I'd kill the SOB

[FrontlineWarrior]

Originally posted by: gopunk

no you are not wrong, however, simply because he thought that was the right thing for him to do, does not mean that he would advocate you do the same thing. your life is your own business.

Moral relativist?

 

[TNTrulez]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: TNTrulez

Originally posted by: FrontlineWarrior
By the way, that monk or whatever is a dumbass. Perhaps I'll just kill myself so that I can feed fungi with my decomposing body. According to the monk's way of thinking, if he stays consistent, all life should just kill themselves for each other until there is no life left. That's frickin brilliant.

What monk are you talking about? A Buddhist monk? If it is one, then I can give you the answer. To a monk, life is suffering. To end suffering, you would have to end life and the cycle of rebirth. To end the cycle of rebirth you would have to get rid of desires. I'm not going to explain the whole Buddhist fundamentals to you so if you want to know more go find some books.

WRONG!

The end to the cycle is achieving perfection, ie, Buddha.

Sigh. . . you don't know what you talk about yet you call other people wrong.

Buddha means Fully Enlightened and as such, he is able to end his own suffering by stopping his cycle of deaths and rebirths. Buddha did not offer a path to perfection. He only offers a path to end the misery inherent in life by ending the cycle of death and rebirth that give rise to life.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: TNTrulez

The point is that if you're willing to let another human die, then I'm willing to let you die. If you don't like it, then too bad. Actually, I don't care if you or other human dies. Maybe I'm insensitive or maybe I haven't seen murder and carnage first hand. All I care about is people that I love. I feel no remorse for strangers that die in plane crashes, earthquakes, bombings, etc. That's the person that I am.

That's a rather extreme position to take... seeing as certain peoples' deaths can have severe repercussions for your daily life and for the lives of your loved ones.

I would feel pity for you, but... I don't. It'll all come back to you in the end.

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: FrontlineWarrior

Originally posted by: gopunk

no you are not wrong, however, simply because he thought that was the right thing for him to do, does not mean that he would advocate you do the same thing. your life is your own business.

Moral relativist?

beats me, but i doubt he went around advocating people kill themselves 😛

 

[datalink7]

Datalink, I know exactly where you are coming from. Essentially, you are putting a value judgment based on the animal's character, one being human, the other being animal. For you, it doesn't, in itself, matter whether the life in question is human or dog, but rather the crucial issue is what KIND of human or dog it is, as well as what it CAN be. While I would disagree with that, I would consider your opinion entirely plausible, and for sure, more plausible than the one gopunk is setting forth.

Ok, so I didn't go off to bed 😛🙂. I wanted to see if anyone would see where I was coming from, but didn't want to take the time to explain myself (I am, in reality, tired otherwise I would have).

You are correct. I am argueing against some views here, but not along the same vein as Gopunk. I look at the individual creature and see the potential good that it can do. A human, being a more advanced animal, has more potential to do good and make a difference in the world. Therefore, in equal situations or even somewhat unequal ones, the human takes precedence.

On the other hand, Ted Bundi obviously gives less to the world than a good dog. Thus, in cases such as "you can save either Ted or this loyal dog," the dog takes precedence.

And now I'm really off to bed 🙂

 

[TNTrulez]

Originally posted by: gopunk
Do I know who you are? How am I to assume that you are worth saving instead of this Ted Bundy? What if you're some pervert who prays on innocent children?

i guess you'll just have to take my word on that one.

The point is that if you're willing to let another human die, then I'm willing to let you die. If you don't like it, then too bad. Actually, I don't care if you or other human dies. Maybe I'm insensitive or maybe I haven't seen murder and carnage first hand. All I care about is people that I love. I feel no remorse for strangers that die in plane crashes, earthquakes, bombings, etc. That's the person that I am.

so why the hell are you even posting the things you are? what you said means it is *irrelevant* whether or not i am better or worse than ted bundy, since you would let any creature you don't care about die.

