Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Realmfighter]

Personally? Even without the ten being complete monster by everyone of my defining traits of monstrosity I would pick the one I love. I would never try to morally justify it because the person I loved was just as valuable as the ten others.

[Frumple]

I don't know if they'd be legally accountable, but morally, yes. They could do something to help, they don't, they're responsible. You don't always choose to be responsible for things, or choose to be in a situation! You can't just say "I didn't choose to be here!" and get off scot free.

Everyone here, right now, could take (either because they own it, or by stealing it) the electronic device they're using to communicate on the internet with, sell it, and then take the proceeds from that and save probably a couple dozen lives. Right here, right now. There's places in the world where a single bottle of gatoraid can save someone's life.

This is the main problem with that line of thinking: As far as it's concerned, we're all morally culpable for every death we could prevent, which is easily hundreds.

Unless distance removes the moral responsibility, which is, of course, blatantly silly beyond actual physical limits (i.e. not being close enough to flip the switch).

Murder probably isn't a good word but you still bear some responsibility for letting the world lose nine people more than it would have otherwise.

We could save a lot of lives on the net (not internet, in the sense of net profit) if we went out and started systematically culling the poor and the undeveloped portions of the world. Technically, total genocide of the human species would prevent more deaths than our continued existence will cause. The responsibility for those nine lives becomes a lot stickier when you step away from the train switch and start applying it. We could prevent many billions of deaths by killing much less billions of people.

Of course, maybe the 'some responsibility' is about on the same level of not giving to charity or something, which is to say basically nothing.

[Descan]

Morally, I should still kill my friend/spouse.

Psychologically, I'd save them. I wouldn't be able to live with myself if I had caused, either by action or inaction, my (hypothetical) husband/partner/best friend/close friend to die.

As for Salmons, I'd kill the WBC. Just because I hate them. Again, not moral, but it's what I'd do.

Though I'm sure I could make a moral argument for that choice, based on their shenanigans, Fred Phelps manner of raising his children, the way they game the legal system to ruin peoples lives through suing, and how morally bankrupt they are as people. It might not be a very -good- argument, but I could still make a logically consistent one.

@Frumple: Considering that I'm going in to medicine in order to work on such things as artificial organs and limbs, anti-aging techniques (ACTUAL anti-aging, not that make-up crap) and the like, I think I'd rather do that than genocidal rampage in order to save billions of future people. As for your first point... Well not much I can say to that, you're right.

[Truean]

@truean

You've a very empirical mindset. "This is a physical world with physical problems." Understand that that is not the only valid way of thinking, either.

Imagine if someone was standing on train tracks with a train coming towards them. They doggedly deny the train is there. Would you let them die, or would you not give a damn what they have to say and yank them out of the way anyway?

The train in question is not empirical, here. Unlike the analogy, you can't glance over and see it. But to some people, it's just as real, empirical or not. I, for one, would not blame them for not caring about your opinion.

There are tangible, empirical consequences to this line of thinking, such as the aforementioned face-punching-to-save-people possibility. And there are real life ones, like discrimination of many sorts. Just understand that it is not irrational to think this way. Empiricism itself is built on one grand assumption, while their opinions are simply built on another that you don't happen to share. You don't have to agree, but you really should understand why they might not give a damn about your not wanting to be "saved."

You're welcome to decry fanaticism and all that junk due to the empirical consequences, just like you're decrying the jerkass actions here. As I said, you don't have to share their opinion. Just understand you will convince no one who shares or understands their position by using empirical arguments. Your choices are to fight them without trying to convince them of anything (suggested), or logically debate them using their premises. Anything else is a waste of time.

Rationalist, Empiricist, whatever. Politely inform him of the train ONCE, if I feel like it, prove it if possible. If not able to prove then just inform. If he tells you to fuck off, then fuck off. From there its his choice to get off the tracks or not. I will watch the train obliterate him from a good safe distance and take a picture. Yes, I really would. I don't care if they don't give a damn about my not wanting to be saved. So far, their "help" has just hurt, immensely. I think such "help" should be reciprocated as the hurt it is. I don't know how many bad things it would take for them to get the message that "saving" me is bad for them, but I know how many I'd like to use.

O, I'm not trying to seriously convince them of anything; that's impossible. It's like arguing with trolls. The only way to win that game is to not play it or not play it seriously. I don't care what they think and it is of no consequence to me. Their opinions mean nothing to me and I wouldn't bother with the effort to change them. They have made up their mind and nothing I say, no matter what it is, could ever change that irrationality. I'm not going to play a game where the dice are rigged on their assumptions.

Have you ever been told you're an abomination? Have you ever had every problem on earth blamed on you and those like you since you were a child though you gave no offense? Have you ever been a scapegoat for all of society and had to live a lie though you have harmed no one. Irrationality like this has made my life a living hell and I don't care anymore what anyone believes. This is especially true given that they hate me and those like me, for the stupidest of reasons.

I will lie to them if I must; I will pretend to respect their views if I must. You can't respect someone's beliefs that unconditionally, unjustly condemns you for no reason.

