GENIUS FORUMS

Trevor,

As a little side-note: David, in regards to your last post, could you please define "murder" for me? I'm a bit confused as to your usage of the term, since it does not agree with the dictionary.

Sucking the life out of an object. Obliterating it.

If we take Unidian's and Hades's view of things as a template and abandon discrimination, we are forced to conclude that there is no real difference, from an ethical point of view, between murdering a person and murdering, say, a sitting position.

-

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:...do you value things other than wisdom, and if so, what?

Bodily autonomy.

I guess it's just as well that bacteria and sundry microbes aren't capable of expressing an opinion about that. It would be more of a cacophony of outrage than this thread :)

Elizabeth wrote:

Sue:At weddings, the man's life is sacrificed to the woman,

Don't you have that backwards? "I now pronounce you man and wife" The man was a man before and after marriage; the woman was a woman before marriage and a wife after marriage.

A woman's whole existence is leading her to this one aim - marriage. It is then that she exerts her real power. For as a wife and mother 'she' is the reason for the functioning of society.

A man's life has the potential to take an alternate route away from marriage - though this rarely happens. Once married, his whole existence goes towards smoothing the way for his wife and children. As a husband, he is no longer a 'man' - for the state of marriage automatically emasculates him.

Well, how about science?

This article indicates that marriage helps men live longer (not women, just men).

Many animals live much longer lives when they are domesticated.

The possibility of living a few extra years is a poor reason for a man to dispose of his potential.

And this article actually states that while married men live linger than single men, married women live shorter lives than single women. Women really do, literally, give their lives to their husbands.

Even if this were true (which seems highly unlikely, as married women are often more able to afford better health care than single women), a married woman gains more life through this one act than she could in any other realm of life. As I wrote above, as a wife and mother, she is the beginning and end point for most of the activities occurring on the planet.

.

ExpectantlyIronic wrote:I don't see that at all. How does wanting to be around friends and family to help deal with the death of a loved one contrast with those values?

It contrasts with my values because it is entirely irrational, violent, and evil to lose one's mind to the emotional waste land that these events entail. People will guard this emotional wasteland as if it were the pinnacle of humanity, but on the contrary they are glorifying what it is to be animal!

ExpectantlyIronic wrote:What would you say or do to provoke such a reaction, and how would it it be reasonable if you knew beforehand that it would do so?

Well first of all I wouldn't be in the same mindless emotional mindset that most others would be in. People can sense this and they may feel threatened by it. Second if someone started interacting with me in a way that was attempting to get me involved with the event, I'd decline because I would have no desire to do such a thing, probably upsetting the animals even further. Thirdly if someone came to me for emotional support, the advice I gave them would certainly upset them, simply because my advice would be cold hard truth, rather than the warm and fuzzy emotional comfort they would obviously be seeking.

Philo,

Bodily autonomy.

I assume you limit this autonomy to humans?

Humans and species whose intelligence seems somewhat close to that of humans, like chimpanzees and gorillas.

What about humans whose intelligence is not up to par with that of normal humans, such as vegetables and the mentally retarded?

That would have to be some very severe mental retardation. But I would value their bodily autonomy, too, simply because they are human, and I have an emotional attachment to humans, being one myself.

This is ultimately "arbitrary" in a logical sense, of course.

Philosophaster wrote:That would have to be some very severe mental retardation. But I would value their bodily autonomy, too, simply because they are human, and I have an emotional attachment to humans, being one myself.

This is ultimately "arbitrary" in a logical sense, of course.

Rather than arbitrary, why not say, irrational?

Because it is not "irrational," any more than preferring vanilla to chocolate is "irrational." It is just about wanting the world to be one way rather than another. Logic, which is just the method of making truth-functional arguments, cannot tell you whether to like the flavor of vanilla or the flavor of chocolate.

Your logic implies that fundamentally, there is only the sensation/emotion of pleasure and pain, like and dislike.

No, it does not. In the matter of fundamental values there is only like and dislike, but there are many areas where like and dislike do not really apply, like reaching conclusions about what events are happening at a given time.

