Originally posted by FetchmyjunkNo, I do not say that causing suffering is wrong in all cases. Given a choice of actions, I would say that the preferable course is that which results in the least suffering to all involved. Not because of any moral absolute, real or imagined, but simply because I don't like to suffer. One makes the assumption based on one's own experiences that all people share that dislike, and operates accordingly in order to prevent one's own conscience from bothering one in the future.
So are you saying that causing suffering is wrong in all cases?
02 Feb 17
Originally posted by avalanchethecatWould it be okay to rape a woman in a coma if she doesn't know about it and no one ever finds out since no one suffers but it gives the rapist pleasure?
No, I do not say that causing suffering is wrong in all cases. Given a choice of actions, I would say that the preferable course is that which results in the least suffering to all involved. Not because of any moral absolute, real or imagined, but simply because I don't like to suffer. One makes the assumption based on one's own experiences that all ...[text shortened]... operates accordingly in order to prevent one's own conscience from bothering one in the future.
02 Feb 17
Originally posted by twhitehead"If we chose to"
We are having a very significant impact on other species. But that is not just a function of population it has a lot more to do with how we manage things. We could double our population and have less impact if we chose to do so.
Most people ARE choosing a sustainable future. Without the recourse to mass slaughter to achieve it.
Most governments want more people because that is good for economy. How short sighted.
02 Feb 17
I think even twhitehead admitted he wasn't sure how things will play out in the next 20 or so years. And we can point to the problems ,(and the solutions ), but will the solutions become real or just possible?
I remember reading a book called the "Spike" which says that we will become less and less sure of where we are headed as a race until we come to a spike. I wonder
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkFor you, maybe, since you seem to lack empathy and a conscience. Personally I would suffer if I did any such thing.
Would it be okay to rape a woman in a coma if she doesn't know about it and no one ever finds out since no one suffers but it gives the rapist pleasure?
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkFurthermore, empathy is not curtailed by consequences. Would you, as the potential rapist, be ok with having somebody rape you while you were in a coma?
Would it be okay to rape a woman in a coma if she doesn't know about it and no one ever finds out since no one suffers but it gives the rapist pleasure?
03 Feb 17
1 edit
Originally posted by karoly aczelNonsense. The vast majority of people love to pretend that they care about the environment etc, but their actions speak otherwise.
Most people ARE choosing a sustainable future.
Do you have solar? Do you drive an electric car? When you last voted, was it along environmental lines?
Without the recourse to mass slaughter to achieve it.
Why anyone in their right mind would even consider mass slaughter is beyond me.
Most governments want more people because that is good for economy. How short sighted.
Yes, governments are short sighted. It is a side effect of the democratic term system. Note how China is one of the few countries to forcibly reduce population growth because they make longer term plans. But even they didn't even consider mass slaughter.
03 Feb 17
Originally posted by karoly aczelThere are two significant concerns.
I think even twhitehead admitted he wasn't sure how things will play out in the next 20 or so years.
1. Parts of Africa continue to see significant population growth. The solution is clear, but the political will is lacking.
2. Ageing population is the largest contributor to population growth at present (in fact it accounts for over 90% of the growth) and if we find a cure for ageing or some way to live to 150, then the population will continue to grow.
03 Feb 17
Originally posted by twhiteheadI did vote along environmental lines. I don't have a car. And I would get solar panels if I cold afford them.
Nonsense. The vast majority of people love to pretend that they care about the environment etc, but their actions speak otherwise.
Do you have solar? Do you drive an electric car? When you last voted, was it along environmental lines?
[b]Without the recourse to mass slaughter to achieve it.
Why anyone in their right mind would even consider mas ...[text shortened]... n growth because they make longer term plans. But even they didn't even consider mass slaughter.[/b]
And I do believe more and more people are choosing a sustainable future everyday.
When I say "mass slaughter" , i mean like "war", not genocide.
03 Feb 17
Originally posted by twhiteheadIf we start to live to 150 it may change a lot in the future.
There are two significant concerns.
1. Parts of Africa continue to see significant population growth. The solution is clear, but the political will is lacking.
2. Ageing population is the largest contributor to population growth at present (in fact it accounts for over 90% of the growth) and if we find a cure for ageing or some way to live to 150, then the population will continue to grow.
for example:Having actual holocust survivors in 20 or 30 years would be great for reminding us what not to do
04 Feb 17
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhy does my view bother you. We live on a mote of dust, in galactic terms. Do we not need to not pollute the air we breathe and the water we drink. That answers your first question.
You are being so vague that you are not really saying anything meaningful.
Give an example of a resource that we need to manage.
Give a suggestion as to how to manage our population.
Explain why the 'star-ship' analogy makes any kind of sense. Its not like there are many resources that we need that are finite as they would be on a star-ship.
If we were to 'manage' the population, what would be the ideal population?
Replace yourself. Justify a need to do more that that, while recognizing that resources are limited. That answers your second question.
Your third question: dude, we are on a starship. All of our resources need to be managed. Even the very starshine. Build a Dyson sphere and STILL there is a limit to what we can suck off of our sun. Third question dealt with.
Your fourth question: you put 'manage' in quotes. Why? Do you advocate unrestricted growth? Have you met cancer?
04 Feb 17
1 edit
Originally posted by avalanchethecatIf you are saying it is always wrong to do something that you wouldn't want anyone to do to you, you are affirming a moral absolute which actually proves my point.
Furthermore, empathy is not curtailed by consequences. Would you, as the potential rapist, be ok with having somebody rape you while you were in a coma?
04 Feb 17
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkI was under the impression that your "point", such as it is, is that whatever you believe is morally right or wrong is a "moral absolute".
If you are saying it is always wrong to do something that you wouldn't want anyone to do to you, you are affirming a moral absolute which actually proves my point.
But now you seem to be saying that anything anyone happens to declare to be 'always wrong' makes it a "moral absolute".
Will you always agree that whatever anyone says is 'always wrong' is an "absolute morality" and that it also applies, in some way, to you?