Originally posted by Andrew Hamiltondon't you see? you are defining murder by your standards. whose standards should we use though when defining what is to be allowed and what is not to be allowed by said onder drug? don't you see that nobody has the right of forbidding you to do anything. making laws is simply a temporary measure until those that are governed allow it, or until they decide they need new laws. but laws are not permanent.
[b]….no, but murder provided humans with meat.
..…
Emmmm -OBVIOUSLY I was NOT talking about the killing of non-human animals and I naturally assumed you where not talking about the killing of non-human animals when you talk about “murder“ .
Personally, in every day English, I would NOT define the killing of non-human animals for meat as “ ...[text shortened]... murder other humans if a “god” prevented ANY human from choosing to murder other humans -right?[/b]
"But it wouldn’t even be necessary to humans banding together to defend against humans that murder other humans if a “god” prevented ANY human from choosing to murder other humans -right?"
wrong, because other humans may choose to take your food away. or your women. how will you stop them. will you use force? are you allowed to kill then? or will you extend your drug to not stealing as well.
murder is almost never an objective in itself. unless you are a psychopath you are murdering to obtain something. money, women, a better piece of meat from the buffallo your tribe has just killed. and mostly it is not desirable. you whack someone over the head for the piece of meat but if he submits and gives it to you you won't have to smack him again.
simply by removing violence you accomplish nothing. you have some insane naive feeling that by removing violence things will get fluffy. when you in fact should be trying to address the reasons violence happens in the first place. needs, wants, would still be present.
if someone wants to steal your pink teddy bear, how will you stop him if you can't use violence? and the thief, knowing you can't use violence will simply take it away. he will put his hands on it so as to not commit violence himself. and if you catch him in the act, he will simply walk away with mr fluffykins and you would not be able to do anything to stop him.
also, why is violence against animals acceptable? and if you are capable of violence against a living thing, what is to stop you from using violence against other living things, namely humans? when is violence acceptable and what will you drug see as acceptable and therefore admissible violence?
1 edit
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonWhat I am talking about here is making ALL humans including myself SPECIFICALLY incapable of choosing to DELIBERATELY harm other people ( "people" and NOT non-human animals ). This I wouldn’t mind at all. Reducing any of my other choices is an entirely DIFFERENT matter and of course I wouldn’t want that BUT that is NOT what I am talking about!!! -get it?
[b]….do you feel pain for not being able to see in the fourth dimension, whatever that is? is your life less or more meaningful? do you miss what you or anyone else never had?
..…
Not sure what your point is here.
….law enforcement is not about preventing. it is about punishment. revenge.
..…
It can be but not necessarily so matter and of course I wouldn’t want that BUT that is NOT what I am talking about!!! -get it?[/b]
what you are saying is impossible, get it?
who would police the streets? what will a police officer do if a someone decides to take a dump in front of the city hall. does that constitute as violence? is the drunk sleeping in the middle of the road violent? and how will you move him away if you cannot deliberately harm others? will you play with your gun for an hour until ooops, it fired upon that drunk all by itself?
even if by a miracle, a government having that drug also decides to use it on themselves instead of becoming the non-sheep elite, decisions will still have to be made. decisions that sometimes hurt people. like if 100 people arrive at the hospital after surviving a train crash. who will get help first? who will be left to die? who will be left to suffer more until the others with more dire needs are tended. The doctors in charge will have to make those decisions. how will those decisions be made? and by whom? get it?
"No -but that is not what I am talking about here. "
actually that is exactly what we are talking about. someone decides his ideas are better than anything you might come up with and forces you to follow them. forces himself to follow them too in an ideal world because, hey, they are his ideas.
"It can be but not necessarily so. I thought the main objective of punishment is to deter people from braking the law? -thus it does helps ( at least in theory ) to “prevent” crime by acting as a deterrent."
but it does not 100% prevent. one may still choose to break the law. one may still chose to break into a pharmacy to steal his child's medication because the government won't help him.