You know... I used to be "such a nice boy" until someone tried to "save me...." That sister of mine inhuman bitch, whose salvation consisted of blackmail and betrayal due solely to my being gay, knows better than to breath in my general direction. She was trying to do that "for my own good," because my being gay was going to both damn me to hell and cause me to rape children, or so she said. And that's when I willfully strangled my own innocence to save what little she left of me and show her new and wonderful things about fear and silence about the fact that I'm gay....

What? I'm supposed to let her destroy me while saying she's saving me because she "believes" something nuts? Nope.

[Realmfighter]

We could save a lot of lives on the net (not internet, in the sense of net profit) if we went out and started systematically culling the poor and the undeveloped portions of the world. Technically, total genocide of the human species would prevent more deaths than our continued existence will cause. The responsibility for those nine lives becomes a lot stickier when you step away from the train switch and start applying it. We could prevent many billions of deaths by killing much less billions of people.

You're saying that a human life isn't valuable and that only death is important. Death isn't bad just because. It's bad because it's the end of life. Ending billions of lives to stop people from dying is missing the entire point of trying to save people.

[MaximumZero]

You've a very empirical mindset. "This is a physical world with physical problems." Understand that that is not the only valid way of thinking, either.

See, the thing about that is that for some of us, that is the only valid way of thinking. Some of us simply cannot accept any other way of thinking and still have any kind of moral or intellectual integrity.

[Frumple]

You're saying that a human life isn't valuable and that only death is important. Death isn't bad just because. It's bad because it's the end of life. Ending billions of lives to stop people from dying is missing the entire point of trying to save people.

Mm, for the full on genocide, yes.

For the other bit, culling of the poor, etc, or chopping off full out slices of the human population, it's exactly the point you made. We can kill a lesser number to allow a greater number to live. One dies or ten, and we could save the ten by killing the one. By th'point you made, the more moral choice -- and thus the choice that should be made -- is to kill the one.

There's easy places to start, like with the terminally ill -- kill them now, use the resources they were consuming to cure the not-yet-terminally ill. Both have the train coming, but there's larger numbers of one, so kill the smaller number.

But yeah, the old Kantian train dilemma breaks down pretty easily once you take it away from the traintrack. That's really my only point.

[Loud Whispers]

The upper forums are full of repeated threads.

ALL THE THREADS ARE THE SAME.

THERE ARE THOUSANDS OF THEM.

RGEAGAGEAEGRGAGREHRABHAHFRAGFGAGRAGGARGEGARGEGAG

[Realmfighter]

So in this situation the human race as a whole is in danger of a massive loss of life that is more than the number we would have to kill? And that number is one in ten? And besides, termally ill people being killed for their resources is silly. By the time we would actually work that way (And not just take the money saved and do stupid shit with it) I doubt that we would need more money to save lives that we would have otherwise let die.

[Vector]

The upper forums are full of repeated threads.

ALL THE THREADS ARE THE SAME.

THERE ARE THOUSANDS OF THEM.

RGEAGAGEAEGRGAGREHRABHAHFRAGFGAGRAGGARGEGARGEGAG

Wrong thread.

[kaijyuu]

Rationalist, Empiricist, whatever. Politely inform him of the train ONCE, if I feel like it, prove it if possible. If not able to prove then just inform. If he tells you to fuck off, then fuck off. From there its his choice to get off the tracks or not. I will watch the train obliterate him from a good safe distance and take a picture. Yes, I really would. I don't care if they don't give a damn about my not wanting to be saved. So far, their "help" has just hurt, immensely. I think such "help" should be reciprocated as the hurt it is. I don't know how many bad things it would take for them to get the message that "saving" me is bad for them, but I know how many I'd like to use.

Alrighty. Not everyone has conditional empathy, though. Do understand that.

O, I'm not trying to seriously convince them of anything; that's impossible. It's like arguing with trolls. The only way to win that game is to not play it or not play it seriously. I don't care what they think and it is of no consequence to me. Their opinions mean nothing to me and I wouldn't bother with the effort to change them. They have made up their mind and nothing I say, no matter what it is, could ever change that irrationality. I'm not going to play a game where the dice are rigged on their assumptions.

Ah, but the thing is they're not irrational (well maybe but not required to be). Trolls they are not either, unless they're insulting you satirically. To be irrational means you have to embrace a non-sequitur, not just a premise you don't agree with. If their premises and conclusions line up, they're acting 100% logically.

Why do you think atheists/etc quote the bible when arguing with these people? It's fighting them from their own premises, to point out the non-sequiturs. This is the only way to convince anyone of anything; the alternative is circular arguments, shouting to the wind. This plagues religious and political debates and is the biggest reason they rarely go anywhere. Arguing from different premises is fine if you're trying to convince a third party, be it a jury, judge, the choir, constituents, etc, because you're arguing to the third party's premises, not your "opponent's." In any real debate between two parties, that doesn't work.



