₦airaland Forum

ooman: Ok




The bold is still very wrong, no one has the right to kill another person, it is left for the killed to ask for being killed by the killer, to kill another simply because the killer thinks his victim’s life is pathetic or so, is wrong, the killer is putting himself in an authoritarian position by that.

Now, because living in a particular form (being you) can only happen once (though it has been calculated that there is a chance that matter can form dna to form an individual in a precise way as now, the chance are too low, we are talking about 1 in a trillion, trillion and trillion in a trillion trillion and even if that happens to occur, that you will live in the same environment is another variable factor). So because you are unique, and probably loved and love, living is better than dying.

Being dead means being at metabolic equilibrium with your environment, meaning increase in disorder of the environment. So your whole complex body is an energy conserving machine. To nature, this is why you should rather live than die. But then disorder always increase anyway, this is why you will still die and this is why you replicate, so your descendants cells or whole organism will continue to do the good work of conservation.
So, according to Jane Reece, a biologist, try to stay alive for as long as your system can remain conserved.

You seem not to know the extent of your argument, I would suggest you look up life and thermodynamics to learn more.

I would suggest you read my post again, I feel you didn't quite grasp it.

Euthanasia is something I have no problems with.
Away from that, if a person does not want to continue living, why force life on them. Vanity on vanity, all is vanity. There is no satisfaction to lie and in life, no inherent meaning to life. All is just meaningless, so if a person thinks life is too pathetic to continue to live, why force life on them?

Since life evolved for no ‘fixed’ purpose, which is why it is pathetic and meaningless to begin with, as Solomon first stated, destroying creation of life, because everything created are purposeful, if a person does not want to live anymore, they should be granted death.

I think death may be granted upon request. Every living thing has the right to live or terminate their own life only.

If life is so meaningless and purposeless as you claim, why is it a right?

ooman: Anony, you are still not getting the point.

No one has the right to take another person's life.

If a person want to die, they may die, but to take another persons life is wrong.

Why?

Logicboy03: If something is not evil, it doesnt necessarily mean that thing is good! There is neutral. Something that a religious (Abrahamic) mind can never understand.

ad hom

Good and evil do not apply to everything. They dont apply to death

In that case neither should good and evil apply to it's opposite which is Life

Lastly, Death and Killing are two different things. If one is evil it doesnt follow that the other will be.

Last I checked killing always results in death. I wonder how killing managed to always be evil while it's purpose and consequence remained "neutral"


Let me not derail your thread, come and discuss with us on the other thread if you want.

[Un-following]

Logicboy03: Death is not evil
murder/killing is evil

Simple commonsense that you lack

Lololol. If death is not evil, why then is killing evil? How can something that causes a 'good' thing be evil?

Logicboy03: And what is wrong with the bold, mughty anonynizer?

My point exactly: Nothing is wrong with the bold

Logicboy03: smh....better things to discuss like you failed conclusion that it is not wrong to kill people if death is not evil?

Read the bold again.

vedaxcool: Like the op said cowardice

I think the problem lies in manners, most atheist on NL tend to be abusive and unreasonable, some act like vagabonds despite mac's attempts in reforming them, they remain unrepentant, unreformable, irritable etc.
I think they can learn more from the christians they spend all their lives insulting, some christian make their reasonable criticism in the Islam section disagreeing reasonably with Islam's beliefs!

While I agree with you, I question the bolded. Who made maclatunji the great reformer?

Pastor AIO: Who/where/whom is the person whose right is being infringed upon while non-existent?


How about this? Rather than just Existent and Non-Existent, we divide 'nonexistence' into potentiality and impotentiality. So in nonexistence there are persons and things that exist as potentials, and that is a state of being, from which they can be brought into a state of actual existence. That is different from the impotential that can never be made actual.

If non existent things can be said to 'exist' as potentials then we can now talk about their rights as potentials and their will as potentials.

Hey, I'm just throwing wild ideas out there.

