Who wants to kill the elderly?

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
samadhi
Posts: 406
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 6:08 am

Re: Who wants to kill the elderly?

Post by samadhi »

Dan Rowden wrote:Killing for the greater good doesn't impress you? Yet, you're so willing, apparently, to engage in it on a massive scale.
Now, now, Dan, let's stick to what I said.
This is the point I was aiming for, Sam: you are willing to allow me, my mother and all of Humanity to die for your own perceived greater good.
Don't put words in my mouth, my deluded friend.
Interestingly, your sense of ethics is a billion times more murderous than mine. You, you, Hitler, you....
lol ... nice, reasoned argument from the man of the infinite! ... lol
User avatar
Ryan Rudolph
Posts: 2490
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 10:32 am
Location: British Columbia, Canada

Re: Who wants to kill the elderly?

Post by Ryan Rudolph »

Steve,
Did it ever occur to you that making ethical decisions is unethical?
You are in contradiction, you are saying it is a mistake to make any judgment at all, but you yourself are making a judgment of my judgments, you have proven my case with your own contradiction. Surely you don’t believe that man should be without any values at all? Values are what shape the world for better or for worse…Without values, we simply float along with the breeze…

Being of 1:
I mean - what is the deal? Some of you seem to be fearful of the totality you preach about. "Watch out - the totality - it will get you. Its like a giant boogeyman; menacing, threatening, robbing us of vital life sustaining resources by allowing old people to live.
The natural world of causality is indifferent to man’s survival, and therefore without purposeful direction, and therefore it is man’s duty to be the rational creators of what he believes to be a superior world.

Sam,
Obviously you want to project circumstances to justify murder. As I pointed out, whenever that has been done in history, it has been by those who believe that what is good for me and mine, is good for everyone else. That appears to be your justification too. Killing for the greater good doesn't impress me, Dan. For someone who aspires to enlightenment, you seem strangely unwilling to value the life in those whose circumstances are less propitious than your own. Here's a clue. Social Darwinism is not what enlightenment points to.
Yes, but you don’t realize that every life requires labor and sacrifice from every other life. Why should a nurse be forced to work 70-80 hours of her week to care for someone who has abused his own life, and someone who is barely conscious of the toil, sweat and sacrifice others are making to sustain his life? What about the overall burden put on a society when it is overpopulated, and each one must work that much harder to keep the system together?

Humans should be able to work a 20 hour work week to keep the society functioning, why can’t we? For one, Real estate is too expensive, why? Because millions of humans have blindly reproduced, and we are left with an unmanageable situation because the demand for real estate pushes prices too high, and people are left working longer hours just to pay their rent.

This fact can be clearly demonstrated if one compares the cost of living in a small city to a larger city. In Halifax, Canada, one can get a single bachelor apartment for $450/month, while In Toronto, the price for the same apartment might be $800-1100/month. And the one in Toronto isn’t actually WORTH more, it requires the same amount of materials to create it and maintain it. The cause is overpopulation, so fewer humans on the planet would actually make things easier for each one, while reducing the number of species are will continue to go extinct if we continue on this path…
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Who wants to kill the elderly?

Post by Dan Rowden »

samadhi wrote:
Dan Rowden wrote:Killing for the greater good doesn't impress you? Yet, you're so willing, apparently, to engage in it on a massive scale.
Now, now, Dan, let's stick to what I said.
I did. You said your answer was "no". Given my hypothetical there are certain natural logical consequences. Want to change your answer?
Steven
Posts: 109
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 1:14 pm

Re: Who wants to kill the elderly?

Post by Steven »

Dan Rowden wrote:Killing for the greater good doesn't impress you? Yet, you're so willing, apparently, to engage in it on a massive scale. This is the point I was aiming for, Sam: you are willing to allow me, my mother and all of Humanity to die for your own perceived greater good. Interestingly, your sense of ethics is a billion times more murderous than mine. You, you, Hitler, you....
If people choose to consume and to breed and to pollute to the point of extinction that is there decision, not Sams.