I only bring this up since you seem to be trying to make logical arguments against these people when posting. That's not really necessary when preaching to the choir. Nor does it really work if we look at your arguments from the opposition's perspective. If ya wanna rant, just rant

Have you ever been told you're an abomination? Have you ever had every problem on earth blamed on you and those like you since you were a child though you gave no offense? Have you ever been a scapegoat for all of society and had to live a lie though you have harmed no one. Irrationality like this has made my life a living hell and I don't care anymore what anyone believes. This is especially true given that they hate me and those like me, for the stupidest of reasons.

I spent a good portion of my life telling myself this. Was I being irrational? Not really. Self destructive, certainly, but not irrational. To fix it, I just changed my premises; figured out why, deep down, they weren't what I believed. No amount of telling me "you're being stupid" would've fixed it. To change my opinion, I had to reach the new conclusion logically. Any attacking or forcing me to "change" would've only strengthened my resolve.

I will lie to them if I must; I will pretend to respect their views if I must. You can't respect someone's beliefs that unconditionally, unjustly condemns you for no reason.

No one has ever said you need to respect other's views. Nor them acting on them. Just their right to have them. And if you ever want to fight their views effectively, you'll have to understand them. Realize why they don't make sense, from the stated premises. Only them will you ever be able to convince any second party (instead of a third party) in an argument.



You say you don't care about changing people's opinions. Well then, how will your abuse ever end? You can't change the world but you can certainly change the immediate world around you. "Save" them in your own way (assuming that's possible; I don't know the people you know). I did suggest fighting tooth and nail in my previous reply, but only because that's an easier, short term solution. You wanna end your own personal abuse, you run away or force your abusers to leave you alone. You wanna end this abuse permanently, you're going to have to actually convince someone of something. Yelling at them, telling them they're evil, works exactly as well as them telling you you're evil, and abomination, etc.

[SalmonGod]

Face-punching analogy:  You're a bad person if you don't at least try to explain to people that they need to be face-punched, and obtain permission from them to do so.  If you don't at least try, you're either insincere in your beliefs or just don't care about others.  You're also a bad person if you do so without permission or badger excessively, because pretty much all human interaction should take place within the context that all participants are equally capable of being wrong, so there should be reasonable effort taken to avoid doing things that wouldn't be appreciated if the justification for them turned out to be incorrect.

As applies to you, Truean.

1.  The asshats who plague your existence are not making honest use of their genuine belief in your case.  If they are, then they haven't thought through their beliefs very well, which is itself a moral failing on their part, and in which case it's more accurate to say that you are a victim of their stupidity.  More likely, they are abusing supposed beliefs as a shallow excuse to project their own insecurities and/or attack an idea that they simply find unappealing.  In short, they are not trying to save you.

2.  Even if they are...

pretty much all human interaction should take place within the context that all participants are equally capable of being wrong, so there should be reasonable effort taken to avoid doing things that wouldn't be appreciated if the justification for them turned out to be incorrect.

They are failing horribly at responsibly weighing the damage that they do to you against their own risk of being incorrect in their beliefs, by underestimating the damage they cause and/or being overly confident in their beliefs.


I still hold that a Christian that doesn't try to convert people to save them from going to hell is probably a horrible person, but one who uses their excuses their religion to condemn homosexuality is an equally horrible person, acting completely outside of their moral imperative through stupidity, irresponsibility, or plain maliciousness.

[G-Flex]

The upper forums are full of repeated threads.

ALL THE THREADS ARE THE SAME.

THERE ARE THOUSANDS OF THEM.

RGEAGAGEAEGRGAGREHRABHAHFRAGFGAGRAGGARGEGARGEGAG

For the love of God, you people have to stop doing this shit.

[Leafsnail]

Ah, but the thing is they're not irrational (well maybe but not required to be). Trolls they are not either, unless they're insulting you satirically. To be irrational means you have to embrace a non-sequitur, not just a premise you don't agree with. If their premises and conclusions line up, they're acting 100% logically.

I don't think this is true.  If you start at false premises out of nowhere then you are acting irrationally.  Yes, everyone has some premises.  But some premises can be consistently tested for consistency and are vital to function as a human being at all and others just come out of nowhere and are thus irrational.

I spent a good portion of my life telling myself this. Was I being irrational? Not really. Self destructive, certainly, but not irrational. To fix it, I just changed my premises; figured out why, deep down, they weren't what I believed. No amount of telling me "you're being stupid" would've fixed it. To change my opinion, I had to reach the new conclusion logically. Any attacking or forcing me to "change" would've only strengthened my resolve.

Truean was talking about how it's completely pointless to argue with someone like that because their premises are screwed up.  Which is pretty much what you're saying here.

The thing is, what you're suggesting isn't usually gonna work.  If you're allowed to bring about whatever premises you want you can make a consistent viewpoint for anything.  For instance, if I start at the premise "gays are evil" then it naturally follows that "gays are evil" and you can't find any contradictions in my viewpoint.  Alternatively, in cases where there are clear contradictions, the person can just make up further premises to get rid of those contradictions (see: reactions to anyone pointing out contradictions in the Bible).

[Vector]

Iowa attempts total ban of abortion.