Is killing a human being...

[XThexXTank]

^^^ True, true. There is cooperation and what not when it comes to us functioning as a society becuase otherwise we would have anarchy. But when it comes down to the OP's question, i dont think there is a difference.

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

Where did I say that?

This little gem caught my eye.

I'm just an advocate of loose eugenics as I'll call it.

If you meant this seriously, I'm sorry, but I just can't see eye to eye with anyone who's for increasing the systematic use of murder, abortion, or enforced bans on procreation.

Society continuing to exist and evolve toward the betterment of our whole species depends on believing, by any justification necessary, that every human life is equally dignified and precious. A philosophical view of human life as essentially pointless and worthless is incompatible with the maintenance of society, because all it leaves us with is the law of the jungle, in which human life can be cheapened selectively by those powerful enough to do so. We're capable of so much more than that.

Most of my more extreme postings are jokes because the majority of people on here are not mature enough to have a cool rational discussion; especially when they are the ones being forced into a corner so so speak. That corner being that their philosophical position is a crock of shit with very little backing that has not been extrapolated to it's axioms.

Either I don't share your sense of humor, or internet forums are a bad medium for telling if someone is joking or serious. Or a little bit of both.

Reason is hardly a place to interject emotions. I'm sorry I'm the only Vulcan in the room but a lot of peoples, "reason based philosophical" views are nothing more that the bashing together of their emotions and something they read on the internet or heard from their mommy. actually it's a lot more bulshit than theat but I'm tired of typing so IDGAF.

Whose rules of engagement are you playing by, and expecting others, including the very starter of the thread, to play by? Why?

If we're still arguing about who's bullshit smells better the world will continue to stink.

What do you mean? I don't get the analogy you're trying to make.

 

[hiphophippy]

This little gem caught my eye.

​

If you meant this seriously, I'm sorry, but I just can't see eye to eye with anyone who's for increasing the systematic use of murder, abortion, or enforced bans on procreation.

Society continuing to exist and evolve toward the betterment of our whole species depends on believing, by any justification necessary, that every human life is equally dignified and precious. A philosophical view of human life as essentially pointless and worthless is incompatible with the maintenance of society, because all it leaves us with is the law of the jungle, in which human life can be cheapened selectively by those powerful enough to do so. We're capable of so much more than that.




Whose rules of engagement are you playing by, and expecting others, including the very starter of the thread, to play by? Why?



What do you mean? I don't get the analogy you're trying to make.

Hence lose eugenics, I think there is some famous ethicist who shares my views. Peter singer. It absolutely fraudulent to require people to raise invalid children. Aside for that people with family histories of chronic and debilitating herditary diseases should have (forced) access to genetic screening.

also you're absolutely false. Human life is not worth shit. Less than than cosmic dirt drifting through space. If everyone started to acknowledge this we would be better off. The idea that it leaves us with only laws of jungle is ridiculous. It leaves us in a world that will finally have to acknowledge that we are ultimately and completely responsible for ourselves. [link]
No longer could we hid behind out little pathetic veils of morality, or the inane structures of religions. Most people prefer not to be, or are simply undereducated enough some simple things. some of which are generally considered to be loose tests for being autistic.
[lessrelated link]

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

Hence lose eugenics, I think there is some famous ethicist who shares my views. Peter singer. It absolutely fraudulent to require people to raise invalid children. Aside for that people with family histories of chronic and debilitating herditary diseases should have (forced) access to genetic screening.

Yeah, or, we develop gene therapy and drugs that alter genomic expression for those who are afflicted with hereditary genetic disorders. This is a much greater engineering challenge, but without the need for people to relinquish control of something highly personal. Forcing people to undergo cataloging and assessment of their DNA is fraught with potential problems and abuses. I really hope very few heads of state are reading Peter Singer.

Isn't Peter Singer the guy who wants to grant the great apes personhood? Interesting guy, but full of ideas that people just don't want, methinks.

also you're absolutely false. Human life is not worth shit. Less than than cosmic dirt drifting through space. If everyone started to acknowledge this we would be better off.