A lack of resources is a symptom, not a problem. That problem is either overconsumption or overbreeding.

Overconsumption may be addressable by the execution of those above a certain age, but overbreeding will require the continued lowering of the age untill it reaches a level where no further breeding is possible untill the system recovers.

Alternatively we could consume less and have one child in our lifetimes. Which in accordance with this phrase "the highest degree of ethical existence an individual can attain is one of minimal impact and interference." would be the only ethical position out of all proposed thus far.

Or you can blame someone else, get them to carry your burden, and wax lyrical about how their continued existence is unethical. None of this has any philosophical or intellectual value.
Ryan Rudolph wrote:Steve,
Did it ever occur to you that making ethical decisions is unethical?
You are in contradiction, you are saying it is a mistake to make any judgment at all, but you yourself are making a judgment of my judgments, you have proven my case with your own contradiction. Surely you don’t believe that man should be without any values at all? Values are what shape the world for better or for worse…Without values, we simply float along with the breeze…
A contradiction would be "all judgements are false."

I maintain that if one is capable of justifying their judgements of an ethical nature, then all judgements of an ethical nature are equally invalid.

For example, this judgement is true. "Killing my child will stop him screaming."
What about this judgement? "I should kill my child."
Last edited by Steven on Thu Apr 10, 2008 9:24 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Who wants to kill the elderly?

Post by Dan Rowden »

Steven wrote:
Dan Rowden wrote:Killing for the greater good doesn't impress you? Yet, you're so willing, apparently, to engage in it on a massive scale. This is the point I was aiming for, Sam: you are willing to allow me, my mother and all of Humanity to die for your own perceived greater good. Interestingly, your sense of ethics is a billion times more murderous than mine. You, you, Hitler, you....
If people choose to consume and to breed and to pollute to the point of extinction that is there decision, not Sams.
That doesn't seem immediately relevant to my scenario.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Who wants to kill the elderly?

Post by Dan Rowden »

Steven wrote:I maintain that if one is capable of justifying their judgements of an ethical nature, then all judgements of an ethical nature are equally invalid.

For example, this judgement is true. "Killing my child will stop him screaming."
This judgment might not be true in Haiti :)
What about this judgement? "I should kill my child."
Factual judgements are ethically neutral till such time as we ascribe an ethical dimension to them. Even then they remain ethically neutral as the judgement is ours and not inherent in the thing/event.
Steven
Posts: 109
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 1:14 pm

Re: Who wants to kill the elderly?

Post by Steven »

Dan Rowden wrote:
Steven wrote:
Dan Rowden wrote:Killing for the greater good doesn't impress you? Yet, you're so willing, apparently, to engage in it on a massive scale. This is the point I was aiming for, Sam: you are willing to allow me, my mother and all of Humanity to die for your own perceived greater good. Interestingly, your sense of ethics is a billion times more murderous than mine. You, you, Hitler, you....
If people choose to consume and to breed and to pollute to the point of extinction that is there decision, not Sams.
That doesn't seem immediately relevant to my scenario.
Ah yes, my fault for not reading the arguement and assuming its contents.

To Beingof1 and others who find the premise of this thread disturbing, let me ask you this: let's say, hypothetically, we were to discover that last stage Alzheimer's patients, for whatever reason (brain viruses or something) represented a clear and present danger to Humanity's survival. Do you euthanasie them or not?
Hypothetically speaking, the rest of humanity would choose for him.

If say I was the last person alive barring these patients, and their continued existence would shorten my lifespan, what would I do?

Nothing.
This judgment might not be true in Haiti :)
The judgement is true only if I have a child and he is screaming, in which case it is true everywhere.
Factual judgements are ethically neutral till such time as we ascribe an ethical dimension to them. Even then they remain ethically neutral as the judgement is ours and not inherent in the thing/event.
Bingo.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Who wants to kill the elderly?

