₦airaland Forum

striktlymi: I already agreed that in itself death is not wrong but the act of killing can be wrong.

How is the art of killing wrong if death is not wrong. It is like saying that "coffee is not bad but making coffee is bad". How does that work?

Kay 17: As to killing a man.

Killing caused a traumatic apprehension of death (torture more or less)

This already assumes that death itself is wrong without giving any arguments for why it is. I'm sure that if a person for some reason believed that having a million dollars was bad, he would have a traumatic apprehension (torture) just before he receives it. It wouldn't prove that a million dollars is bad. Same applies to death.

striktlymi: Lol!!!

We won't be here having this conversation

Exactly, but I don't see anything wrong in us not being here having this conversation. We didn't discuss last week, was last week therefore a "wrong week"?

Kay 17: Good and Bad can barely be defined as beneficial and non-beneficial respectively. In those senses, it is illusorily objective, but such judgment must be made based on perception. Hence different societies and cultures with their unique perception arrive at diff ideas of good and bad.

So I will purposely disregard the basic assumption that good and bad are objective. Besides you disregarded it in your argument.

Actually I didn't disregard it. As one of my presuppositions I held that good and bad are objective. I just didn't root it in God (against all good sense).

Is death Bad?

If good and bad are not objective, then this question makes no sense.

To some religions and cultures, it is good, because it is not an end to existence, rather a transformation. In cases of self sacrifice it is the pinnacle of good.

All well and good however on this thread, I don't subscribe to life after death so I can't see how death is a better or worse state than life.

While in our present materialist world, death is the most dreaded entity and it should be avoided inspite of its inevitability. Some believe that because it is not a choice, its bad.

You are sitting on the fence my man. Take a stance!

striktlymi: Only one thing wrong: Extinction!!!

Unless you don't consider extinction something to avoid.

Hmm, why is extinction wrong if death is not wrong?

wiegraf: Look around you, this is how the world operates. We manage fine.

There is no magical/hypothetical formula that can determine if an action is ultimately good or bad, non. It is more complicated, or nuanced, than that.

And note the importance of free will and uncertainty, as I mentioned earlier. But even in a deterministic universe, the above still holds.




There is a clear difference.



But what is good isn't universal.



And you ignore that what "is morally right" is completely subjective.

There are no universal good desires and bad desires. They are "x's", variables, for everyone to come fill as they see fit. And these variable do not even necessarily lead to similar conclusions per say, let alone the same conclusions. Think of it as similar to chaos theory, small variations can lead to astoundingly different results. This is why so many groups are hawkish about advocating whatever morals they espouse.

You could say it is about your values, what do you value most? Values are completely subjective, no universal values anywhere.

Do show me this universally good desire. Again, note how this thread shows that even death cannot be universally good/bad. A naive mind might have thought otherwise, no?




Which is fine, but like I say, the situation is more complex. Good and bad are based around morality, morality is subjective, emotions are subjective, etc. So while we may search for a compromise, the situations is actually more nuanced. Nothing you do here would be final, at all. It may suit your purposes but it will NOT be objectively true.

Only constants are, again, that morality would exist, good and bad placeholders will exist, etc, but they will be completely variable, subject to individual desires, needs emotional or otherwise, etc, and thereby, subjective.






They presuppose a MORALITY, not an objective one.



Again, do please show me this universal 'good' which does not hinge on personal and/or emotional needs.



Because it's in our best interest. Out of chaos we need to define order. Simple. It's not absolutely necessary to consciously define one, but for most of us it surely is very desirable. Note again, a moral code must exist so long as two different (competing/interacting) wills exist, even if the do not realize it, it's an unavoidable effect.



Bound by a moral law, but not objective.

Needless to say, handle your death thread as you wish, but like I've said, your assumptions are clearly flawed so your conclusions would probably be so as well. With the nature of the subject, death, most (and ultimately everything, save bare bones "there is good and bad" ) of what you conclude here will not be objective.

edits

Permit me to not follow through on this as I am convinced it will lead us on an unnecessary tangent. I don't see any sense in a subjective morality as it leaves us with no direction where there is no such thing as good and evil. I'll talk about objective morality at length sometime however this is not that time.

thehomer: How what and why what?

How and why has the murder victim been wronged

They've been denied this person's presence by the deliberate action of someone else. i.e another sapient agent.

So what? They didn't have any rights to his/her presence to begin with.