Lol, that was my weakest argument on here and striktlymi took me to the cleaners on that one.

But then when you raise the issue of potentiality, we now have to ask where do we draw the line? At the foetus in the womb? or the concieved zygote? or the choice of individuals to make babies?
In which case, every time two people choose to have reproductive s[color=#000000]e[/color]x they would bear the moral burden of bringing potential beings (who by the way we haven't established if a will may be ascribed to them) into existence...

...it gets murkier and murkier as we go down the rabbit hole.

Logicboy03: Fail.....very far from a nerd

pass....definitely nerd

ooman: how would you feel if a scientist turn you into a chimp or if the government tell you you've done enough alive, its time to die?

My feelings do not automatically bestow rights upon me

the fact that you are born human gives you the right to be human, live among humans and enjoy every other human benefit.
everything living has the right to live because non is more important than the other

You still haven't given us a logical justification for this claim.

Besides it is even more problematic because if every living thing had the right to life, no living thing would feed because in order to feed, they will have to end the life of another living thing hence life as a whole would be illegal

Logicboy03: Yes,

Atheists are very arrogant and dismissive towards many religious people and their arguments.

But is that all? No.


The arrogance atheists have to some religious arguments is the same as the one a sober person would show to a drunk and disorderly person.

If a young child came to tell you that the toothfairy would curse you for not brushing your teeth before you sleep, would you take that child seriously? No

Now, imagine a religious person telling you that his god is the judge of all morality and will punish you for not obeying his commands. Why the hell would you take that person seriously?

Note that the toothfairy and religious gods have never one day shown themselves in public and have never given their followers any benefit over disbelievers

lol, I'm going to be an arrogant Christian here and dismiss this post with a wave of my hand. We adults have more important things to discuss.

Logicboy03: 1 million likes for star wars reference

Nerd

wiegraf: I did notice a disturbance in the force. It seems the sith still live..

lolololol...how far?

ooman: The only reason death is feared is if the living has something to lose, to protect and because there is no second life.

Dying intself isn't evil, its in fact good for survival, if not, the earth would be overpopulated right now of all living things. But killing is wrong, because every living thing has the right to live.

Why? I don't see how being in a particular state automatically gives one the right to be in that state.

ooman: the bold is totally wrong, to kill a person is wrong. No one has the right to take another person's life...... except if the victim asks for it.

Interesting. Nobody is contesting that my conclusion is wrong(morally not logically) in fact we all agree that it is morally wrong including me. However, we are trying to explore a topic and find what logically follows from our initial assumptions. This is purely an intellectual exercise we are having.

In order for you to contest it, I would prefer that you gave us logical and philosophical reasons why death is worse than life because if death is not worse than life, you haven't put a person in a worse condition by killing him.

If your argument is about wills, Are you going to concede that it is right to kill a person as long as the person made the request?

striktlymi: Morning Anony,
If we go by assumption number one and your first premise then the above would be rather incorrect. Holding that someone's right is infringed upon presupposes the existence of that individual before conception.

It would be appropriate to say that rights and obligations can only be extended to those who are in existence...and considering that existence begins at conception, then the ish of infringing on another's rights to be born or not does not necessarily come up.

The argument thus is:

Only those who are in existence have rights and obligations....
Striktlymi is yet to be born and as such is non-existent...
Therefore striktlymi has no right until he comes into existence...

Simply put: no one can claim what he is not entitled to.

Beautiful and lovely. Your argument here is by far superior, I'll concede that part. I was wrong and you are absolutely right.

Continuing.....

By assumption number two, we can decipher objectively, what is good or evil...the question now is: is it an act of evil to save a drowning child? Note that the rules for minors is quite different from that for adults...now let the lasoo be a bit tighter around my neck; where you have child let's replace it with an adult...

Let me remind you what we have assumed. We have assumed that there is objective evil however we have not granted that death is evil by default therefore saving a person from death is not good by default irrespective of whether he is a child or an adult.