Post by Dan Rowden »

Steven wrote:
To Beingof1 and others who find the premise of this thread disturbing, let me ask you this: let's say, hypothetically, we were to discover that last stage Alzheimer's patients, for whatever reason (brain viruses or something) represented a clear and present danger to Humanity's survival. Do you euthanasie them or not?
Hypothetically speaking, the rest of humanity would choose for him.
Hypothetically it might; hypothetically he might be the world leader making the choice. Either way I want to know what each person thinks is ethically appropriate and tease out the implications of that. Deferring judgement to the mob doesn't negate one's own stance.
If say I was the last person alive barring these patients, and their continued existence would shorten my lifespan, what would I do? Nothing.
Well, that's ok because you're only choosing for yourself.
This judgment might not be true in Haiti :)
The judgement is true only if I have a child and he is screaming, in which case it is true everywhere.
Note to self: don't bother with zombie jokes.
Factual judgements are ethically neutral till such time as we ascribe an ethical dimension to them. Even then they remain ethically neutral as the judgement is ours and not inherent in the thing/event.
Bingo.
"There are no moral phenomena, only moral interpretations of phenomena." - Nietzsche.
User avatar
Ryan Rudolph
Posts: 2490
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 10:32 am
Location: British Columbia, Canada

Re: Who wants to kill the elderly?

Post by Ryan Rudolph »

Steven,
What about this judgment? "I should kill my child."
It depends on the circumstances - If your child was born with some sort of terminal illness that would result in his life being short and horrid, then the only moral choice would be to take its life at the beginning, and not wait for the extended suffering….

Death is a favor for some. It is an act of kindness…compassion.

Or suppose the child was born with serious mental deficiencies that required 24-hour care from parents for the rest of their lives, is that fair to the liberty of the parent? should other people be burdened with the lifelong responsibility to keep another alive? I suspect that any rational person would not dedicate their entire life for caring to an individual who is partially brain-dead.
I maintain that if one is capable of justifying their judgements of an ethical nature, then all judgements of an ethical nature are equally invalid.
so you deny that human beings lack the intelligence to make moral judgments at all? Seriously. It is precisely the fact of subjective experience and suffering that entitles each man to making moral judgments, and entitles each man to share his values as wisdom. However, most humans lack the intelligence to fully explore how deep that reality goes....

If your above statement were true than any criminal in a court of law could use it to get off scott free of their offense. Our entire society is build the agreement that there are moral judgments that are universally true. Much of our legal system has been refined based on the justification of ethical judgments and action. Any law is based on an ethical argument or justification for action of an ethical nature.

Should we abandon our entire legal system, and follow your "All judgments are bad" philosophy?
samadhi
Posts: 406
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 6:08 am

Re: Who wants to kill the elderly?

Post by samadhi »

Dan Rowden wrote:
samadhi wrote:
Dan Rowden wrote:Killing for the greater good doesn't impress you? Yet, you're so willing, apparently, to engage in it on a massive scale.
Now, now, Dan, let's stick to what I said.
I did. You said your answer was "no". Given my hypothetical there are certain natural logical consequences. Want to change your answer?
Oh, I see the game you want to play. "If you could save the whole world by killing one person, would you do it?" Gee, doesn't that tell you a lot about our present situation? I don't think so.

Look, the point isn't whether you can make an absolute rule about killing. There are no absolute rules for behavior. But in our present situation is euthanasia without consent justified? Your answer appears to be yes. Am I correct in that assumption?
samadhi
Posts: 406
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 6:08 am

Re: Who wants to kill the elderly?