Exactly. You finally understand.

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: TNTrulez

Originally posted by: gopunk
Do I know who you are? How am I to assume that you are worth saving instead of this Ted Bundy? What if you're some pervert who prays on innocent children?

i guess you'll just have to take my word on that one.

The point is that if you're willing to let another human die, then I'm willing to let you die. If you don't like it, then too bad. Actually, I don't care if you or other human dies. Maybe I'm insensitive or maybe I haven't seen murder and carnage first hand. All I care about is people that I love. I feel no remorse for strangers that die in plane crashes, earthquakes, bombings, etc. That's the person that I am.

so why the hell are you even posting the things you are? what you said means it is *irrelevant* whether or not i am better or worse than ted bundy, since you would let any creature you don't care about die.

Exactly. You finally understand.

understand what? that you can't defend your position?

the essence of what part of your post that i took issue with is:

"It is sad that society today values animals' (non-human) life so highly."

 

[FrontlineWarrior]

Originally posted by: gopunk

WTF? that IS my opinion....

LMAO oops, I screwed up.

What I meant to say was that it is plausible that there is some "weighing" of values such that a normal dog can be favored at the expense of some evil guy. What don't consider plausible is the notion that we start out with the same "weight" so to speak. Therefore, I'm accepting a modification to the idea that humans are more important than animals at any circumstance to something of a weighing of reasons issue such that really bad people aren't better than really good dogs. (Essentially going from overriding reason i.e. being human, to outweighing reasons i.e. although humans are more important to begin with, if it's Hitler then take the SOB out)

What I see from your argument is that all people start out the same and that humans are no more valuable or important than other animals. I disagree with THAT view.

 

[TNTrulez]

Originally posted by: Zakath15

Originally posted by: TNTrulez

The point is that if you're willing to let another human die, then I'm willing to let you die. If you don't like it, then too bad. Actually, I don't care if you or other human dies. Maybe I'm insensitive or maybe I haven't seen murder and carnage first hand. All I care about is people that I love. I feel no remorse for strangers that die in plane crashes, earthquakes, bombings, etc. That's the person that I am.

That's a rather extreme position to take... seeing as certain peoples' deaths can have severe repercussions for your daily life and for the lives of your loved ones.

I would feel pity for you, but... I don't. It'll all come back to you in the end.

I would factor those reprecussions in the calculation of whether they are worth my caring about them or not.

 

[TNTrulez]

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: TNTrulez

Originally posted by: gopunk
Do I know who you are? How am I to assume that you are worth saving instead of this Ted Bundy? What if you're some pervert who prays on innocent children?

i guess you'll just have to take my word on that one.

The point is that if you're willing to let another human die, then I'm willing to let you die. If you don't like it, then too bad. Actually, I don't care if you or other human dies. Maybe I'm insensitive or maybe I haven't seen murder and carnage first hand. All I care about is people that I love. I feel no remorse for strangers that die in plane crashes, earthquakes, bombings, etc. That's the person that I am.

so why the hell are you even posting the things you are? what you said means it is *irrelevant* whether or not i am better or worse than ted bundy, since you would let any creature you don't care about die.

Exactly. You finally understand.

understand what? that you can't defend your position?

the essence of what part of your post that i took issue with is:

"It is sad that society today values animals' (non-human) life so highly."

You know the degree to which I value human life. I value the life of a dog a lot, lot less.

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: FrontlineWarrior

Originally posted by: gopunk
WTF? that IS my opinion....

LMAO oops, I screwed up.

