Death with Dignity

[Hakeem]

WARNING: OPEN MIND NEEDED TO UNDERSTAND!

My mind is never closed, I simply reach conclusions that are supported enough to act on.

As humans we are (most of us) born free and thus have the right to do what we like with our lives, whether it be living or dying.

False. I would not recommend being free. It would require pure solitude. You are not alone in this world. Your life is not solely your own.

If I feel your life is worth living, but you don't, why should you listen to me?

Because we are in this together. You don't want me dead. You're likely to stop me if I try.

That's an empty point for the simple reason you can't overcome a terminal illness.

There will always come a cure. Patience. Your life is no over yet. There is still hope.

A terminal illness is both physical and mental, and it corrodes your intelligence.

...No? Or do you mean "terminal illness" as a phrase in the context of this debate to mean a situation that would allow euthanasia?

I have. They agree with me.

And even if they hadn't, it's my life, not my parents'.

I wasn't talking about your life.

Fair play depression's bad, but it's hardly anything in comparison to something that grinds away at everything you have until there's nothing left.

What if you can't get over your mentally induced depression? Additionally to your reply, you can mentally get over physical illness.

Post modernist? No, I'm just a philosopher.

Me too. I like to assume reality, since we interact through it. This creates many truths to build from.

Moralities cannot be falsified except by other moralities

Morals were never a truth to begin with, they've always been an opinion.

In testing your assertion that right and wrong are purely opinions, I must know your definition of these terms. I assume that, loosely, each is a set or actions, grouped by similar properties.

 

[Ash]

You can't get over terminal illness, and more so Terminal illness isn't just 'physical', it's 'mental' too.

 

[Captain Griffen]

In testing your assertion that right and wrong are purely opinions, I must know your definition of these terms. I assume that, loosely, each is a set or actions, grouped by similar properties.

Right: What one morally should do.
Wrong: What one not should not do.
Opinion: Anything held to be true.
"Purely" opinion: Anything held to be true but not both factual.
Factual: Either shown or proven to be true.
True: Try my definition below.

It should be noted that right and not wrong are not logically equivilent, but, under some schemes of morality, may be (those that are complete).

 

[Elenai]

Sometimes the best standard is an extreme...

And I shall use such an extreme, to illustrate the issue of "right/wrong as opinion".

Usually it is found to be quite (wrong, immoral, un-right, evil) in any society, to skin a human baby alive, and dunk its bleeding, dripping, screaming body in a vat of flesh eating maggots...(or some actual, living equivalent to something that devours flesh and is maggot like) of which afterward you make a lovely face mask from the skin to satisfy the vanity of an aging and wrinkling Countess, who likewise bathes in the blood of fifty or more virginal maidens every so often.

It is doubtful that ANYONE would actually do this...but it is one of my favourite "shock" examples to show that there is at least some measure of "absolute" in right and wrong, in any human society that is advanced enough to even have such a thing as morality and the "opinion" of morality as it is so stated, the goal of which for anyone who is striving to reach the status of "civilized" is to solidify and make absolute "right, and wrong" and their consequences.

 

[Captain Griffen]

Sometimes the best standard is an extreme...

And I shall use such an extreme, to illustrate the issue of "right/wrong as opinion".



It is doubtful that ANYONE would actually do this...but it is one of my favourite "shock" examples to show that there is at least some measure of "absolute" in right and wrong, in any human society that is advanced enough to even have such a thing as morality and the "opinion" of morality as it is so stated, the goal of which for anyone who is striving to reach the status of "civilized" is to solidify and make absolute "right, and wrong" and their consequences.

Why? It is wrong in our opinion, but it is still our opinion - it is not some universal fact of the universe. There is a distinction.

 

[Elenai]

Is it wrong to inflict pain without justification?

IE:

Can I pour scolding hot 'hot sauce' (both heat, and spice wise hot) down your throat, on a whim, just because I feel like it, and not need to feel any remorse when you writhe in pain?