I don't think it means much to say values are irrational. There are some non-rational things in life that are inevitable/unavoidable. A lightning strike is technically a non-rational thing, but why would anyone bother calling such a thing irrational? I think we could take that even further and say the duality rational/irrational doesn't even apply to values any more than true/false applies to definitions.

Edit: I'm talking about first order values here, not those that follow by logical necessity from other values or gaols (e.g. one values Truth therefore one consequently values reason).

I don't understand Dan's post, at all, well apart from the initial sentence.


Philo: No, it does not. In the matter of fundamental values there is only like and dislike, but there are many areas where like and dislike do not really apply, like reaching conclusions about what events are happening at a given time.

As far as I am concerned even reaching conclusions requires valuing, and I regard all valuing as emotionally based -though this occurs mostly at the subconscious level. To me every individual "thing" in our head contains a positive or negative value element - neutrality comes from the addition of positive/negative sub-values.

David Quinn wrote:Philosophaster wrote:

DQ: Were you offering the idea of executing unenlightened old people in seriousness? Do you think it is a good idea?

Absolutely. I would love to live in a society which valued wisdom to such an extent that it would even be prepared to euthanize ignorant old people, if needs be. I think it's a great idea, so long as it was done out of pure motives.

But what would be the criteria for such a program? Since we know that wisdom is an extremely difficult thing to attain doesn't it seem a tad unfair to knock people off because they haven't attained it? Is the program based on people's lack of usefulness or their more direct harm to society? And what is the level of wisdom a person must demonstrate to remain alive? Perfection? Let's hope not as there'd be non-one left to press the kill-button. Plus who makes the judgements? Wise people? Where are they? And do they just make their best empirical guess at whether a person has attained some wisdom or not? Will there be a wisdom test one has to pass? What would that consist of? Seems to me it could take 10 years or more to determine whether a given person is wise or not. Doesn't seem like the makings of a very practical program to me. I also wonder whether the pressure of knowing you're going to be killed if you don't attain wisdom by age 60 is really conducive to such a process. I'm not sure what it would do for one's clairty of mind.

The principle is essentially no different to how society is currently run. Our society happily kills its young people, spiritually and physically, for the continuance of its own existence

An obvious example would be the war in Iraq, but other examples include forcing people to overwork and become ant-like, even though it clearly crushes the spirit out of them and forces many of them into premature deaths, or relying on slave labour camps in Third World countries to ensure our consumer goods are cheap and affordable. In reality, we are engaging in wholesale murder all the time, without blinking an eyelid, which is a far more heinous crime than consciously euthanizing old people.

"Far more henious"? Did you mean to admit that your proposal is a henious crime? :)

But people find it easier to accept that kind of killing because it happens unconsciously. It "just happens" as a function of our egotistical and materialistic lifestyles, which most people subscribe to, and thus everyone is able to wash their hands of it. Indeed, for most people, killing via unconsciousness is a far more palatable idea than conscious decision-making of an kind.

That much is certainly true. However your euthanasia program has more holes than Swiss cheeze. It needs a lot of work with regard to both its criteria and implimentation.

Philosophaster wrote:No, it does not. In the matter of fundamental values there is only like and dislike, but there are many areas where like and dislike do not really apply, like reaching conclusions about what events are happening at a given time.

Yes, that's what I meant - your logic implies that fundamentally, values can only be based on the desire for sensation/emotion of pleasure and the aversion of pain, dislike.

What I don't understand is why logic isnt fundamentally responsible for that.

Carl wrote: Katy/Rory

OK, seriously. Quit that. My name is Katy. There is absolutely no reason to continue to use both names.



At any rate, I do believe funerals are violence against children. They simply cannot understand what is going on before attending and inflicting the strong levels of adult emotion and… ridiculousness… on them is cruel. Children already have a hard time controlling their own emotions. When I went to my grandmother’s funeral at 14, I had no emotional reaction until the final day of the wake (I’m Irish) but found it quite uncomfortable to be surrounded by crying, drunk and angry adults expected to not play with the children anymore but not able to share in the outpouring of grief by the adults. I chose to go to the funeral. I was given that option. But I did not know what I was agreeing to other than that it was “just what people do.” You just can’t make a legitimate decision without information.