1 edit
Originally posted by Zahlanzi….don't you see? you are defining murder by your standards. whose standards should we use though when defining what is to be allowed and what is not to be allowed by said onder drug? don't you see that nobody has the right of forbidding you to do anything.
don't you see? you are defining murder by your standards. whose standards should we use though when defining what is to be allowed and what is not to be allowed by said onder drug? don't you see that nobody has the right of forbidding you to do anything. making laws is simply a temporary measure until those that are governed allow it, or until they decide t ce acceptable and what will you drug see as acceptable and therefore admissible violence?
..…
So does that mean that those that make the legal law do NOT have a “right” to forbid me to deliberately kill an innocent human being?
….wrong, because other humans may choose to take your food away. or your women. how will you stop them. will you use force? are you allowed to kill then?
..…
If it wasn’t with DELIBERATE intent to harm me ( which it wouldn’t be in this hypothetical situation ) than I would use the minimal force short of killing him and ensuring, to the best of my judgement, the total amount of harm I do open them would be LESS than the total amount of harm that would have been done to me if I had not taken any such action to prevent harm to my self. In other words, I would not want to choose to DELIBERATELY do something that does more total harm than total good to people and those “people” includes myself. If I have to harm one person to prevent an even greater harm to another person, then obviously I wouldn’t want to be prevented from doing that so that is not what I would propose to be done.
…simply by removing violence you accomplish nothing. you have some insane naive feeling that by removing violence things will get fluffy. when you in fact should be trying to address the reasons violence happens in the first place. needs, wants, would still be present.
.…
Mmmm so we shouldn’t do anything to prevent violence?
…also, why is violence against animals acceptable?
.…
I didn’t say it was.
…and if you are capable of violence against a living thing, what is to stop you from using violence against other living things, namely humans?
..…
But that is not my position. What I propose that should be done in this hypothetical situation is selectively SPECIFICALLY prevent one human from generally DELIBERATELY harming another ( with the exception I gave earlier ).
2 edits
Originally posted by Zahlanzi….what you are saying is impossible, get it?
What I am talking about here is making ALL humans including myself SPECIFICALLY incapable of choosing to DELIBERATELY harm other people ( "people" and NOT non-human animals ). This I wouldn’t mind at all. Reducing any of my other choices is an entirely DIFFERENT matter and of course I wouldn’t want that BUT that is NOT what I am talking about!!! -get it?
k into a pharmacy to steal his child's medication because the government won't help him.
..…
Why would it be “impossible” for an all powerful “god” to arrange this?
….who would police the streets?..…
The police.
…what will a police officer do if a someone decides to take a dump in front of the city hall. does that constitute as violence? is the drunk sleeping in the middle of the road violent?
.…
No and no -not sure what this has got to do with anything.
…who will be left to die?
.…
Now you talking about a decision for INACTION.
…"No -but that is not what I am talking about here. "
actually that is exactly what we are talking about.
..…
Hey! Stop telling ME what I am talking about! I talk about and mean whatever I decide to talking about and mean.
….someone decides his ideas are better than anything you might come up with and forces you to follow them. forces himself to follow them too in an ideal world because, hey, they are his ideas.
…
If “his” ideas are that of an “infallible god” then I suppose I cannot argue with “him” ( the god ).
…. "It can be but not necessarily so. I thought the main objective of punishment is to deter people from braking the law? -thus it does helps ( at least in theory ) to “prevent” crime by acting as a deterrent."
but it does not 100% prevent. one may still choose to break the law. one may still chose to break into a pharmacy to steal his child's medication because the government won't help him.
…
If someone chose to break into a pharmacy to steal his child's medication because the government won't help him then this action of his does NOT really constitute an action to do DELIBERATE harm to others -right?
A small amount of ‘harm’ may be done to the owner of the pharmacy but the action was NOT done to harm the owner of the pharmacy but rather WAS done to prevent the far greater harm ( I presume ) done to his child if he is denied medication.
Originally posted by Andrew Hamiltonwho would police the streets? and how?(you didn't get it at first, thought i make it clear)
[b]….what you are saying is impossible, get it?
..…
Why would it be “impossible” for an all powerful “god” to arrange this?