You skipped over the agency of the death in murder in a haste to claim that fact of death is all that matters.

I didn't skip over it. I argued that since death is not worse than life, the person who causes death has not put the person who died in a worse state.

But we're talking about whether or not something is better or worse than another. With the assumption that we prefer what is better.

But we haven't established whether life (a conscious state of existence) is better or worse than death (the non-existence of the person). . .also I don't hold that a thing is better just because someone prefers it. There are such things as bad preferences.

I'll put it like this; a thing ought to be preferred because it is good NOT good because it is preferred.

Reyginus: 1. I see it as a case of unnecessary disturbance to the homeostasis of the mind. By definition, 'sorry', either in its connotative or denotive form, implies a feeling of sympathy for something. Note the word 'something'. We cannot call that which is yet to be made manifest something so long as their is nothing to take up the conformation the manifestation reflects. Something cannot exist where nothing is present. Mind you, the idea here is to make nothing appear as a non-existent entity. *for the sake of cuddling your mischieve. Lol*

I don't quite agree with this because while expected things do not yet exist, they manage to affect our actions based solely on their potential to exist in the future e.g. planning for yet unborn grandchildren.

Secondly, you second sentence talks about feeling for this non-existent depending on your expectations of it. This is what I think. Once their is an expectation of anything, in this case, the nature our 'nothing' will take, you're already convinced that it exists, even in your definition of it as a non-existent entity.

Ok fair enough.

2. Please, rephrase?

which part do you want me to rephrase?

3. I don't think it is a question of wrong done to the dead man. It cannot be the reason for the evil they experience.
Simply put: when a source of happiness (good) disappears in the life of any being, he is visited by the opposing side. That opposing side is the evil.

Not necessarily especially in the case of the dead man's friends here. They do not and have never owned him, and therefore never had a right to his "goodness" in the first place. This means that when he dies, none of their rights have been violated.
It is just like if for instance: Anony likes his neighbour Reyginus because Reyginus brings good into Anony's life via lots of beer.
One day Reyginus packs out of the town. Naturally Anony is sad that his neighbour who brings good will never be seen again but this doesn't mean that Anony has a right to complain neither is it "evil" that Reyginus has moved on.

striktlymi: Too difficult to watch only...

Well Anony, if you are looking for another reason not to embark on indescriminate killing other than the law and God, then may be we should be looking at the consequence...

There really won't be anything like a foreseeable future for man if we are all permitted to kill without restraint...

It's simple really...the rate at which people will be sent into non-existence might just be greater than the rate at which they are 'replenished' into existence...

When these rates are unequal as stated above then the only viable outcome is extinction...if man does not want its specie to go into extinction then the killings should not be indescriminate...

Almost like using our selfish motive for the general good.

And what is wrong with it if the rate at which people are sent into non-existence increases? It's not like there is anything wrong with non-existence now, is there?

thehomer: As I said before, I have a counter argument for you (Mr Anony) which I think does a better job against God.

Premise 1: God exists and cares about humans.
Premise 2: God would prefer it if most or all humans go to heaven.
Premise 3: All children who die below the age of three years will go to heaven.
Conclusion: It would be right to kill all children below the age of three years until the human species goes extinct. Following from this, the person who does this is the ultimate altruist.

The God here is a variant of the Christian God. And you may assume that people go on living in some form after their death.

In fact, this reasoning has been used as a justification of God's command to commit genocide.

How would you respond?

I'll suppose you want us to talk about God from a Christian perspective. Bearing this in mind let us look at your argument.

First of all, let us look at your presuppositions here. What is your argument taking for granted?

1. You are granting that God (the ultimate creator of all things) exists and He loves people
2. You are granting that there is an afterlife where a person may have a better or worse lot than he/she currently has i.e. heaven and hell. (note that from a christian perspective, hell is punishment for sin while heaven is God's gift of grace)
3. You are granting also that since God loves people, naturally He wants to give them the gift of eternal life in Heaven.

If the above are true, then killing for God is not necessarily a bad thing regardless of the age especially if God is killing the person into heaven.

Now let us look at your arguments

thehomer: Premise 1: God exists and cares about humans.

true

Premise 2: God would prefer it if most or all humans go to heaven.

true. He has given heaven as a gift for all who will choose to accept it

Premise 3: All children who die below the age of three years will go to heaven.

