

Let's take the example of killing someone in self defense. Well, if you do not kill them, what happens? You'll die. Others will die. There will probably be a man hunt of police trying to track down this individual. It'll be a waste or resources and life.

If you kill them, what will happen? In exchange for one death, others wont have died. You'll live. The investigation by the police will be limited. That is a rational killing. The course of action has the least amount of resources wasted.

 

See? Rational thinking. No emotions required, just logic and reasoning.

Share this post


Link to post

If morality aligns with rationality, how does one determine whether or not an action is rational?

Rational equates looking at the cause, the actions, and the effect. Being rational means that you are taking in as many different views, with basing in real life, as possible. Then you are considering the possible options, weighing them accordingly, and the results, and then acting accordingly.

 

Rationality is the quality or state of being reasonable, based on facts or reason rather than emotions or feelings.

 

Basically, being rational is being based in real life, with direct observable effects and consequences. That is why I disregard religion, for me, as a personal path, because I see it as irrational, i.e. not based in real life. Sure, some of the teachings are good, like be nice to your neighbour, but that is based in real life. Saying that I have to be good and believe in that particular deity to go to heaven is irrational, because it is not based in real life, but rather personal, unprovable beliefs, and that is not for me.

Edited by High Lord November

Share this post


Link to post
Self preservation and group preservation are rational and those were exactly what I was describing. Don't pin you not understanding on me not describing it properly. It's about survival and that is exactly what I outlined here.

 

Rationality is simply logic and reasoning. It's looking at the possible outcomes of an action to see how it affects others. If you aren't able to determine weither an action is rational or not, it further proves the point that humans are irrational.

 

Let's take the example of killing someone in self defense. Well, if you do not kill them, what happens? You'll die. Others will die. There will probably be a man hunt of police trying to track down this individual. It'll be a waste or resources and life.

If you kill them, what will happen? In exchange for one death, others wont have died. You'll live. The investigation by the police will be limited. That is a rational killing. The course of action has the least amount of resources wasted.

 

See? Rational thinking. No emotions required, just logic and reasoning.

Lets take another example then, shall we? A train is running loose down a track towards an interchange. If you take no action, then multiple adults on a level crossing will be killed. You have the option to change the points at the interchange, but doing so will cause the train to run over a single mother with her child in a pram.

 

The logical, rational thing to do would be to change the points, would it not? Sparing the lives of multiple productive adults in place of a single adult and an unproductive child. But would you do it? And would taking that action be moral?

Share this post


Link to post

Lets take another example then, shall we? A train is running loose down a track towards an interchange. If you take no action, then multiple adults on a level crossing will be killed. You have the option to change the points at the interchange, but doing so will cause the train to run over a single mother with her child in a pram.

 

The logical, rational thing to do would be to change the points, would it not? Sparing the lives of multiple productive adults in place of a single adult and an unproductive child. But would you do it? And would taking that action be moral?

I would consider the action to be moral, yes. And I would do it. People always cry about the loss of children but we should focus more on the loss of adults. Children are blank slates; they can be written however you like. They're new, they're fresh. And they're empty. Adults have learnt lessons, endured years of life and have so much more use. Anyone dying for no reason should be mourned but adult life is so much more useful than a child's life.

 

Of course, society may not view this action as moral but the argument for that is irrational. If you could stop 9-11 by crashing the airplanes, wouldn't you? Casualties would still happen but it would not be nearly as devastating as the attack.

Edited by pudding

Share this post


Link to post

Who are those other adults, firstly? Would you *really* sacrifice a dozen people - all of whom have relatives, lives, friends - just to save two. How do you know that 30-year old guy isn't a single father of four (I have a friend like that)? That these women aren't ALSO single parents and/or pregnant? The only working people and providers in their family? Why, that action could easily kill and/or leave parentless MORE children than the other option.

Share this post


Link to post
Lets take another example then, shall we? A train is running loose down a track towards an interchange. If you take no action, then multiple adults on a level crossing will be killed. You have the option to change the points at the interchange, but doing so will cause the train to run over a single mother with her child in a pram.

 

The logical, rational thing to do would be to change the points, would it not? Sparing the lives of multiple productive adults in place of a single adult and an unproductive child. But would you do it? And would taking that action be moral?

No and no. There are ALWAYS unforeseen consequences to actions. And it is not for me to make such a decision.

 

(I don't believe in a god, by the way - and I think that fact is TOTALLY irrelevant.)

Share this post


Link to post
No and no. There are ALWAYS unforeseen consequences to actions. And it is not for me to make such a decision.

 

(I don't believe in a god, by the way - and I think that fact is TOTALLY irrelevant.)

Well you are making a decision by not changing the route. You're choosing the woman and her child that way. Abstaining from making a decision in this case is the same thing as making a decision.

Share this post


Link to post

There is no third option. I'd save the countless lives on the train in a heartbeat. One adult and her child is nothing compared to the possible dozens onboard.

 

I think the reason behind mourning children first is that they have potential. Sure, they aren't anything now, but they have the opportunity to become something. Or, they did, before they died.

Share this post


Link to post

From the same perspective as above, God does not need people to plead and offer themselves up; God can create more to replace those that do not, if God wants that. As people, we need to make the choice to follow God in order that we can grow into something much more.