Now, saving this adult can be a good thing or a bad thing, based on the circumstance involved...I will give two scenarios to make this simple and further add another assumption, though implied from the assumptions already given. Let's assume that the law states that every adult has the right to commit suicide if they so desire...

Even with the above restrictions, saving the life of that adult can still be a good thing...if for instance the adult in question tried to commit suicide which is well within his rights and I saved him only to find out that his reason for attempting suicide is poverty...and by some generosity on my path I gave this poor dude a billion dollars...could it be said that I did wrong to have saved the lad?

I followed you until the bolded. All you did there was manufacture a condition that helps you justify your evil deed of saving him against his will. Remember, you have already violated his will before asking him why he wanted to kill himself. Giving him a billion dollars does not change the fact that the deed is already done.

On the other hand...if I am as poor as this dude and I deprived him of this easy way out, then it can be said that what I did was very unfair but really, if we take a cursory look at both scenarios we can't but say that my attempting to save the life of this individual is objectively good because what really matters is my intention for carrying out the act...

No it is not, you are still wrong here. Because according to you, a persons will ought not to be violated and you willingly and purposefully violated the right of a man to take his life even when he never asked you to save him. You imposed life upon him
(note that the context of this argument, we haven't established that death is worse than life so you cannot say you were "saving him"

For all we know, the individual might have found himself in the river accidentally without any intent to kill himself...this really would be the determining factor...

You have assumed too much here. Remember that since we haven't established that death is a worse condition, you shouldn't feel obliged to do anything about his case

Mehn I am making this too long...I need to shut up

You are doing great. I'm really enjoying the conversation.

musKeeto: Wouldn't non-existence be different from death, at least technically speaking? Death can only occur if there was life in the first place. Remember you said your premise that souls do not exist. Death is end of existence. Life is beginning of existence.

My initial argument still stands. What experience we have is based on our existence.

Good answer, but remember because there are no souls, we are saying that therefore death = non-existence and life = existence.

Now I think the problem placed before you is to explain how exactly existence is better than non-existence by default. So far you have just assumed it.

striktlymi: This really has to do with infringing on someone elses right...if death is not necessarily a bad thing (from this looking glass) it still does not give one the licence to take the life another.

By the same token, it should be a bad thing to infringe on someone's right by bringing him/her to life via conception against his/her will

Eating is not a bad thing...as a matter of fact eating is a very good thing...do I now say because eating is good then I go about forcing every adult I see on the way to eat?

It is one thing to allow people kill themselves if they want to and another thing for an individual to forcefully take the life of another...even if death is good, every man should be given the dignity of choosing how he leaves this world (all other factors like accidents etc remaining constant).

Let me throw in another twist. Assuming you came upon a drowned child at the swimming pool, should you attempt to resuscitate him. Mind you, at that point, the person is unconscious and therefore doesn't have a will. Why would you impose your will upon him by forcing him back into life?

[quote author=frank3.16]i guess u mean striklymi's question... that is my answer above. i am actually still struggling to get over it (especially that of my fiance which it more recent)[/quote]Oh yeah, seen it now. Good answer. That's basically the same argument I'm making (though with a little twist)

musKeeto: Not one to participate in philosophical debates. Let's see how long before I run off.

I do not agree with your conclusion. From premise 1, we agree that life comes before death. A person has the opportunity to have a good experience on earth. Death would mean experiencing nothing, in essence losing the ability to experience something. To outrightly seize one's right to experience life by 'murder', would then be evil/wrong.

Hmm, you missed some things. I did not argue that life comes before death. I argued that first there is death(non-existence) then life(existence) then back to death (non-exitence) again.
If you argue that it is wrong to cut someones experience of life and force him into death, then it should also be wrong to cut someone's experience of death(non-existence) by forcing him into life. Don't you agree?

Logicboy03: So you deliberately left my name out of the topic.....I am now "others" to you?


After all we've been through? The debunking? The anonyism? The epic fails?