Post by samadhi »

Ryan,
... but you don’t realize that every life requires labor and sacrifice from every other life. Why should a nurse be forced to work 70-80 hours of her week to care for someone who has abused his own life, and someone who is barely conscious of the toil, sweat and sacrifice others are making to sustain his life? What about the overall burden put on a society when it is overpopulated, and each one must work that much harder to keep the system together?
Why should that be your decision? Why can't the family decide what to do? And don't bring the nurse into it. He or she decides whether the wage is worth the work or not, not you.
Humans should be able to work a 20 hour work week to keep the society functioning, why can’t we? For one, Real estate is too expensive, why? Because millions of humans have blindly reproduced, and we are left with an unmanageable situation because the demand for real estate pushes prices too high, and people are left working longer hours just to pay their rent.
Yeah, it's tough there, isn't it. My advice, get a job.
This fact can be clearly demonstrated if one compares the cost of living in a small city to a larger city. In Halifax, Canada, one can get a single bachelor apartment for $450/month, while In Toronto, the price for the same apartment might be $800-1100/month. And the one in Toronto isn’t actually WORTH more, it requires the same amount of materials to create it and maintain it.
Oh please. It IS worth more if people are willing to pay it. Go live in Halifax if you want cheap. No one is forcing you to rent in Toronto.
The cause is overpopulation, so fewer humans on the planet would actually make things easier for each one, while reducing the number of species are will continue to go extinct if we continue on this path…
No one is arguing whether overpopulation is a problem or not. The question is, do you as an individual get to decide the fate of others based on your own personal preferences?
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Who wants to kill the elderly?

Post by David Quinn »

Steven wrote:
David Quinn wrote: Logic is the absolute arbiter.
Judgement of the premise and proposition are open to interpretation even if the conclusion is logical and the process of thought rational.

Premises and propositions are also open to logical scrutiny.

If the criteria is perfect truthfulness, then every premise, assumption, axiom, value, and proposition under the sun is open to logical scrutiny.

Steven wrote:
My connection to truth.
Yours personally?
Of course. And should you have a genuine connection to truth, then for you, that connection would be your authority.

Steven wrote:
There is no such thing as an objective benchmark, in the sense of God-given rules or commandments existing independently outside of the mind, that one can call upon. However, as subjects, we can access a form of objectivity by uncovering what is ultimately true in life. Indeed, objectivity is nothing other than our subjective relationship to truth.
Ergo every justification for every judgement formed by each individual has the same premise.

That's true. The issue thus hinges on whether one's connection to truth is genuine.

The mere belief that one's views are true isn't enough. They really have to be true.

Steven wrote:
If a person uncovers truth, and knows logically that he has uncovered truth, then he in a position to make "objective" assessments about things.
Although the mind is a complex thing, the inherant process of thought is one of rational synthesis and analysis of knowledge upon conceptions, otherwise there would be no order even in illusions.

The variations come not in the process of rational thought, but in the contents of conceptions.

That's right. So if a person's conceptions reflect the truth without any distortion, then his conclusions will differ from those whose conceptions don't accurately reflect the truth. An irrational conception can only yield irrational conclusions, no matter how watertight the logical steps are in between.

If one accepts Adolf Hitlers premises his subsequent life is highly logical, which is the ultimate arbiter.
A truthful person wouldn't accept Hitler's premises as being logical.

A truthful person seeks to thoroughly eliminate all delusions from his consciousness. There was little in Hitler's premises or beliefs that fostered such a process. If anything, they caused people to become even more emotional and defensive than ever.

-
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Who wants to kill the elderly?

Post by Dan Rowden »

Sam,

I said I was against involuntary euthanasia. It would take somewhat exceptional circumstances for me to change my view, but I nevertheless would. My broader point is that there's little kudos to be milked from morally "chastising" those who have a different set of criteria for what constitutes an exceptional circumstance since there is no objective standard for such things.
samadhi
Posts: 406
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 6:08 am

Re: Who wants to kill the elderly?

Post by samadhi »

Dan Rowden wrote:I said I was against involuntary euthanasia. It would take somewhat exceptional circumstances for me to change my view, but I nevertheless would. My broader point is that there's little kudos to be milked from morally "chastising" those who have a different set of criteria for what constitutes an exceptional circumstance since there is no objective standard for such things.
Okay, I get your point. I do find it particularly galling when I hear those who, having zero compassion, blindly advocate for the killing of others who they plainly despise so they themselves can benefit while pretending their motive is really more altruistic. Aggressive ignorance on that scale is a button-pusher for me.
Steven
Posts: 109
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 1:14 pm

Re: Who wants to kill the elderly?