I don't know this to be true. This view is not supported by the bible, besides it looks to me like an ad hoc rule sneaked in so as to enhance the shock value of baby killing which will come up later on (why 3? why not 4 or 20 or 67?).

Conclusion: It would be right to kill all children below the age of three years until the human species goes extinct.

While this might sound true on the surface (especially if premise 3 were true). It has the problem of forcing people into heaven against their will.
If it is God who is doing the killing here, then He really hasn't given them heaven as a gift but rather has forced them into heaven. Maybe it is for the "greater good" but then it will mean that God will be doing a disservice to those whom He allows to live beyond age 3.

(note however God still reserves the right to do this as their creator)

Following from this, the person who does this is the ultimate altruist.

If all your premises were true, then a person (and I'm assuming a person other than God here) who kills 3 year olds with the intention of forcing them into heaven will not be an altruist because he is forcing them to go to heaven against their will in much the same way as a person forcing gold coins into your pockets against your will is not an altruist.

(also he/she doesn't have the right to take a life he/she neither creates nor sustains)

thehomer: As I said before, I have a counter argument for you (Mr Anony) which I think does a better job against God

I honestly don't see how your argument does any kind of job against God.

lagerwhenindoubt: There is a difference between Causing Death and Death. My position on Death is no different from the effects of a leaf falling in a forest where no one hears or sees it. It has no value before your existence, why should it after you are gone.

Of course there is a difference between death and causing death however this difference does not make causing death wrong especially since you hold that death is not wrong in itself.

Murder by its legal definition (The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another) is wrong and should be condemned

It is the word in bold that I am contesting on this thread. Why exactly is death unlawful other than the law said so?

lagerwhenindoubt: Correct! Without a measure of life's (living) experiences, Death is just a biological breakdown/collapse (by choice,
chance or accident) at a cellular level. It is inevitable (a given) so why would it be Good or Evil, it is not as if we can change it

Following your argument, why then should we condemn murder?

wiegraf: I'm confused as to what does this has to do with anything? What does unintelligible have to do with anything I've posted?

Perhaps the word I should have used was "chaotic" instead of "unintelligible".

When we say something is nuanced, we mean that there is an actual right and wrong existing objectively and if only we had enough information and could weigh everyone's purposes and intentions, we would know the truth about who is really right and who is really wrong.

Unintelligible/chaotic on the other hand is what you get if everyone's purposes and intentions were equally valid. in which case the truth of the situation will be impossible to find as everyone will be both actually right and actually wrong at the same time. This creates a situation of meaninglessness and utter chaos.

Mathematics requires no proof? Not sure what you are on about. I can only translate that as you stating they are universal truths, yes? Objective, self-evident universal truths that cannot be altered, yes? Spot the difference with morality?

There is no difference.

One is one everywhere, not so with what is good. You may or may not have noticed that you've spent a lot of this thread just trying to defy what is 'good'

Justice for instance is always good everywhere.

Lets see [url=https://www.google.com.ng/search?num=30&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=Pzs&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=good+definition&oq=good+definition&gs_l=serp.3..0l10.5765.9833.0.10129.13.8.1.4.5.1.567.1913.4j3-2j1j1.8.0...0.0...1c.1.12.serp.ymIHYG1sRMc]googles[/url] definition of the word, even if not of what is good

good
/go͝od/
Adjective
To be desired or approved of.
Noun
That which is morally right; righteousness.
Adverb
Well: "my mother could never cook this good".

Let's see, how do we ascertain what is good?

-I desire all men (especially me) be granted harems by rights, mine should feature young jolie, young jenna jameson, what's that mexican godesses name (fantastic four), etc. I have 'good', honest reasons for this desire mind you, but I very highly doubt they share even a watered down monogamous version of this desire with me, yes?

I hope you noticed that your dictionary definition that "good is that which is morally right" is basically a tautology. I reject your idea of good define merely as your desire because there are such things as good desires and evil desires. . . .That something is desired doesn't automatically make it a good desire.

-I recently met an old acquaintance who showed me a picture of his beautiful 1 year old baby girl. He then proudly declares he got married roughly a year ago, and his wife is 13. I can only hope he at least meant when he married her. Obviously what is morally right where he comes from won't sit well with most of the west.

The only constant is that morality exists so long as separate consciousnesses or wills, sentients etc exist. Truth (in this context), justice, love, etc, all subjective. We'd all define our terms, then negotiate.

I'll treat relativist situations like these at some point in another thread. For now, I'm focussing on the issue of death.