….who would police the streets?..…
The police.
…what will a police officer do if a someone decides to take a dump in front of the city hall. does that constitute as violence? is the drunk sleeping ...[text shortened]... prevent the far greater harm ( I presume ) done to his child if he is denied medication.
not sure what the inability to commit violence has anything to do with our issue? let me spell it out for you. you claim that by removing violence(the ability to cause harm), all our problems will be solved. because if nobody causes harm to another, then we don't need to cause it ourselves for protection. so i will ask again. if there arises a situation in which you must cause harm, what will you do then? will you allow the homeless guy to take a dump in front of the city hall? if you left the front door open and a homeless dude walks in, who will make him leave? who can make him leave? will you ask him politely until he goes home?
"Now you talking about a decision for INACTION." one can do harm, deliberately, through inaction. but you didn't thought about that, did you.
"Hey! Stop telling ME what I am talking about! I talk about and mean whatever I decide to talking about and mean."
wow, so it is true that if you apply enough pressure, anyone can behave like a robbie. interesting. you are talking about having someone, whoever, telling you what to do, regardless of what you have to say about it. does it have a certain aroma of tyranny? coz i think it does. so your robbieism is kind of illogical.
"A small amount of ‘harm’ may be done to the owner of the pharmacy but the action was NOT done to harm the owner of the pharmacy but rather WAS done to prevent the far greater harm"
do you understand that i win? do you? of course, everyone wins in an intelligent conversation but the one who wins the debate wins something extra, a bonus if you will. so you are saying that it is ok to deliberately cause a "little" "harm" to someone if somebody else benefits. which proves taking away human's ability to do harm is wrong, evil and irresponsible.
taking away liberties is wrong. it is pointless. humans will always find way to bypass any restrictions set in place. what we must do is educate the savages as to what they can do with their free will. what is morally right and what is morally wrong. and how can you tell the difference between two actions.
Originally posted by Andrew Hamiltonooo we are talking exceptions now. so it is right to cause harm sometimes 😀 which i was saying all along. so your hypothesis of preventing others to cause deliberate harm to someone must also introduce the words "in certain situations" and how will you figure out those situations? through education. so why is the drug necessary? to prevent criminals of causing harms in other situations except the necessary ones. so why give the drug to the innocent, "not yet criminal" people? because we live in a society where you are deemed an animal, unable to control yourself and a drug is more trustworthy to keep you in check than an education.
[b]….don't you see? you are defining murder by your standards. whose standards should we use though when defining what is to be allowed and what is not to be allowed by said onder drug? don't you see that nobody has the right of forbidding you to do anything.
..…
So does that mean that those that make the legal law do NOT have a “right” to f ...[text shortened]... t one human from generally DELIBERATELY harming another ( with the exception I gave earlier ).[/b]
thumbs up to hamilton world!😀
Originally posted by Zahlanzi….ooo we are talking exceptions now. so it is right to cause harm sometimes
ooo we are talking exceptions now. so it is right to cause harm sometimes 😀 which i was saying all along. so your hypothesis of preventing others to cause deliberate harm to someone must also introduce the words "in certain situations" and how will you figure out those situations? through education. so why is the drug necessary? to prevent criminals of cau ...[text shortened]... s more trustworthy to keep you in check than an education.
thumbs up to hamilton world!😀
..…
No -I don’t think there is such thing as “morally right”.
….which i was saying all along. so your hypothesis of preventing others to cause deliberate harm to someone must also introduce the words "in certain situations" and how will you figure out those situations? through education. so why is the drug necessary? to prevent criminals of causing harms in other situations except the necessary ones. so why give the drug to the innocent, "not yet criminal" people? because we live in a society where you are deemed an animal, unable to control yourself and a drug is more trustworthy to keep you in check than an education.
..…
I didn’t say anything about any “drug”.
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton"No -I don’t think there is such thing as “morally right”."
[b]….ooo we are talking exceptions now. so it is right to cause harm sometimes
..…
No -I don’t think there is such thing as “morally right”.