Post by Steven »

Dan Rowden wrote:
Steven wrote:
To Beingof1 and others who find the premise of this thread disturbing, let me ask you this: let's say, hypothetically, we were to discover that last stage Alzheimer's patients, for whatever reason (brain viruses or something) represented a clear and present danger to Humanity's survival. Do you euthanasie them or not?
Hypothetically speaking, the rest of humanity would choose for him.
Hypothetically it might; hypothetically he might be the world leader making the choice. Either way I want to know what each person thinks is ethically appropriate and tease out the implications of that. Deferring judgement to the mob doesn't negate one's own stance.
The point is that I do not live a world that is devoid of other people and it is the evolution of groups that creates such decision making processes. Deferring to the mob judgement is not the negation of a stance, it the inevitable stance all of us must face whether that mob is democratic or dogmatic.

If one wishes to decide they have an ethically valid viewpoint, and go on through politics to exercise that on the world stage then so be it. The only validation is their own and that of their peers. The individual ethical perspective, no matter how rational or logical or based upon truth is ultimately irrelevant if it is ignored and denied and rejected or is unable to affect its judgement upon the issue. Likewise the most fallacious and irrational judgement will be deemed ethically pure if the mob says so, and its judgement will be carried out.

There is no basis upon which those of us that are not "enlightened" can know for a fact that their ethical judgement is right. Thus the very basis of forming an ethical judgement from this position is unethical for you know you may be carrying out what is ethically wrong due to your dellusion of what is right.

There is no such thing as the right decision, the ethical decision. There are decisions with outcomes you desire and prefer and those you dont. There are decisions that are acted upon and achieve a change, and those that don't.

The closest a human being can come to ethical objectivity is to understand their lack of absolute perfection, understand that they cannot see every consequence, and understand that their decisions may well be fundamentally flawed, and thus to conclude not to interfere with lives of others, or if this proves impossible to act in such a way as to minimise what they think are the negative influences they have on others.
Ryan Rudolph wrote:Steven,
What about this judgment? "I should kill my child."
It depends on the circumstances - If your child was born with some sort of terminal illness that would result in his life being short and horrid, then the only moral choice would be to take its life at the beginning, and not wait for the extended suffering….

Death is a favor for some. It is an act of kindness…compassion.
And if a cure is discovered days after your child dies, or the parents are imprisoned and become involved in drug abuse and subsequently are in and out of jail having wrecked their lives and the lives of many others through their shattered emotional existence?

Ifs and buts are easy. Knowing every factual consequence of your actions is not.

Is it ethical for the parents to put the suffering of their Child above the Law?
Ryan Rudolph wrote:so you deny that human beings lack the intelligence to make moral judgments at all? Seriously. It is precisely the fact of subjective experience and suffering that entitles each man to making moral judgments, and entitles each man to share his values as wisdom. However, most humans lack the intelligence to fully explore how deep that reality goes....
Then by your own standards most humans lack the intelligence to make moral judgements.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:If your above statement were true than any criminal in a court of law could use it to get off scott free of their offense. Our entire society is build the agreement that there are moral judgments that are universally true. Much of our legal system has been refined based on the justification of ethical judgments and action. Any law is based on an ethical argument or justification for action of an ethical nature.

Should we abandon our entire legal system, and follow your "All judgments are bad" philosophy?
I am unlikely to commit any law determined crimes upon anyone else in the rest of my lifetime, barring some unforseeable change.

There is no reason to state that you should do what I see, or that others will think how I think. What the laws state and humanity thinks on ethics is different to what I think, but that does not mean I will avoid punishment should I break those laws.

And you are getting into some fairly dubious territory on the whole civil legal system. One could argue that laws exist because the crimes against those laws are unethical, but the truth is that laws exist to prevent large groups of people from descending into chaos and upsetting social existence.