They very clearly are not.

I've already showed you how most of the world's societies goes about forging their code (I can only hope they respect individual rights). It is a subtle process, over simplifying will not do. It is not black or white.

even the idea of rights itself presupposes an objective morality

So long as we're separate individuals with separate emotions, goals, etc, morality will exist, and it will be subjectively defined.

Same applies to everything else that can be apprehended by consciousness, it doesn't therefore mean that they don't exist objectively.

Which argument to hold? It isn't even that complex. Let me be clear just once more, we can define a moral code to follow, but it will be subjective.

Why then should it be binding on anyone if it was arbitarily defined?

And here we are defining, negotiating a code. You believe the consensus could take precedence, yes? If they collectively agree on that, for whatever reason, then they've described their 'good'. However, by the standards I proposed earlier, this is a blatant infringement of their rights, so it would not hold. The act would be clearly 'bad' by those terms, no?

And what does that leave us with if not chaos since they are not bound by any objective moral law?

thehomer: The process of living and the process by which someone dies are important. Someone who dies from murder has been wronged,

How and Why?

the people who care about this person have been wronged.

How and Why?

So to go from "there is nothing wrong with death" to "there is nothing wrong with murder" is a huge leap that I don't think has been justified.

What have I leaped over? What logical steps do you think I have neglected or not considered?

The effect of murder is beyond the victim, it has an effect on the society.

This is a vague and unjustified claim. Nearly everything done in a society affects the society one way or the other.

No problem.

I have a counter argument for you which I think does a better job against God.

Premise 1: God exists and cares about humans.
Premise 2: God would prefer it if most or all humans go to heaven.
Premise 3: All children who die below the age of three years will go to heaven.
Conclusion: It would be right to kill all children below the age of three years until the human species goes extinct. Following from this, the person who does this is the ultimate altruist.

The God here is a variant of the Christian God. And you may assume that people go on living in some form after their death.

In fact, this reasoning has been used as a justification of God's command to commit genocide.

How would you respond?

You can open a new thread on this topic and let's discuss

MostHigh: You Self Rightouse you......

Hahahahaha............why are you judging me?

striktlymi: Morning Anony,

Let me opt out so that you can attend to the other contributors...I see the posts on your 'desk' are piling up and begging for attention...

#Watching from the sidelines can be fun too...

Lol, no wahala

Reyginus: 1. No, I don't think that would be necessary. Their is nothing to feel sorry about. Sorry is only exclusive to those who're in and have gone through existence. You don't feel sorry for the absence of a thing that is yet to exist.

I don't think that is necessarily the case. It is possible to feel sorry for something that is yet yet to exist especially depending on your expectations for it.

2. I don't think their not being born is an evil thing since the power to ascertain if the child will contribute evil or good to the society does not lie in the hands of the parent. It can only be evil if they knew the child will bring good and work to antagonize it. I believe that for we to say that a thing is evil it has to be deviating from a good.

Don't you think that in the same way it is not evil on the part of the murderer because for all we know, that "good person" could have changed the very next day if he had not been eliminated?

3. Not exactly. I don't even think it is evil to the dead to die, to begin with. I think if our world is fashioned as you suggested, evil cannot be said to be done to the dead. My reason is simple.
The building up of entropy in the body as we age functions to provide order through the resolution of disorderliness. So, no evil is done to the dead unless it doesn't follow entropy or entropy is evil. But this is not true.
The evil is not on the dead but on those he left behind.
The cause of his demise is not evil so evil cannot be said to be done to him but the effect his demise has on those he left behind is evil and so evil is said to be done on the people living with the effect.

This I can agree with however because I am feeling a little mischievous today, I'll push it further:

If the dead person has not been wronged, what justification do the relatives have to feel wronged especially since they do not own the dead man and therefore nothing has really been taken from them?

obadiah777: TOP OF THE MORNING TO YOU TOO MR ANONY

Same to you my friend

shdemidemi: Pot calling kettle black.

more like charcoal calling snow black

wiegraf: Which is why I say the situation isn't black or white, it's nuanced.

Nah, there is a difference between a nuanced and an unintelligible situation.

That's my point. After the furore we all can then conclude that we need a "moral law giver". I'll wait and see

Nice try but not really I'm heading in another direction entirely. An objective moral law giver is a basic presupposition it requires no proof in just the same way in 2X2=4 the laws of mathemics are a basic presupposition. No one needs to validate mathematics before attempting multiplication. It requires no proof.
I've only decided to exclude God (in name) so that we don't get into an unnecessary distraction from those who like to deny the same logic they attempt to use.