I refuse to spend my logic here after this ego bursting done to me

#logicboy's big ego deflated
#butthurt

hahaha why are whinging again. You know my opinion of you does not determine your worth. Don't give me credit I don't deserve. You are invited by default. Feel free to join in the fun.

Reyginus: Welcome back Mr Anony.
*Still wondering why the different id's though*

Lol, I was getting really addicted to NL so in order to lock myself out changed my passwords to a long string of characters I can't remember and then changed my email to some random stuff so that I won't be able to retrieve it. The new ids are the price I paid for a lack of self-control.

I like the way this argument is fashioned. Perhaps, for once I might be in the same position with my brothers at the other side.
...
Firstly, I think if we are to go from the most basic form, a person does not begin to exist at birth but from the moment of ovum fertilization-zygote formation.
That is to say that, conception as we know it is not a birthing of an existent to be, but route for another phase in the maturation of an already existing being.
If we are to operate by objective morality, the presence or absence of a subject to experience the deed is not really a basis for categorizing morality.
The determinant factor, I think, should be the effect of the deed on the survival of the 'sorroundings'.(By this I mean everything including man).
Let me illustrate.
Assuming a spring water sorrounded by irregularly arranged clump of stones is situated in a local community.
The only available source of water the locals depend on.
Now, let's say Anony is heavily pressed from the watery beans and pap he had the previous day.
He walks around the vicinity searching for a place to drop the ugly thing.
And finally, he spotted the spring. He went for it.
The spring with some scents of fresh air, beautifully conformed that the thought of dropping the 'rascals' gladdens his heart.
And like the gentleman his inputs will not mimick, he walks to the spot, positions with swag and ordered the ugly rascal to let him be.
It mixes and settles at the bottom of the water.
The water the only hope for the community has been denatured and polluted.
The locals as usual, without knowing (like they have an option if they knew), keep drinking from the spring.
As time passed, diseases that are water borne became highly pronounced.
Due it inadequate healthcare some deaths were recorded.
Remember it all began with Anony's running stomach.
Assuming he didn't drop the ugly rascal there, their wouldn't have been the chain reaction.
What I think it should be is, objectively, morality seeks the effects of an act to it sorroundings.
When it is detrimental it is bad and vice versa.

Nice illustration there but you are taking for granted a position we have not established. You are assuming that the deaths are wrong by default but that is precisely what I am challenging. I see no reason why non-existence can be wrong. That's the philosophical question I want you to grapple first. Why is existence better than non-existence?

@muskeeto, I've now added you on skype

striktlymi: Lol!!! So you noticed...

Of course I did, it was blatantly obvious.

Well Anony, that is not my position exactly. I don't believe anyone should be put to death just because he or she is poverty stricken...there are people who are poor and are happy with the life they have got while there are those who are rich and are struggling to find meaning in life...

Whether one sees the beauty of life or not, really has nothing to do with 'wealth'...there are a number of reasons one might choose to just end it all and in such circumstance (especially ill health) death might just be a good thing, considering that there is no consequence involved.

Now to the ish of taking another's life. I don't consider it appropriate for someone (including the government) to take the life of another for no justifiable reason...in my opinion, if anyone chooses to die without committing a heinous crime, then the individual should be the one to take his/her own life as against wanting someone else to help him/her with it.

I know that was not your position but I want to press you to take a stance. Now you are for the right of a person to take his own life. I won't contest that but I will contest the right of a person not to be murdered. If death is not a bad thing and life is not necessarily a good thing,then it equally can't necessarily be a bad thing to kill. wouldn't you agree?