Is it unethical for Lions to have multiple female mates and to mount them when they desire? Is evolution unethical?

Further I have never claimed that all judgements are bad, but that all ethical judgements are invalid. There is no right or wrong, only action and reaction, fact and fallacy.
User avatar
Carl G
Posts: 2659
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: Arizona

Re: Who wants to kill the elderly?

Post by Carl G »

Well. I would like to kill this thread.
Good Citizen Carl
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Who wants to kill the elderly?

Post by Dan Rowden »

samadhi wrote:
Dan Rowden wrote:I said I was against involuntary euthanasia. It would take somewhat exceptional circumstances for me to change my view, but I nevertheless would. My broader point is that there's little kudos to be milked from morally "chastising" those who have a different set of criteria for what constitutes an exceptional circumstance since there is no objective standard for such things.
Okay, I get your point. I do find it particularly galling when I hear those who, having zero compassion, blindly advocate for the killing of others who they plainly despise so they themselves can benefit while pretending their motive is really more altruistic. Aggressive ignorance on that scale is a button-pusher for me.
God help you if anyone ever gets their hands on the Samadhi Universal Remote®
Beingof1
Posts: 745
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 7:10 pm

Re: Who wants to kill the elderly?

Post by Beingof1 »

Dan:
Why don't you just admit you're too cowardly to answer my hypothetical directly because you know you'll get logically pummeled?
Feelin froggy there big guy?
Jump.

This one is a real head scratcher - hmm.


Let me take a crack at it: Hypothetically - if I were the president of the world and had to make this decision?
let's say, hypothetically, we were to discover that last stage Alzheimer's patients, for whatever reason (brain viruses or something) represented a clear and present danger to Humanity's survival. Do you euthanasie them or not?
Hmmm


Why I know - eureka - I would find a cure.

What do you value?

Get a grip.

I bet I can guess what the next qualifying statement you will have.
I said I was against involuntary euthanasia. It would take somewhat exceptional circumstances for me to change my view, but I nevertheless would. My broader point is that there's little kudos to be milked from morally "chastising" those who have a different set of criteria for what constitutes an exceptional circumstance since there is no objective standard for such things.
Bingo;" there is no objective standard for such things" - what is left?



Ryan Rudolph:
Being:
I mean - what is the deal? Some of you seem to be fearful of the totality you preach about. "Watch out - the totality - it will get you. Its like a giant boogeyman; menacing, threatening, robbing us of vital life sustaining resources by allowing old people to live.

Ryan:
The natural world of causality is indifferent to man’s survival, and therefore without purposeful direction, and therefore it is man’s duty to be the rational creators of what he believes to be a superior world.
I could not agree more.

Since you and all others are clearly my inferior;

Can you kill yourself now?
Yes, but you don’t realize that every life requires labor and sacrifice from every other life. Why should a nurse be forced to work 70-80 hours of her week to care for someone who has abused his own life, and someone who is barely conscious of the toil, sweat and sacrifice others are making to sustain his life? What about the overall burden put on a society when it is overpopulated, and each one must work that much harder to keep the system together?
Since you are requiring me to sacrifice for you and since the world is overpopulated and you make me work harder, could you go ahead and off yourself as you are clearly my inferior.

Truth, Courage, Honesty, Logic, Masculinity, Wisdom, Perfection all cry out to you to off yourself.

Get a grip


David:
A truthful person wouldn't accept Hitler's premises as being logical.

A truthful person seeks to thoroughly eliminate all delusions from his consciousness. There was little in Hitler's premises or beliefs that fostered such a process. If anything, they caused people to become even more emotional and defensive than ever.
I am glad we agree.

What is a valuable life?
Steven
Posts: 109
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 1:14 pm

Re: Who wants to kill the elderly?

Post by Steven »

Beingof1 wrote:What is a valuable life?
The one you experience, for all other choices on the values of others depend upon how you relate to them, how you measure their value within your life.