 

[Captain Griffen]

Depends on your moral code.

 

[Callahan]

Is it wrong to inflict pain without justification?

IE:

Can I pour scolding hot 'hot sauce' (both heat, and spice wise hot) down your throat, on a whim, just because I feel like it, and not need to feel any remorse when you writhe in pain?

This is not 'absolutely' wrong.This is wrong because someone taught you it is.
Nature don't have moral consideration.Human brought moral to its environement and moral doesn't mean anything except to human who learnt it.
Imagine a world w/o human kind.Who would be there to give a damn about evil/good wrong/right?None.
So it mean that there's no moral by nature but it only takes meaning to your consciousness and therefore is subjective to individual.

 

[Elenai]

Nature isn't a conscious thing, it doesn't think, it doesn't feel.

A world without humankind, isn't a world at all. It is just a rock with some stuff on it.

A basic example, of causing pain without any cause:

I feel pain, fact.

You hurt me, fact.

I felt pain, fact.

It was your fault, fact.

You disturbed me from my natural default state of not feeling pain, fact.

You wronged me, ?

---

It is impossible for someone to squeeze apple juice, from an orange.

 

[Captain Griffen]

You disturbed me from my natural default state of not feeling pain, fact.

You wronged me, ?

This is true under the assumption that to disturb someone from their natural state of not feeling pain is to wrong them - that is, in fact, a, or part of a, moral code.

 

[Callahan]

Nature isn't a conscious thing, it doesn't think, it doesn't feel.

Yeah.So how could there be an absolute moral that is not subjective to a conscious being?

A world without humankind, isn't a world at all. It is just a rock with some stuff on it.

It's not because human are not there to feel the world that there's no world at all.If you think so you're a nihilist.
And if there's rock then it's enought to be a world/environement.
But there's animals and plant and wonderful ecosystem that still compound the world.

A basic example, of causing pain without any cause:

I feel pain, fact.

You hurt me, fact.

I felt pain, fact.

It was your fault, fact.

You disturbed me from my natural default state of not feeling pain, fact.

You wronged me, ?

Yes I probably feel guilty after inflicting pain to Elenaï w/o any reason because I have moral code.

It is impossible for someone to squeeze apple juice, from an orange.

It's not because it's impossible that it's wrong.
Here we face issue of language.Somehow hard to explain but it has nothing to do with right and wrong.
In fact 'apple juice' is an abstract idea to regroup every juice that come from an apple.
But the juice of an apple is not the juice of another apple.
So it's linguistically wrong to say 'I squeeze apple juice from an orange' even if the juice would looks and tastes like apple juice it's still the juice wich looks and tastes like apple juice of that orange therefore it's orange juice.
Linguistic is made by humans and subjective to humans.
But the fact that the juice of that orange looks and tastes like apple juice is not wrong it's just uncommon.

*Brain exploding*

 

[Japut3h]

You can't die with dignity, because, when you die, your bowels will most likely let loose.

To avoid this, I'd personally crash into a tank of gasoline with a Porsche while driving 200mph and receiving oral pleasure from some random chick. But that's just cool, not dignifying.

 

[Elenai]

Yeah.So how could there be an absolute moral that is not subjective to a conscious being?

By using the conscious mind to sort the facts of life into a natural law of morality.

Theories come about by fact, and laws come about by theory. Theories are opinions with substantial evidence. Morality is not a hypothesis, as I showed above.

Morality can become absolute, and is therefore not entirely 'subjective'.

This is true under the assumption that to disturb someone from their natural state of not feeling pain is to wrong them - that is, in fact, a, or part of a, moral code.

To harm, without benefit to the harmed one, is to wrong a person, to deny them their right to <insert right to do>

It's not because human are not there to feel the world that there's no world at all.If you think so you're a nihilist.
And if there's rock then it's enought to be a world/environement.
But there's animals and plant and wonderful ecosystem that still compound the world.