….which i was saying all along. so your hypothesis of preventing others to cause deliberate harm to someone must also introduce the words "in certain situations" and how will you figure out those ...[text shortened]... o keep you in check than an education.
..…
I didn’t say anything about any “drug”.[/b]
then what is your proposed method of eliminating some evil in the world? metaphysically wrinkle free? do you believe there is no right and wrong? just people deciding the law of the day?
do you think it changes my argument in any way if we don't use drug but "magic way of making sheep like people"? fine replace drug with "hotfix".
Originally posted by ZahlanziPeople already dictate my life. And yes I am happy with some of the dictation.
then will you have a person dictate your life?
don't smoke because it is bad for you. dont drink. don't go bungee-jumping because it is bad for you. don't murder in that case and that case because i say so.
and if god would do that, then what a wonderful place it would be, we would all have a menu built by god from which to choose certain actions. and we would all be going to heaven because we only did what god wanted us to do.
Yes.
i am sure you did. and this is another point of the no murder policy. you defined murder according with you moral views on the world. i wonder if a pig agrees with your view. what if a nazi would design that drug and make it as to only define murder when a white dude is killed? or what if a muslim made it and defined it as only when a muslim is killed?
So whats your argument? Should we not have laws? Clearly if you have an argument then it should apply equally well to laws.
evil is not god's problem.
Yes it is. If he is genuinely good then he is guilty of negligence. Andrew has argued that he would only be cold hearted, but you seem to think that standing by while someone drowns is downright good.
he built us as such and we choose what to do with our lives. and suffer the consequences.
by eliminating our ability to do evil, we lose the ability to discern what is right or wrong because we believe there is no wrong that we can do. so while walking by a drowning man that you can save, you can choose to walk away as you are sure you are not doing something bad.
But you couldn't walk away because God would stop you (or save the man, or prevent him from getting into that situation). You seem to have lost track of the argument there.
Now explain to me how anything you have said justifies the death of a child from malaria, or what it has to do with free will.
Originally posted by twhitehead"So whats your argument? Should we not have laws? Clearly if you have an argument then it should apply equally well to laws."
People already dictate my life. And yes I am happy with some of the dictation.
[b]and if god would do that, then what a wonderful place it would be, we would all have a menu built by god from which to choose certain actions. and we would all be going to heaven because we only did what god wanted us to do.
Yes.
i am sure you did. and this is ...[text shortened]... ou have said justifies the death of a child from malaria, or what it has to do with free will.
the argument is that laws may be changed. if i and others find that some laws are no long acceptable, we can change them. and use violence to do so. your nightmarish scenario forbids me that. i am not sure if your sadism allows me to realize my situation or has me reduced completely to sheep status. unable to commit violence AND unaware of it.
"Yes it is. If he is genuinely good then he is guilty of negligence. Andrew has argued that he would only be cold hearted, but you seem to think that standing by while someone drowns is downright good. "
First of all you missed the point of the drowning man. if someone is drowning and you are completely sure you can do only good things, you might choose to walk away. because you haven't whacked anyone over the head, that person may be dead already, you didn't push him, he may want to die by drowning, etc. excuses can be invented. and you would have the certainty you did the right thing.
Secondly, god cannot be guilty of neglijence because you are a responsible adult. are your parents responsible for your actions? should they always be by your side and do whatever you need doing?
"But you couldn't walk away because God would stop you (or save the man, or prevent him from getting into that situation). You seem to have lost track of the argument there."
god needs to stay next to each and every individual on this planet and keep anything bad happening? should god tweak each and every aspect of your life so you, the poor defenseless human, not suffer an owie? all this time i thought a god standing by the universe and creating floods and jonah eating whales, and making people live 500 years is illogical. yet you would have him act as a slave and servitor for every individual on this planet? wiping their poopingholes(i am not allowed to say the common word because children will be forever damaged after hearing donkeys)? spoon feeding them? tying their shoelaces? kiss the owies if they do happen?
how do you justify you stepping on an ant hill and killing hundreds or thousands of ants? excrement happens? this life isn't supposed to be as easy as possible. it is supposed to be as easy as we make it. that is why we came down from the trees and invented the internetz. i tell you what, i will listen to your "god is obligated to help us" argument when you give up all your possessions to charity and move to india or an african country to help malaria children. if you do that, you might have the right to ask god for some reward.