Indeed. You've met your new foot soldiers about? Like emusan, profdada and onyfrank? They've got interesting ideas about concepts like SOFTWARE, SPIRIT and the water cycle. And your apprentice.. isn't as skilled as you are with the dark side. Frankly, I think you need an army of anony-clones (or better yet, davidylans) to turn the tide. Have you been amassing such a force perchance?

Lol, I have no footsoldiers. I'd love to meet these guys anyway.

No such thing as an objective moral standard. Aliens cross the galaxy and meet us, I doubt they'd arrive with an objective moral code they just happened to have discovered, one we ourselves would have discovered as well. 1+1=2 everywhere, no such thing with morality. Different civilizations on this rock alone that never contacted one another all agreed on math, at best with moral codes perhaps we have the golden rule?

I think you are very wrong here. At the core of morality is the principle of truth and justice and love and they are as universal as 2+2=4

We can dress them up to make them look objective though. On this planet, we tend to focus on impinging on the rights of others as a starting point. Basically, how far can you go without infringing on your neighbors rights? This certainly leads to less confrontation. Less confrontation is beneficial to all, visit war zones to witness proof. From there, we more or else operate on consensus and other factors. Either ways, it's complicated.

without an objective moral standard, what is wrong with confrontation and wars? what are rights? None of these things can exist without objective morality. Objective morals are not made up, they are universal.

So using the standard I describe here, which is perhaps similar to the one you've been using, all that I posted stands methinks. He and his family certainly had their rights infringed on, and they did not infringe on the rights of others to boot.

It appears you have now realized that for your argument to even begin to be coherent at all, you must presuppose objective morals. Now let's move on....

I will concede that some rights have been infringed upon no doubt but I'll still argue that since a state of death is neither better nor worse than a state of living, no harm has been done to his family by killing them. Also by making him king against his will, I don't see any reason why the will of one should be any more important than the will of many. If it his legal duty to rule his people, I would think that the law of the land ought to take pre-emminence over and above his will.

following quietly

wiegraf: In case it hasn't been mentioned before your assumption that morality is objective puts a wrench into the actual situation. It shouldn't be black or white.

Generally speaking though, even if you used something like humanism as objective morality, it would remain impossible to say all deaths are good or bad. On a case by case basis, it would depend on the 'wills' involved, their interpretations of laws (which allow for ambiguity), various criteria that cannot be controlled by any conscious agent, etc etc.

Without assuming an objective morality of sorts, I can't see how we can logically have a discussion over right and wrong at all. Even if we looked at the wills involved, we must have an objective way of determining which wills are doing the right thing and which are doing the wrong thing. If all morality is subject to individual will then all wills remain right in their own eyes and hence moral evaluation becomes impossible.

EDIT: After reading a bit of this.. well... This is about your case for objective morality..
heh heh
Yes, only GOD can decide if it's good or not!!! He needs to define us a PURPOSE!!!

I've purposely decided not to presuppose God in this discussion

At least you're creative. Insidious, but at least more challenging. Then again, considering your foot soldiers.. You should see what I've had to put up with.. It simply was not enough.. I've had to bash 'freethinking agnostics' to satisfy my blood lust..

Poor you.

EDIT 2; If someone made mr x a king in absentia, without his knowledge, he might later come about and be extremely grateful, indifferent, or downright displeased. Most would just assume he'd be over the moon with joy, but that's optimistic. What if he in no way wanted that responsibility, or had other dreams he can now no longer pursue, etc? Now, assuming becoming king brought untold riches but came at an ever steeper price, like say the life of your family (old skool maya-ish style), the situation becomes even murkier, no? Bringing someone into existence is always a gamble. This is, assuming free will or uncertainty.

You see, the problem you have here is that without granting an objective standard for morality, we cannot honestly declare which case is better or worse for Mr X. It is not wrong to make him king even if his whole family dies as the price. Where he hates it, it is only his will ditto if he likes it. There's also the will of the people which is neither right or wrong. The water gets murkier and murkier.

Without an objective moral standard, it is impossible to have a reasonable discussion.

striktlymi: Cool!



True!