[quote author=frank3.16]honestly i lost two very precious people in my life recently and this experience is what made me interested in this topic.

just saying death is bad or good is just a display of ignorance which isnt anybody's fault.


to me, since death is an inevitable end of every human, then it cant be as bad as we think. if we dont know what waits for us when we close our eyes in death...then its natural for the fear of the unknown to make us feel it is bad. but come to think of it, good and bad people both die, so what makes it bad? i think death is a good thing but it is natural for humans to think it is a bad thing. i lost my mum and fiance recently and i dont believe that a bad thing has happened to them. i just believe that for them to actually experience death... then it isnt a bad thing afterall. their death makes me a little less afraid of this unknown.

i think it is religion that makes us think death is bad... it makes us see it as punishment, we then fail to realize that it is indeed and inevitable end. if there is actually life after death, then i think it would be a place of harmony, i think this way because of the seemingly necessity of death. this necessity cant be for a bad cause[/quote]sorry to hear about your loss man. I'll second Kay 17's question though

musKeeto: See as I don happen, go borrow webcam.. lmao..

Alright, no wahala.. friday or saturday.. I'll be busy on Sunday..

lol ok cool we can talk now if you would prefer, I just can't do late tonight. you can add me on skype with my email

musKeeto: Yeah.. When are you free? I'll be up late tonight..

nah not tonight bro, how's your weekend instead?

striktlymi: Hey Anony,

Yeah I know I was not invited but what da heck...aint leaving till I say my bit

If I go with the assumptions you made then I might say, death can be either bad or good, depending on one's viewpoint.

If everything starts and ends here and I am one who loves life and have gotten all the 'good' things life can throw at me. I have all the money I need, I have access to the lady I want in my life, I have beautiful kids, trustworthy friends and am really enjoying just being here on Earth then all of a sudden I have to give up everything because there is something called death? Definitely, in this scenario death is bad because it would deprive me of a lot...

On the contrary, if I am a homeless dude who has absolutely nothing going for him...one who is spat on, disrespected by everyone, and getting a meal is nothing short of a miracle then death would be a welcome development because death might just be the much needed escape route out of my life of misery.

Nice and interesting, lol you know you are always free to comment.

By looking at your points, you have not really made an argument at all instead, you've pitched your tent solidly on the fence.
If you carefully read my argument again, you will notice that in my conclusion there is a troublesome proposition I have dubiously sneaked in.
By you sitting on the fence, you have fallen right into my trap because now you have to accept that it is good to kill a poor man but rich men should be spared.

Is this your position?

musKeeto: Cool. Will send you a mail soon. Some things to discuss. Crazy idea sha.. you sabi as my brain be..

lol no wahala, I'll expect your mail. Or better still we can skype. You still dey india?

cyrexx: Wait a minute..

Is Mr anony the same person with Mr_Anony?

yep one and the same. Sorry I couldn't reply your email during my hiatus. Thanks for your kind thoughts. How have you been?

Ihedinobi: My twin's back! Yay!....Is he?

Lol hahaha, yeah I'm back at least for a bit.

Well, here I am. And I think that Death is evil.

It will be fun to argue against you for the first time. Let us begin

I think it is because

1. Evil is a corruption, distortion or, perhaps, outright negation of good or that which is true and right.

Good I agree that evil is a corruption and negation of good. but in order to ponder right and wrong, you must be alive first. Why is life good in itself and death bad in itself?

2. Harmonious relationships is true, good and right as nature evidences that when things are rightly and properly related to one another, the best outcomes are realized.

Still only valid as long as one is alive

3. Death is a rupture of relationships. The physical type ruptures the relationships between the various parts of the organism's being and between it and the world around it. That is a negation of the right order of things. The spiritual type ruptures the relationship between a man and God. The eternal type is a total separation from the Source of Life.
Thus, Death is evil.

Hmm ok, but I am presupposing that there is no God to relate to in this case and I am limiting my argument to the physical nonetheless let us look at an underlying assumption you are making. You are taking for granted that relationships are good and separations are bad but this is not necessarily true as not all relationships are good and some separations are very good.

Now I think the main problem before you is to show why a state of existence and relationshipsin itself is better than a state of no relationships or consciousness

musKeeto:

How you dey? Long time, no post..

hahaha, i dey o. man needed a loooooooooooooooooooong break. how your side?