What I meant to say was that it is plausible that there is some "weighing" of values such that a normal dog can be favored at the expense of some evil guy. What don't consider plausible is the notion that we start out with the same "weight" so to speak. Therefore, I'm accepting a modification to the idea that humans are more important than animals at any circumstance to something of a weighing of reasons issue such that really bad people aren't better than really good dogs. (Essentially going from overriding reason i.e. being human, to outweighing reasons i.e. although humans are more important to begin with, if it's Hitler then take the SOB out)

What I see from your argument is that all people start out the same and that humans are no more valuable or important than other animals. I disagree with THAT view.

here is my stance in a nutshell: from a totally objective standpoint, there is nothing that makes the life of a member of a species any more valuable than a member of another species.

clearly, it is hard for all of us to reach that point of objectivity, since most of us would save our relatives over a random animal... but anyways.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: TNTrulez

I would factor those reprecussions in the calculation of whether they are worth my caring about them or not.

So basically, only if it has an impact on you?

That's... depressingly and disgustingly selfish.

Oh well. Your opinion.

 

[TNTrulez]

Originally posted by: FrontlineWarrior

Originally posted by: gopunk

WTF? that IS my opinion....

LMAO oops, I screwed up.

What I meant to say was that it is plausible that there is some "weighing" of values such that a normal dog can be favored at the expense of some evil guy. What don't consider plausible is the notion that we start out with the same "weight" so to speak. Therefore, I'm accepting a modification to the idea that humans are more important than animals at any circumstance to something of a weighing of reasons issue such that really bad people aren't better than really good dogs. (Essentially going from overriding reason i.e. being human, to outweighing reasons i.e. although humans are more important to begin with, if it's Hitler then take the SOB out)

What I see from your argument is that all people start out the same and that humans are no more valuable or important than other animals. I disagree with THAT view.

If Hitler made the world a 100 times better than it is now, would you still kill him even if he wiped out all the Jews? Just wondering.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: gopunk

here is my stance in a nutshell: from a totally objective standpoint, there is nothing that makes the life of a member of a species any more valuable than a member of another species.

clearly, it is hard for all of us to reach that point of objectivity, since most of us would save our relatives over a random animal... but anyways.

From a completely objective standpoint... I suppose that is possible. Without considering the eventual implications of each organism's lifeline, I 'spose.

😀

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: Zakath15
her209 -
Does a dog have the same potential as a human child?

No a dog does not have as much potential as a person. In other words, it cannot be president and change the world but it can't also be Osama bin Laden either.

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: Zakath15

Originally posted by: gopunk

here is my stance in a nutshell: from a totally objective standpoint, there is nothing that makes the life of a member of a species any more valuable than a member of another species.

clearly, it is hard for all of us to reach that point of objectivity, since most of us would save our relatives over a random animal... but anyways.

From a completely objective standpoint... I suppose that is possible. Without considering the eventual implications of each organism's lifeline, I 'spose.

😀

well, i would severely doubt the ability of anybody to accurately forcast the impact any life, or species will have on the universe 😛

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: TNTrulez

If Hitler made the world a 100 times better than it is now, would you still kill him even if he wiped out all the Jews? Just wondering.

Six million lives is a horrific price to pay for the advancement of the "world"... do the ends justify the means? Or, the steps taken along the way?

If Clinton lied and cheated during his campaign and presidency, but still did a good job as president...is that right?

It's a tough question to answer; just comes down to weighing the pros and cons.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: TNTrulez

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: TNTrulez

Originally posted by: FrontlineWarrior
By the way, that monk or whatever is a dumbass. Perhaps I'll just kill myself so that I can feed fungi with my decomposing body. According to the monk's way of thinking, if he stays consistent, all life should just kill themselves for each other until there is no life left. That's frickin brilliant.

What monk are you talking about? A Buddhist monk? If it is one, then I can give you the answer. To a monk, life is suffering. To end suffering, you would have to end life and the cycle of rebirth. To end the cycle of rebirth you would have to get rid of desires. I'm not going to explain the whole Buddhist fundamentals to you so if you want to know more go find some books.

WRONG!

The end to the cycle is achieving perfection, ie, Buddha.

Do you even know how many other forms of Buddism there are?

Sigh. . . you don't know what you talk about yet you call other people wrong.