This however leads to a situation, and I have been told this before in earnest while many more think it in silence, where the conclusion is "I am the centre of the Universe" and not "the centre of my Universe."

Consciousness is a gift, but it is a Greek gift.
User avatar
Faust
Posts: 643
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 4:29 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Who wants to kill the elderly?

Post by Faust »

Dan Rowden wrote:A=A
the law of identity is only an empirical fact, you can empirically verify it by saying, "whatever the universe is, that's what it is" this is empirical, where's the "logical" in it?
"cause" as "that which is necessary for the existence of something". All things exist in the same way as logical constructs, dualities etc. Any thing requires that which it is not for its existence, it is therefore, by that definition, caused.
this is still empirical, dualities are an empirical concept and are empirically verified. Also, causality poses a problem of the infinite regress, which implies that the Totality was always here, hence uncaused
Amor fati
User avatar
Faust
Posts: 643
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 4:29 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Who wants to kill the elderly?

Post by Faust »

David Quinn wrote:There is no such thing as an objective benchmark, in the sense of God-given rules or commandments existing independently outside of the mind, that one can call upon. However, as subjects, we can access a form of objectivity by uncovering what is ultimately true in life. Indeed, objectivity is nothing other than our subjective relationship to truth.
All this sounds like a big contradiction. You cannot say there's no objective benchmark, but then claim things that are true outside the mind, "we can access a form of objectivity by uncovering what is ultimately true in life." "ultimately true in life" is a contradiction of us not being objective outside the mind

"objectivity is nothing other than our subjective relationship to truth." What? If you have a subjective relationship to truth then the truth is not objective
Amor fati
User avatar
Ryan Rudolph
Posts: 2490
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 10:32 am
Location: British Columbia, Canada

Re: Who wants to kill the elderly?

Post by Ryan Rudolph »

Sam,
No one is arguing whether overpopulation is a problem or not. The question is, do you as an individual get to decide the fate of others based on your own personal preferences?
But if the world is rational, then the world’s preferences are my preferences anyway.
Why should that be your decision? Why can't the family decide what to do? And don't bring the nurse into it. He or she decides whether the wage is worth the work or not, not you.
Is a brain-dead Alzheimer’s patient in a position to make that decision? What about an irrational family member who is afraid to lose the person because of emotional reasons, their emotional involvement would prevent them from doing the right thing and putting the person out of their misery.

It is only the truly rational that can make such judgments.

Steven,
And if a cure is discovered days after your child dies, or the parents are imprisoned and become involved in drug abuse and subsequently are in and out of jail having wrecked their lives and the lives of many others through their shattered emotional existence?
How often are miracle cures discovered for terminal illnesses? Research the issue; the future is pretty bleak for most terminal illness patients. You cannot base your decisions on a false hope or fantasy.
Knowing every factual consequence of your actions is not.
There are three major consequences of such a decision in my opinion, there is the elimination of the patient’s suffering, the ending of the burden put on other health workers, and then there is the suffering caused to the family, but the suffering caused to the family is based on emotional attachment anyhow so there is more weight to the first two consequences ..
Then by your own standards most humans lack the intelligence to make moral judgments.
Most humans are capable of making rudimentary judgments such as punishing rape, theft and unnecessary murder, but they never take their judgments all the way - into the realm of emotional attachments….

Steven,
Further I have never claimed that all judgements are bad, but that all ethical judgements are invalid. There is no right or wrong, only action and reaction, fact and fallacy.
So you’re saying that seeing there is no right or wrong is the right way to see things, boy that is really confusing….

Being of 1:
I could not agree more.

Since you and all others are clearly my inferior;

Can you kill yourself now?
You are hung up on this inferior/superior thing, think about it this way – was it compassionate in the movie OLD YELLER to put the dog out of its misery? Was that the right action? We do it with animals all the time, why not humans? Humans are no more special or sacred than animals, and humans are actually more conscious of their suffering, so should we not do the same thing with a worn out malfunctioning Alzheimer’s patient?