What makes you so certain?

The idea that it leaves us with only laws of jungle is ridiculous. It leaves us in a world that will finally have to acknowledge that we are ultimately and completely responsible for ourselves. [link]
No longer could we hid behind out little pathetic veils of morality, or the inane structures of religions. Most people prefer not to be, or are simply undereducated enough some simple things. some of which are generally considered to be loose tests for being autistic.
[lessrelated link]

Less related indeed. Secular humanism is all upholding morality, not jettisoning morality, you silly goose.

Incidentally, I've never been sold on secular humanism's arguments that attempt to derive a moral imperative from pure reason -- I think this violates Hume's law that states that 'ought' cannot be derived from 'is'. I see a lot of secular humanist writing as convoluted verbal and logical sophistry, that attempts to derive something (a purpose-driven human life) from nothing (an assumption that human life is inherently purposeless). It's like that math geek parlor trick whereby a complicated equation purports to show that 0=1. Except that zero doesn't equal one, and if you look at one step of the equation, you see a cleverly hidden but critical flaw: a division by zero. Likewise, the big flaw I see in secular humanism is that if human life is purposeless and inherently insignificant, then there is no basis for deeming any action by any person inherently better than any other.

"Live life as if it had inherently meaning and purpose", I've had Humanists tell me. Well then, what basis do they have for looking down on me for living life sincerely hoping that it has inherent meaning and purpose? Same effect on how I treat others. Humanists are moral because they want to be, and unable to bring themselves to conceive of any higher purpose or power, work cleverly to ground the morality they seek. Folks like myself, similarly, hold out hope for a higher power or plan because we want there to be one, and search in earnest for any sign there might be. Morality, at least for me, flows naturally from the idea that no matter what the plan might be, we're all potentially playing a key role in it. Both spiritual seekers like myself and secular humanists are people of faith (though neither of us are used to seeing ourselves that way!)

Also, if there is no higher purpose or power to human existence, it does not logically follow that we're responsible for ourselves. The existence of free will and the existence of a higher power are entirely independent variables. There are many people who believe in God but not free will (John Calvin), free will but not God (Daniel C. Dennett), neither God nor free will (Oliver Sacks), and both God and free will (Soren Kierkegaard).

And even if we were responsible for ourselves, what would it matter if nothing we did mattered or endured or counted for anything in the long run?

 

[hiphophippy]

Also, if there is no higher purpose or power to human existence, it does not logically follow that we're responsible for ourselves. The existence of free will and the existence of a higher power are entirely independent variables. There are many people who believe in God but not free will (John Calvin), free will but not God (Daniel C. Dennett), neither God nor free will (Oliver Sacks), and both God and free will (Soren Kierkegaard).

And even if we were responsible for ourselves, what would it matter if nothing we did mattered or endured or counted for anything in the long run?

I just posted the batman clip because I like the point of the joker and batman; the joke is that batman is the real anti-hero his existence is contradictory. And it is because of his selfish and created ethics that many of gothams problems are as bad as they are, and or persist. while this was not gone into the movie **** off topic

also your second question was mostly answered in the other link I posted. The idea that without a higher power or to hold ourselves accountable to that acting in a way that's beneficial to whatever cause idea morality ect is pointless.
I guess it's just Tao or somewhat Zen. Nothing any one does is any more special than any other being, plant particle on the planet. The only thing that distinguishes us is that we are all selfish. And that then we can just choose. I choose to live almost purely our of curiosity. And I'm responsible to fulfill that desire. We simply forge our own paths. It's something everyone does everyday. Most people are unaware of it but being aware of it is generally more constructive.

Lastly it does not, it is simply a matter of deciding what kind of impact you would like to leave on the universe and following through. If not being the center of the universe deflates your ego and galactic hard-on so bad than so be it. It's not something that anyone can really explain. its just something you can arrive at if you actually take some time to think about philosophy like a philosopher. rembmer the three dubs: Why(why), why(how did you arrive there) and why(what proof or lack there of);




****
but is typically understood by most reasonable fans of batman that are actually vested in it's philosophy. Batman's "mortality" causes his own suffering, he is one of the most "immoral" people in his city


Who is the real villain
is it you or is it me?
Have you not figured it out now
By now I'd thought you'd see.