 

 

Sounds like we, as nonbelievers are expendable to god and he seems really egotistical. "Oh you don't believe in me? Nah bro it's coo' I'll just make people that *will* worship me cause y'know, I don't need people to offer themselves up, but I will create those that will." I don't need to make a choice to follow god, well, the christian god in this sense. Many other religions say the same "believe in ___ so you will grow into something more". Because, it's coming off as "you don't believe in god, you won't grow into something "higher" or transcend, you'll be stuck under others that *did* submit to god, so therefore they are above you. Not really, there's plenty of other things that give my, and other people without "god" meaning. There's plenty of other things that let me grow and flourish into "something more"

Edited by BlightWyvern

Share this post


Link to post
Well you are making a decision by not changing the route. You're choosing the woman and her child that way. Abstaining from making a decision in this case is the same thing as making a decision.

Abstention is NOT the same thing as consciously deciding. I would not even be thinking about it to make that choice.

Share this post


Link to post

Once again, we come to the decision that god's an arsehole. An arsehole who decides that if his plebian ants don't want to have his cake, he'll just throw some intense sunbeams until they drop, and then go buy new ants that will have his cake.

 

You chose not to do anything. That's a decision. A hollow one compared to doing something, but still a decision.

Edited by PrinceVertigo

Share this post


Link to post

I don't believe in a god, but I CERTAINLY wouldn't describe the god of anyone else's belief so negatively. Just because one doesn't believe in a god does not mean that we have to assume any god there may be if we are wrong, or who exists in the hearts of others, is an evil old git - s/e may be a thoroughly well meaning god who is frustrated to all get out by the appalling behaviour of the ants below. xd.png If I were god, if there were one, I might very well decide to start it all over and make the ants get it RIGHT next time..

Edited by fuzzbucket

Share this post


Link to post

Lets take another example then, shall we? A train is running loose down a track towards an interchange. If you take no action, then multiple adults on a level crossing will be killed. You have the option to change the points at the interchange, but doing so will cause the train to run over a single mother with her child in a pram.

 

The logical, rational thing to do would be to change the points, would it not? Sparing the lives of multiple productive adults in place of a single adult and an unproductive child. But would you do it? And would taking that action be moral?

If I were the one that had that potential, I would take the action and I would consider it moral.

 

It prevents the greater loss of life. While it's unfortunate that any life would be lost, I feel that even if you give the life of the child greater weight than a single adult life (due to the potential they contain) that it would ultimately be the greater good to save the multiple adults.

 

 

I would be upset that my choice resulted in those deaths, but I know that if I chose not to act that I would feel guilty for doing nothing when I had the power to prevent less death and I would consider the deaths of the greater number of people to be my fault.

 

Therefore the choice, to me, would be to be responsible for the deaths of two people or the deaths of more than two people.

 

 

Presented with a situation where inaction will cause more suffering than action, I will chose to take action if I can.

 

Abstention is NOT the same thing as consciously deciding. I would not even be thinking about it to make that choice.

In the example, though, the idea is that you are the one who would have the power to make that choice, and that you would know it--not that you'd be just some innocent bystander who wasn't thinking about it.

 

The decision to not make a decision is a decision in and of itself. If you have the power to act and thus change the way something is about to happen, then by choosing not to act you are making a decision anyway. There is not always such a thing as "not making a choice". True, in some situations the choice to not choose (or to "Take a Third Option") has negligible or better results than either of the presented options. But that is not always going to be the case--sometimes you have to chose to act or not act, and both have severe consequences.

 

 

If you know full well that you have the power to make that change, then by abstaining from acting you are making the decision to allow the current events to run their present course to the end. Thus the consequences of the current course of events--good and bad--are in part or in full your fault. (In part if there are other people present who have the same chance and knowledge to make the change, in full if you are the sole person with the knowledge and ability to make the required change)

Share this post


Link to post

Also there are passages that god sent and created evil. So therefore, evil came from god. A perfect being cannot create something imperfect. A benevolent being cannot create malevolence.

 

"I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the Lord: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them. A curse on him who is lax in doing the Lord's work! A curse on him who keeps his sword from bloodshed." [Jer. 13:14; 48:10] Such love. Even if god is NOT jesus, shouldn't his father, you know, set a better example of "love thy neighbor?"

 

Exodus 32:14 And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.

 

Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house

1 Kings 9:9

 

Ezekiel 20:25-26 Moreover I gave them statutes that were not good and ordinances by which they could not have life; and I defiled them through their very gifts in making them offer by fire all their first-born, that I might horrify them; I did it that they might know that I am the LORD.” Child sacrifice. So, I thought children were "innocent" guess not.

 

My point? God is portrayed as loving and his "malevolent" side rarely touched, or if it is, it is justified by how "the people were gods enemies so they needed to die"...how does that teach love? Love thy enemies...UNLESS they pose a threat to god sounds more like it. wink.gif

And a contradiction

“For I am merciful, saith the Lord, and I will not keep anger forever." (Jeremiah 3:12)

"Ye have kindled a fire in mine anger, which shall burn forever." (Jeremiah 17:4)

 

Soh...which is it? God seems pretty indecisive.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.