Originally posted by twhiteheadtwhitehead, respond to this post with 23424525235(just copy that number and press reply and quote. then paste and post)
People already dictate my life. And yes I am happy with some of the dictation.
[b]and if god would do that, then what a wonderful place it would be, we would all have a menu built by god from which to choose certain actions. and we would all be going to heaven because we only did what god wanted us to do.
Yes.
i am sure you did. and this is ...[text shortened]... ou have said justifies the death of a child from malaria, or what it has to do with free will.
Originally posted by Zahlanzi…."No -I don’t think there is such thing as “morally right”."
"No -I don’t think there is such thing as “morally right”."
then what is your proposed method of eliminating some evil in the world? metaphysically wrinkle free? do you believe there is no right and wrong? just people deciding the law of the day?
do you think it changes my argument in any way if we don't use drug but "magic way of making sheep like people"? fine replace drug with "hotfix".
then what is your proposed method of eliminating some evil in the world?
..…
What has “morality” got to do with the METHOD of eliminating some evil in the world?
I have no particular proposal on how to eliminate some evil because I don’t know how to do this.
….do you believe there is no right and wrong?
.…
In the strictly moral context, no.
…just people deciding the law of the day?
.…
don’t understand what you mean.
Originally posted by Andrew Hamiltonwell, without morality, how will you decide what is evil and what is not? without morality, good and evil become simply, i dunno, productive and counterproductive. as such, it may be counter-productive to care for an IQ60 person and we should just kill him/her. Do you see now that morality has some benefits, even if it is an abstract notion invented by a society and not something universal?
[b]…."No -I don’t think there is such thing as “morally right”."
then what is your proposed method of eliminating some evil in the world?
..…
What has “morality” got to do with the METHOD of eliminating some evil in the world?
I have no particular proposal on how to eliminate some evil because I don’t know how to do this.
….do you b ...[text shortened]... .
[b]…just people deciding the law of the day?
.…
don’t understand what you mean.[/b]
"In the strictly moral context, no."
there is no right and wrong in the strictly moral context? what other context would it be. i am gonna have to ask for more details. in another thread though, it would be too much digressing in this one.
the last sentence means that all laws are made by humans. these laws have to be made in accordance with some concept of wright and wrong. like a constitution if you will. a set of general rules that the laws will not break. laws change all the time, but the constitution stays mostly the same. if we do not have a moral constitution however, people will start making laws based on what? productive and counter-productive like i said earlier? and what would that say about good and evil?
2 edits
Originally posted by Zahlanzi….well, without morality, how will you decide what is evil and what is not?
well, without morality, how will you decide what is evil and what is not? without morality, good and evil become simply, i dunno, productive and counterproductive. as such, it may be counter-productive to care for an IQ60 person and we should just kill him/her. Do you see now that morality has some benefits, even if it is an abstract notion invented by a so ctive and counter-productive like i said earlier? and what would that say about good and evil?
..…
My knowledge of my emotional responses to peoples behaviour (whether actual behaviour or hypothetical behaviour).
I regard what I call “evil” as being a bit subjective as a result of this although I think most of us would call the deliberate killing of an innocent person for no reason as “evil” etc.
….there is no right and wrong in the strictly moral context? what other context would it be.
..…
It is “right” that 2+2=4 but it is “wrong” that 2+2=5 -no moral context there. when we use the words right and wrong in everyday English, we don't always imply something moral.
….the last sentence means that all laws are made by humans. these laws have to be made in accordance with some concept of right and wrong.
.…
Why cant they be made purely in accordance with knowledge of the emotional responses to peoples behaviour (whether actual behaviour or hypothetical behaviour) of the people that make those laws?
After all, that’s how I would make those laws and would probably agree with most of the same laws they would generally agree with but without any redundant concept of morality.