Basically, Life is fundamentally not worth living under many circumstances, and rational thinkers are perfectly capable of deciding when to make that call…

However, fundamentally I believe the implementations of these ideas are impractical as humans are too irrational to accept them, but as the world becomes more rational, they should become increasingly open to these ideas. Basically, I’m not suggesting that it is my plan to attempt to change hospital policies…
Beingof1
Posts: 745
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 7:10 pm

Re: Who wants to kill the elderly?

Post by Beingof1 »

Ryan:
You are hung up on this inferior/superior thing,
If you want to actually know who is "hung up on this inferior/superior thing", I strongly suggest you look in the mirror.

Allow me to remind you of what I was responding to:
therefore it is man’s duty to be the rational creators of what he believes to be a superior world.
How quaint.You mean they are not suicidal. So given your own logical reasons, why do you think your life can be justifyed as allowing to exists?

Who is it really, in this conversation, that is concerned with who is superior? Why, that would be the protaganists if this nonsense.
think about it this way – was it compassionate in the movie OLD YELLER to put the dog out of its misery? Was that the right action?
Old Yeller was not my dog.
We do it with animals all the time, why not humans?
Why don't you lead the way and show us all this great act of inspiration and nobility would accomplish? Since the world is overpopulated and overworked by you being here, do the right thing and off yourself.

Why do you not follow your own advice?
Humans are no more special or sacred than animals, and humans are actually more conscious of their suffering, so should we not do the same thing with a worn out malfunctioning Alzheimer’s patient?
Do you think most of the human race is running on all of its cylinders? If not, they are malfunctioning (kinda like the proponents in this thread) - so, using your logic, reason, and deep compassion for the good of humanity - extinguish them all.

You should lead by example though.
Basically, Life is fundamentally not worth living under many circumstances, and rational thinkers are perfectly capable of deciding when to make that call…
The problem is - you are not being rational at all. If you were rational, you would be able to respond to my point about you leading the way with euthanasia.

But apparently, you cannot answer this question and therefore - you are irrational and therefore - should follow your own advice.

But if the world is rational, then the world’s preferences are my preferences anyway.
More flapping of the gums - follow your own advice or are you just to blind to see what you are advising?

You have not thought this through at all, you have barley scratched the surface.

If you had an actual 'logical' argument, you would be able to respond as to why you do deserve to live.
User avatar
divine focus
Posts: 611
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 1:48 pm

Re: Who wants to kill the elderly?

Post by divine focus »

Dan Rowden wrote:To Beingof1 and others who find the premise of this thread disturbing, let me ask you this: let's say, hypothetically, we were to discover that last stage Alzheimer's patients, for whatever reason (brain viruses or something) represented a clear and present danger to Humanity's survival. Do you euthanasie them or not?
Fear breeds control. There is nothing to fear. To impose your will on anyone exhibits a lack of power.
eliasforum.org/digests.html
User avatar
Ryan Rudolph
Posts: 2490
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 10:32 am
Location: British Columbia, Canada

Re: Who wants to kill the elderly?

Post by Ryan Rudolph »

Being of 1,
Why don't you lead the way and show us all this great act of inspiration and nobility would accomplish? Since the world is overpopulated and overworked by you being here, do the right thing and off yourself.

Why do you not follow your own advice?
Killing myself wouldn’t make sense though because at present my life is worth living. However, if I suddenly develop a terminal disease with no cure, and I become a burden to the society, or if my mind starts to go on me, then what is the point? I would certainly end it then. Basically, if I begin to lose my ability to reason, then I will actually have a reason to end my life.

Moreover, I’m not advocating the killing of large numbers of unconscious humans, they seem to accomplish that on their own accord...but putting cancer patients, the severely neurotic and Alzheimer’s patients out of their misery seems fairly humane and pragmatic to me.

Being of 1, I personally believe you’ve been too heavily influenced by Christian dogma that conditions followers into believing that all killing is always wrong.
Locked