The weekend of my aunt’s funeral, I went camping and participated in several martial arts tournaments. I don’t feel that I missed anything. I will probably attend funerals for members of my immediate family, but no others. I still feel the social obligation there. Plus, frankly, when it comes down to it, I don’t mind being the emotional support for my family in that situation. And while I grieve, I don’t feel the need to make a production of it. But my family is my family.

jamesh wrote: I support voluntary euthanasia myself.

Me too, but that is not at all comparable to advocating non-voluntary slaughter of anyone who is not enlightened.

david wrote: But people find it easier to accept that kind of killing because it happens unconsciously. It "just happens" as a function of our egotistical and materialistic lifestyles, which most people subscribe to, and thus everyone is able to wash their hands of it.

Well, this sounds like a reason to oppose the Iraq war, not a reason to condone murdering our older generations. The fact is that not everyone has the same goal as you. While you desire Truth, other people value other things. I believe there was a thread here a while back in which Dan, Elizabeth and a couple other people and I discussed the nature or existence of evil. Dan and Kevin’s assertion was that there was no evil, merely working towards your goal/value or against it. Thus I assume that you don’t see old people as evil, but merely against your purpose. You would condone murdering people who have a different purpose than you?

Does this include people whose purpose is to cure AIDS if they continue to have a marriage? People who want to fight to keep your disability pension at a reasonable rate so you don’t get stuck where those of us who are ill in the US are but insist on using the internet to look at porn? We need thought, but we also need action. Killing everyone who has not come to the same thoughtful conclusions as you have stagnates society rather than improving it.

david wrote: At bottom, the killing will only be stopped, or minimized, when people start valuing truth and giving up their attachments.

It would be equally possible (or rather impossible) for killing to be stopped by everyone developing strong attachments to humanity as a whole. It will never happen, but nor will it ever happen that everyone values truth and gets rid of attachments. Nonetheless, it would have the same effect. What causes problems is that there are differing levels of attachments. If a man is unattached enough to be violent towards his significant other while she is attached enough to remain there is a problem. If they are equally attached, he won’t be violent and she won’t suffer. If they are equally detached, she’ll leave and there will be no problem.

At any rate, I do believe funerals are violence against children.

Yeah, that is what is good about them.

People should get out of their heads that all suffering is bad. Although a cliche, "What doesn't kill you makes you stronger". The fact that it is a cliche should be ignored, as it a vital truth for any being/species.

Katy wrote: I do believe funerals are violence against children. They simply cannot understand what is going on before attending and inflicting the strong levels of adult emotion and… ridiculousness… on them is cruel.

While I agree that a child should be adequatly prepared for what a funeral is before deciding whether or not to go, you can not speak for all children. Refusing to allow a child to go to a funeral if they want to go can be one of the more damaging things to their development. If a child's parent or other family member dies and the other parent tries to "protect" the child from the funeral, they feel left out. They already lost someone important to them, and now they are being excluded from a family ritual. It is extra painful for a child to feel "left out" of the family, especially at a time like that.

Dan wrote:

DQ: I would love to live in a society which valued wisdom to such an extent that it would even be prepared to euthanize ignorant old people, if needs be. I think it's a great idea, so long as it was done out of pure motives.

DR: But what would be the criteria for such a program? Since we know that wisdom is an extremely difficult thing to attain doesn't it seem a tad unfair to knock people off because they haven't attained it? Is the program based on people's lack of usefulness or their more direct harm to society? And what is the level of wisdom a person must demonstrate to remain alive? Perfection? Let's hope not as there'd be non-one left to press the kill-button. Plus who makes the judgements? Wise people? Where are they? And do they just make their best empirical guess at whether a person has attained some wisdom or not? Will there be a wisdom test one has to pass? What would that consist of? Seems to me it could take 10 years or more to determine whether a given person is wise or not. Doesn't seem like the makings of a very practical program to me. I also wonder whether the pressure of knowing you're going to be killed if you don't attain wisdom by age 60 is really conducive to such a process. I'm not sure what it would do for one's clairty of mind.