Now, I will agree that death in itself is not bad or wrong...I will also agree that death in itself is not harmful to the extent that any harm one feels comes before the individual dies i.e. it is impractical to bring harm to a dead man especially one that has seized to exist...

But I do not agree with the bold...the timing of one's death will go a long way in determining whether death is the wrong state or the right state at any point in time. Timing too can play a role in determining whether consent is a big deal or not.

For one who who moves from a state of non-existence to non-existence e.g a conception that went left i.e miscarriage, consent won't really be a big deal...for a lad who has worked hard through the University in order to free himself and the family from the shackles of poverty...only to be gunned down at that moment when he gets an employment letter from Exxonmobil...consent here is a very big deal and death for this individual at that time would be the very wrong state.

I think you have a point here by bringing up timing however your are only according harm based on what you THINK the future will be for our graduate. There is no guarrantee that he will have a great time at exxonmobil. What if he gets a nasty boss at Exxon who works him to the bone like a donkey and never pays him?

I understand the above but really it's not just an assumption...let's look at it this way:

For an individual who is achieving his goals in life...death will necessarily leave him worse of cause dead men can't pursue or achieve anything. Life here would be an advantage.

That depends on how you look at it, death could also be the rest he so desperately needs.

To a single parent who is the sole living relative of a two year old girl and whose responsibility it is to take care of this child, death will necessarily leave that child worse of if death happens to wrap it's icy hands around this lady...here too being alive would make a world of difference for this family.

In this case, death is not a tragedy to the mother, it is only a tragedy to the child. wouldn't you agree?

You see Anony, life can indeed be an advantage in some peculiar circumstances.

Death also can be an advantage in some peculiar cases.

If you say so!

Yes you are

Reyginus: I purposely skipped explaining which is morally acceptable between existence and non-existence. My mobile phone hangs after composing a lengthy article, coupled with network wahala.

heya, i hope your network improves soon sha
....

Nothing can be said to be non-existent until it has existed.

not necessarily. I suppose that your grandson does not exist at the moment. This doesn't mean he must have existed before.

And neither do I assume that death is wrong.
This is how I see it.
Existence cannot solidy be said to be better than non-existence, neither can we say the same of non-existence without considering a very important factor.
I don't think it is an argument that can produce an answer universal and able to incorporate the existence of all beings.
The proper answer I think must be individualistic. Based on the value an individual placed on himself as a result of his existenbe and contrasting these values with the dormancy of his non-existence.
This is what I mean.
When the effect the existent has on the environment is good (already, I have identified what it means to be good), and by comparison between what it means to be good with the absence of the bringer of the good and the good itself, non-existence will deny the environment the privilege of this good. Hence, this is evil.
Because the moment this entity emanating good is terminated from existence, it also carries with it the termination of a particular good.

You seem to be arguing here that death is evil so long as it terminates a good person henceending the good he was bringing. By this token should we feel sorry for all the good people that could have potentially been born? Is their not being born also an evil thing in the sense that the parents refusing to reproduce have denied the world a good it could have had?

On another note, some other entity might be the ramification of the absence of good. A termination of this entity negates the presence of evil, which is a good thing.
The answer I think should be based on individual life and the effect on the collective whole, rather than the generalized existence/non-existence of the collective whole.

Are you arguing here that more evil is done to those left behind to miss him than to the person who died?

thehomer: Finally something worthwhile to engage with. I've had to toy with OLAADEGBU during your absence. I'll be moving on from him then.



This third point is probably going to be where the meat of the problem with your post will lie.



Let's examine these premises and see if the conclusion follows.

Premise 1 is acceptable.

I guess that for premise 2, you mean for an action to be good or bad rather than a thing since I don't think things like tools are inherently good or bad.

Premise 3 is faulty because existence is a property that an object may or may not have so what object are you referring to that would be better or not if it existed? Do you mean a person?

From your conclusion, it looks like you mean for people. And I agree that there is nothing wrong with the state of death. I also agree that killing a person isn't intrinsically wrong. One can kill someone else in self-defense or in defense of a loved one.

I wonder if this is the argument you actually wanted to make.

Good I believe you've gotten a good grasp of the argument I am making nonetheless I'm going to go one step further: I am arguing that a state of living is not an advantage over a state of death therefore, killing a person is not wrong not only in cases of self-defense but including cases of murder because the murderer has not put his victim in a worse state of being.