For I am a deranged man?
And all I do is plot.
And you've had many chances
to kill me on the spot.

Many innocents have died now;
all by my deft hand.
While you have tried to stop me
and all that I have planned!

The blood shall spell it out for you.
By now I'd thought you'd see
For the truth is you're insane Batman
and I'm your sanity...

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

I just posted the batman clip because I like the point of the joker and batman; the joke is that batman is the real anti-hero his existence is contradictory. And it is because of his selfish and created ethics that many of gothams problems are as bad as they are, and or persist. while this was not gone into the movie **** off topic

I'm going to have to see the movie, and read a bit more on ethical themes in Batman (an interesting topic!) before I can comment on this.

also your second question was mostly answered in the other link I posted. The idea that without a higher power or to hold ourselves accountable to that acting in a way that's beneficial to whatever cause idea morality ect is pointless.

Can you rephrase this? I'm having trouble understanding what you're trying to say in this sentence.

I guess it's just Tao or somewhat Zen. Nothing any one does is any more special than any other being, plant particle on the planet.

That's not very Taoist at all. My understanding of Taoism is that we all have a vital and naturally fitting role to play in the great project called existence, and that by cultivating spontaneity and reading the world around us well, all of us can find that role and play it effortlessly. I don't know how you shoehorn human insignificance into that.

The only thing that distinguishes us is that we are all selfish.

Distinguishes us from what?

And that then we can just choose.

You sidestepped my first point. I'll make it again. Please show me how the existence or nonexistence of a greater plan for humanity has any bearing on the existence or nonexistence of free human choice. I don't see it. In your own words, if you please.

I choose to live almost purely our of curiosity. And I'm responsible to fulfill that desire. We simply forge our own paths. It's something everyone does everyday. Most people are unaware of it but being aware of it is generally more constructive.

I'm all about personal empowerment and being in the driver's seat, dude. I simply fail to see why this requires atheism, or why atheism is one of the better worldviews for cultivating personal empowerment. Stripped of all dreams of a techno-utopia, it's pretty bleak, and in my own personal experience, rather disempowering and cultivating of despair.

Lastly it does not, it is simply a matter of deciding what kind of impact you would like to leave on the universe and following through.

But why bother to have any impact at all if no impact will ultimately last or mean anything? As per our discussions on Taoism and personal empowerment, I'm all for acting spontaneously and doing what each of us loves to do, so long as this doesn't involve harming other sentient beings. But I don't think this calls for any philosophical justification, and certainly doesn't require any specific metaphysical belief one way or another.

If not being the center of the universe deflates your ego and galactic hard-on so bad than so be it.

Wait... I thought you just promised me joy, freedom, and empowerment from viewing myself as insignificant and pointless. I want my money back.

It's not something that anyone can really explain.

Apparently. I've never had any luck finding anyone who can explain it to me well, though many have tried. The bottom line is, you see life as worth living on its own merits, and I do not. Sentient existence, as I've known it, is incredibly painful. I question the idea that the joys and triumphs of life adequately counterbalance the pains and losses and frustrations. If there is no greater plan that makes all the pain worthwhile, then stick a fork in me I'm done; it would have been better to have never been born.

its just something you can arrive at if you actually take some time to think about philosophy like a philosopher.

To say that some philosopher can logically justify something isn't really saying much. Also, if you're implying that most philosophers worth their salt have arrived at the same conclusion you have, I think you need to read a bit more broadly.

rembmer the three dubs: Why(why), why(how did you arrive there) and why(what proof or lack there of);

Duly committed to memory, cap'n.

I will be reading more about Batman and ethical philosophy, though. Thanks for that.