Okay, you got me there. How about we shelve the proposal for the time being?

Yes, of course the proposal is hopelessly impractical, given the lowliness and egotism of the human race today. It could never seriously come into being unless the majority of society was comprised of buddhas and bodhicittas. We are just going to have to accept that millions of able-bodied young people are going to die needlessly in the future because we don't have the capacity to deal effectively with emerging problems, such as the ever-increasing burden placed on our planet by the aged population. Not much we can do about it.

-

David Quinn wrote:How about we shelve the proposal for the time being?

Hehe - funny you should phrase it that way. In the thread about this over at FP I mentioned I thought you were just using a literary device like that in J. Swift's "A Modest Proposal"

David Quinn wrote:Dan wrote:

DQ: I would love to live in a society which valued wisdom to such an extent that it would even be prepared to euthanize ignorant old people, if needs be. I think it's a great idea, so long as it was done out of pure motives.

DR: But what would be the criteria for such a program? Since we know that wisdom is an extremely difficult thing to attain doesn't it seem a tad unfair to knock people off because they haven't attained it? Is the program based on people's lack of usefulness or their more direct harm to society? And what is the level of wisdom a person must demonstrate to remain alive? Perfection? Let's hope not as there'd be non-one left to press the kill-button. Plus who makes the judgements? Wise people? Where are they? And do they just make their best empirical guess at whether a person has attained some wisdom or not? Will there be a wisdom test one has to pass? What would that consist of? Seems to me it could take 10 years or more to determine whether a given person is wise or not. Doesn't seem like the makings of a very practical program to me. I also wonder whether the pressure of knowing you're going to be killed if you don't attain wisdom by age 60 is really conducive to such a process. I'm not sure what it would do for one's clairty of mind.

Okay, you got me there. How about we shelve the proposal for the time being?

Yes, of course the proposal is hopelessly impractical, given the lowliness and egotism of the human race today. It could never seriously come into being unless the majority of society was comprised of buddhas and bodhicittas. We are just going to have to accept that millions of able-bodied young people are going to die needlessly in the future because we don't have the capacity to deal effectively with emerging problems, such as the ever-increasing burden placed on our planet by the aged population. Not much we can do about it.

I think we could call it a "future contingency nebulously outlined almost plan". A sort of desperate measures for desperate times kind of thing. But then, in the context of certain values and goals - as I tried to argue to Nat and Philo elsewhere - those times might arguably be now - it's just that no-one sees it like hardly anyone sees the extent of the environmental issue facing us. I have a funny feeling over the next decade or two we're in for some changes that many people will find "outrageous and appalling" and contrary to "humaneness".

Dan wrote:

I think we could call it a "future contingency nebulously outlined almost plan". A sort of desperate measures for desperate times kind of thing.

I wouldn't even give it the status of a plan. To me, it's never been anything other than an idle thought - albeit one that subsequently turned out to be very effective in bringing hidden egotism to the surface and revealing people's true characters.

But then, in the context of certain values and goals - as I tried to argue to Nat and Philo elsewhere - those times might arguably be now - it's just that no-one sees it like hardly anyone sees the extent of the environmental issue facing us. I have a funny feeling over the next decade or two we're in for some changes that many people will find "outrageous and appalling" and contrary to "humaneness".

It will be interesting and confronting times for sure. I agree we are going to be in for some shocks.

-

Elizabeth wrote:

DQ: How about we shelve the proposal for the time being?

E: Hehe - funny you should phrase it that way. In the thread about this over at FP I mentioned I thought you were just using a literary device like that in J. Swift's "A Modest Proposal"

I've just had a look at what's been happening at FP. They love whinging over there, don't they? :)

I don't remember ever advocating strangling female infants at birth. That would be out of character. Knowing the way I tick, I probably said something like, "The position of women is so disadvantageous when it comes to understanding reality and becoming wise that they might as well be strangled at birth for all the difference it would make."- something along those lines. But it seems that Nat has grabbed a part of it, pulled it out of context and burned it into his brain. If only he could let it go.....

-