Your thoughts...



p/s: My apologies for not keeping to our march 29 appointment

striktlymi: I quite agree with you on the above...if my visualization of this world is accurate then the general feel of the above is a world where everyone is expected to mind their own business i.e. what I choose to do with my life is no one elses business as long as I follow the cardinal rule of not bringing harm to someone else...

yes yes

If the above is correct then it would be safe to say that someone who kills another without the individual's consent necessarily brings harm to that individual and as such the act of killing that person can be viewed as evil.

but it is not the death that i considered harm rather it is the lack of consent that is.

This is where I disagree a bit with you...yes, it can be argued that taken another's life need not be wrong by necessity but doing same without the 'meeting of the minds' or rather mutual agreement could mean that the individual's life was maliciously ended which in itself makes the act of killing that individual evil.

Whether or not the act of killing another person is good or evil is largely dependent on CONSENT!!! If the individual has not given his consent then no one should have the right to end his life...a different set of rules might apply where the individual is not properly disposed to give his consent.

I agree that consent is what determines whether it is wrong but my argument is that since the death it results in is not the wrong state to be in, then the consent thing isn't really a big deal at all.

Lol!!! If I want vanilla but they brought me chocolate then I should have the right to reject the chocolate if I don't want it...in the case of death my assailant refuses to give me the option of choosing which would be very unfair; and also another reason why it is wrong.

Once again you are assuming that being dead is worse than being alive by default because without that assumption, it won't matter if the dead man has a choice or not.

Let me see if I can show you what I mean by using the following statements

1. Sight is an advantage over blindness therefore blinding someone is wrong because you deprive him of sight
2. two legs are an advantage over 1 leg therefore amputating someone's leg is wrong because you deprive him of an advantage.
3. Life (in this scenario)is NOT an advantage over death. Therefore by taking someone's life you have not deprived him of any advantage even if he did not consent to it. See where I'm coming from now?

Really? But why do I feel that my thoughts are anywhere but the point?

Because believe it or not I'm having quite a hard time defending my position against you.

ooman: Still missing the point...your existence, the fact that you are, bestows right upon you to live and not to be killed against your wish.
This is why above 14-20 weeks old fetal abortion are called murder in US states.

I don't agree with the bold and you still haven't provided any justification for it.

That's a lie. Evolution never supports killing your own kind. You are bringing eugenics up now, intelligent selection of traits and that is wrong because all organism except man aren't intelligent enough to know which gene to retain or remove.

Point of correction: The theory of evolution neither supports nor opposes anything it is only an explanation of the presence of a variety of species.

Evolution means the weak will die and the strong will survive, never that the strong will kill the weak.

Not exactly: A more accurate description would be: Survival of the fittest where the fit are fit because they survived and the unfit are unfit because they didn't survive.

And evolution is not concerned with survival of individuals but with survival of the group or species, this is the only time speciation can occur......

Uhm no, evolution is not concerned with anything at all. It only explains how the species came to be. Whatever the organism had to do to adapt, it did. Evolution recommends nothing and prohibits nothing.

.....so you are pathetically wrong, once again.

this last bit adds nothing to your argument

.

ooman: why should your being mean your soul? your being is you, your existence.

This doesn't make sense. Remember you started by asking me how I would feel if I was told I'd be killed. I said my feelings doesn't count. Now you are talking "being" by which you mean "existence". How exactly does it fit into our original train of thought? I'm afraid I can't see it.

did you read with open eyes? did you not see this "You may harm and kill other species to eat, its right, but not
your species, because it means
death to your own species."

All I see is you giving laws without backing them up. From a purely evolutionary standpoint, there is nothing wrong with killing your own species. It could free up some much needed resources for your survival.

striktlymi: Cool!



Agreed! But again, does the child enjoy the same rights as an adult in this situation? Can we safely say that the child has a right to commit suicide if he so desires? If the child must be at least 18yrs old before making such major decisions, then I don't see why it would be inappropriate to save the child.

permit me to skip the issue of child vs adult as it will lead us on a tangent

Again you are correct...but the bold got me thinking...

In this hypothetical situation who or what exactly determines whether an act is good or bad? Is it left to the individual? Is there some law governing everyone, from where we can infer what might be deemed good or evil? Do we limit the 'definition' of objective good or evil to death alone?

Lol, I don't know what else can determine good and evil objectively if not God. However since we have decided to leave God out of it, let us say that good and evil was determined by the law of the land a societal consensus of sorts whereby it is measured by the amount of harm/insult done.
My point will then be that since in a state of death, no harm can be experienced, putting a person in such a state is not necessarily a bad thing.