Buddha means Fully Enlightened and as such, he is able to end his own suffering by stopping his cycle of deaths and rebirths. Buddha did not offer a path to perfection. He only offers a path to end the misery inherent in life by ending the cycle of death and rebirth that give rise to life.

 

[TNTrulez]

Originally posted by: Zakath15

Originally posted by: TNTrulez

I would factor those reprecussions in the calculation of whether they are worth my caring about them or not.

So basically, only if it has an impact on you?

That's... depressingly and disgustingly selfish.

Oh well. Your opinion.

I'm a selfish guy but it is far from depressing or disgusting. Because of my selfishness, I improve society so that I may benefit from those improvements. You know that is how the capitalist system works right?

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: Zakath15
her209 -
Does a dog have the same potential as a human child?

No a dog does not have as much potential as a person. In other words, it cannot be president and change the world but it can't also be Osama bin Laden either.

Touche. To be terrifically cheesy... "With great power comes great responsibility..." Saw Spiderman today.. 😀 I modify it a little..."With great potential comes great risk, and great responsibility."

Each person has potential... as a world society, can we take appropriate steps to prevent another Osama?

 

[TNTrulez]

Double post.

 

[FrontlineWarrior]

That's a difficult question to answer TNTrulez.
From a philosophical standpoint, the "correct" answer is no, because humans are ends in themselves, and any beneficial outcome cannot outweigh the wrong it does to a person. (Pro Kant, Anti Utilitarianism)
From a realistic standpoint, we have to realize that life incorporates elements of both Kantian and Utilitarian views.
If were honest I couldn't give you an answer that satisfies you and me. While watching the murder of many people might be horrific, it might not be so bad if you sort of blinded yourself to it and reaped the rewards later. It's a very touchy thing, and it's hard to be honest about it, or to figure out which view is correct.

But I'll just say this: if you forced me to choose, I wouldn't let Hitler do that, unless like humanity was at stake or something similar. e.g. if I had a choice between killing a little kid and preventing nuclear winter, I'm saying see ya later to the kid.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: Zakath15

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: Zakath15
her209 -
Does a dog have the same potential as a human child?

No a dog does not have as much potential as a person. In other words, it cannot be president and change the world but it can't also be Osama bin Laden either.

Touche. To be terrifically cheesy... "With great power comes great responsibility..." Saw Spiderman today.. 😀 I modify it a little..."With great potential comes great risk, and great responsibility."

Each person has potential... as a world society, can we take appropriate steps to prevent another Osama?

Yes, we're are trying to argue that it isn't really responsible that someone would take an innocent life, whether it be dog or human.

 

[TNTrulez]

Originally posted by: TNTrulez

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: TNTrulez

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: TNTrulez

Originally posted by: FrontlineWarrior
By the way, that monk or whatever is a dumbass. Perhaps I'll just kill myself so that I can feed fungi with my decomposing body. According to the monk's way of thinking, if he stays consistent, all life should just kill themselves for each other until there is no life left. That's frickin brilliant.

What monk are you talking about? A Buddhist monk? If it is one, then I can give you the answer. To a monk, life is suffering. To end suffering, you would have to end life and the cycle of rebirth. To end the cycle of rebirth you would have to get rid of desires. I'm not going to explain the whole Buddhist fundamentals to you so if you want to know more go find some books.

WRONG!

The end to the cycle is achieving perfection, ie, Buddha.

This is a reply to my post.
Do you even know how many other forms of Buddism there are?

Sigh. . . you don't know what you talk about yet you call other people wrong.

Buddha means Fully Enlightened and as such, he is able to end his own suffering by stopping his cycle of deaths and rebirths. Buddha did not offer a path to perfection. He only offers a path to end the misery inherent in life by ending the cycle of death and rebirth that give rise to life.

I'm calling your form straight out wrong and being such, is not true Buddhism at all.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: TNTrulez
I'm calling your form straight out wrong and being such, is not true Buddhism at all.

LOL, yeah... and why am I wrong?