 

[hiphophippy]

That's not very Taoist at all. My understanding of Taoism is that we all have a vital and naturally fitting role to play in the great project called existence, and that by cultivating spontaneity and reading the world around us well, all of us can find that role and play it effortlessly. I don't know how you shoehorn human insignificance into that.

If something looks beautiful to you,

something else must be ugly.

If something seems good,

something else must seem bad.



You can't have

something without nothing.

If no job is difficult,

then no job is easy.

Some things are up high

because other things are down low.

You know you're listening to music

because it doesn't sound like noise.

All that came first,

so this must be next.



The Masters get the job done

without moving a muscle

and get their point across

without saying a word.



When things around them fall apart,

they stay cool.

They don't own much,

but they use whatever's at hand.

They do the work

without expecting any favors.

When they're done,

they move on to the next job.

That's why their work is so damn good.

If one is looking for their place in the cosmos they won't find it. Philosophical Taoism abstract of it's radical smack in the face brother religious Taoism is nihilistic. Living objectively pretty much out of curiosity.

You sidestepped my first point. I'll make it again. Please show me how the existence or nonexistence of a greater plan for humanity has any bearing on the existence or nonexistence of free human choice. I don't see it. In your own words, if you please.

They are not related, as a point for philosophy pretty much free will needs to exist. If there is no free will worrying about philosophy is pretty pointless.

I'm all about personal empowerment and being in the driver's seat, dude. I simply fail to see why this requires atheism, or why atheism is one of the better worldviews for cultivating personal empowerment. Stripped of all dreams of a techno-utopia, it's pretty bleak, and in my own personal experience, rather disempowering and cultivating of despair.

Yeah, pretty much.

But why bother to have any impact at all if no impact will ultimately last or mean anything? As per our discussions on Taoism and personal empowerment, I'm all for acting spontaneously and doing what each of us loves to do, so long as this doesn't involve harming other sentient beings. But I don't think this calls for any philosophical justification, and certainly doesn't require any specific metaphysical belief one way or another.

Just because. It's like playing a carnival game, you pretty much know you're going to loose (futility) but you can try just to see what happens.
We have a cosmic futility but we can exercise our species to see just how far we can go.

Wait... I thought you just promised me joy, freedom, and empowerment from viewing myself as insignificant and pointless. I want my money back.

Sorry, we can only do exchanges no refunds.

Apparently. I've never had any luck finding anyone who can explain it to me well, though many have tried. The bottom line is, you see life as worth living on its own merits, and I do not. Sentient existence, as I've known it, is incredibly painful. I question the idea that the joys and triumphs of life adequately counterbalance the pains and losses and frustrations. If there is no greater plan that makes all the pain worthwhile, then stick a fork in me I'm done; it would have been better to have never been born.

As it stands you are correct. We can convince ourselves of delusional fantasies or we could a a peoples find the huevos to realize how much we suck at this action called life and do our best to make it less painful. But as you put it there is a rather adverse reaction that happens in some people where when confronted about it they threaten to kill themselves. It really makes me think that most people are capable and subconsciously aware of the fact that there is no meaning or purpose but it makes people feel deflated so they choose to conjure up intricate webs of bs so they can sleep at night.

To say that some philosopher can logically justify something isn't really saying much. Also, if you're implying that most philosophers worth their salt have arrived at the same conclusion you have, I think you need to read a bit more broadly.

Actually I am. Most "philosophers" stop when they feel personally comfortable. They want to talk about how they think some way because they feel. I and others like me seem to approach it as objectively as we can (which makes talking with those people who think everything is an illusion a bitch). Falling only on what we can prove either through objective evidence or rational thought experiments. Which honestly destroys pretty much everything but skepticism and nihilism.

Duly committed to memory, cap'n.

I will be reading more about Batman and ethical philosophy, though. Thanks for that.

The Killing Joke, arkham asylum, are the best comics to look into. Under the red hood and well the dark night were both pretty much set up to explain it. In the the adult oriented media the joker will give batman opportunities to kill him and batman knows it's the only way to stop him. Philosophically the joker and I are pretty similar, politically we are not.

 

[hiphophippy]

Batman