Hmmm...If I choose to allow the drowning man die, probably because I believe it is none of my business, but deep down the dude wants to be helped, do we take this act of 'negligence' as a praiseworthy deed?

Neither, you can't be blamed for not knowing his thoughts

What lead us to this point really, is the ish of individuals having rights i.e. no man is meant to deprive another of his fundamental right to live if he has the choice to live...now if an individual does not want to be helped out from drowning then the only option is to apologize to him and throw him back in the river to continue from where he left of. But if he does want to be helped then I think that would be a good thing.

lololol.......I totally agree with the bolded. However, I think you are not visualizing the scenario properly. In a world where death is a morally neutral thing, no one will really feel any urge to "correct" a dying man much like how you won't necessarily feel any urge to correct a person on the right way to use cutlery.

I believe everyone should have the right to life without someone else coming to deprive him of this right. It is said that our right to punch another ends at that moment when the individual's right to self defence begins...if someone wants so much to take a life, why doesn't he start with his own?

You could say that, but I'll argue that even if he chose to take another person's life he hasn't really done anything morally wrong. much like you won't feel morally wronged if your host served your tea with a fork and not a teaspoon. At best you'll feel it was socially awkward and that is not exactly the same as something being wrong morally. Get my drift?

What is so special about his own life that he wants to keep it and take that of another? If he likes life and wants to enjoy it then the other man have the same right to enjoy same, if he does not like life and prefers death then no ish as long as he deprives himself of this life first.

Same as above

Hmmm...this really depends on viewpoints as I mentioned before...for one who loves life and prefers to be alive then death necessarily deprives him of something...hence in this scenario death is bad.

Yeah but the question is will it be morally wrong? Note that life here is a mere preference and not a right. Therefore death here will be no worse than serving you vanilla when you would have preferred chocolate.

The converse would be one who prefers to end it all because he probably is sick and tired of the responsibilities and so many other challenges life has to throw at him...for this individual being alive is bad while death is good.

You too like to dey sit on the fence sha.

Anyway you are getting really close to the true purpose of my creating this thread. I'm guessing that by now you've probably begun to suspect it.

ooman: not your feelings, your being.

By "being", do you mean my "soul"? If not, what do you mean?

exactly why life is pathetic and meaningless.

To live is to kill, its about causing chaos to remain conserved

Its about encroaching on others to survive

Its about survival of the fittest and never once has it being about design.

Yes indeed, life as a whole is illegal. A lion would kill a human to stay alive, humans do the same.

This is why there is no specific purpose or meaning to things and why moral laws are limited to within a species only.

You may harm and kill other species to eat, its right, but not your species, because it means death to your own species.

Life occurs invidiously.

Why then were you complaining that killing is wrong when it is in fact the nature of life itself?

okeyxyz: #Okay, as assumption go.



#There cannot be No God. It is popular fallacy that god is the supreme single person that our mainstream religions preach. But even the christian scripture tells that god is a spirit and that we are all gods. So what this means is that god is that principle(spirit) by which each man uses to evaluate his reasons and actions. So every conscious person has god in his conscience to either justify or condemn his actions/inactions. Even atheism is a god(spirit or principle), being a system of evaluating life values.

I know that there cannot be "no God" I am only taking that presupposition for the sake of argument.

#Good =To recognize, protect and improve the value of one's natural attributes.
Evil =To be against one's natural attributes.

fair enough

#First: Nobody has isolated non-existence in order to compare it to existence. At least we know what happens to dead bodies in this world of matter, It is not a pleasant sight.

Nice one there. . . .however, non existence does not have attributes and hence it is easy to compare, it is simply the opposite of existence i.e. everything existence is not.

#Death is not exactly "to cease to exist". Death is the [size=13pt]loss[/size] of life(or ability to live). And death is intrinsically evil because this attribute is taken away from a person who loves it and would want to keep this attribute forever. Therefore taking it away would be evil. Just like it is evil to forcibly take away a person's property, wealth or rights which by the way is recoverable, but when you lose life as we know it; you cannot get it back. How can that not be evil??

Remember since we have presupposed that souls don't exist, life is no longer a property that can be lost rather it is the person himself such that losing life would mean that the person is no longer existing. What you need to show here is why you think existing is better than not existing. Don't merely assert it.