Animals do not think of gravity, like humans. Animals do not perceive absolutes.

*Brain exploding*

I think you may have missed the point...but never mind.

 

[InfiniteSeven]

In my perspective, it is that animals run by their raw, natural instincts. They have a fixed behavioural pattern and reactions toward stimuli. Humanity, on the other hand, goes by their intellect. Going by intellect allows us to perceive and to behold things beyond things we can sense with our five basic senses.

Right or wrong only mean something if one has the intellect to discern what action should be done and what shouldn't. This means, what one considers right or wrong can differ from one another, as they can interpret what should and shouldn't be done in a completely different way. It also means that without intellect, one would have no moral, and at that point, right or wrong mean nothing.

Thus, in the end right and wrong are words, and they are the representation of one's moral code. However, despite everything, they are still just words - one can disregard what others perceive as right and wrong, and interpret it as something completely different.

 

[Elenai]

Words still have meanings, and the meanings of which are rooted in how we compile the facts of life into the theory of morality, which...with time may become a law of morality.

 

[InfiniteSeven]

Words still have meanings, and the meanings of which are rooted in how we compile the facts of life into the theory of morality, which...with time may become a law of morality.

Words have meaning only if one who interprets them has intellect, unlike an animal which goes by instinct. Facts of life, theories of morality etc are all a result because one has intellect, thus the ability to perceive and do something more than just how we naturally act (Which is instinct).

 

[Hakeem]

I have different definitions.

Right: What one morally should do.

A set of actions that benefit <X>.

Wrong: What one not should not do.

A set of actions that are detrimental to <X>.

Opinion: Anything held to be true.

The best conclusion you can make. Can also be called "belief" and "faith".

"Purely" opinion: Anything held to be true but not both factual.

Anything true about yourself.

Additionally I define morals as a set of what is right and wrong. Not how to determine what is right and wrong, but how you define the sets of right and wrong.

I will leave you to define <X> in my definition. I have a definition of what it is, but yours is the one that matters. Under your definitions, right and wrong are defined as opinion. Now I want to know about my incomplete definitions. Define <X> and we may proceed to discuss if there is a "universal" morality.

Why? It is wrong in our opinion, but it is still our opinion - it is not some universal fact of the universe. There is a distinction.

This is why I asked you to define. By your definition this is true, but your definition of the terms "right" and "wrong" are not subject to universality.

 

[Gilles]

So is it truth that there is no such thing as truth?

 

[Callahan]

So is it truth that there is no such thing as truth?

Basically yes.
We considere the world through our five sense such as view.
But what you see is not the reality but an image created by your brain.
If you try to describe a color with only words you can't; you 'll say 'blue is...blue'.It means you can't know that what you see is universal reality since you connat get confirmation of someone else 'Yes blue is that way.'
So maybe you see blue differently from everyone else.
We can't see colors beyond infrared and ultraviolet.
I know there some device that allow to see infrared but what you see is not infrared but a representation of infrared made by that device that is percievable for human sight (an all greenish view with glowing eyes).
But in fact it's the same for every sense.
You can't know that what you ear and how your brain identify sounds is the same for everyone.
So since we potentialy all percieve the world a different way.We cannot say who's do it right.

 

[Gilles]

Basically yes.
We considere the world through our five sense such as view.
But what you see is not the reality but an image created by your brain.
If you try to describe a color with only words you can't; you 'll say 'blue is...blue'.It means you can't know that what you see is universal reality since you connat get confirmation of someone else 'Yes blue is that way.'
So maybe you see blue differently from everyone else.
We can't see colors beyond infrared and ultraviolet.
I know there some device that allow to see infrared but what you see is not infrared but a representation of infrared made by that device that is percievable for human sight (an all greenish view with glowing eyes).
But in fact it's the same for every sense.
You can't know that what you ear and how your brain identify sounds is the same for everyone.
So since we potentialy all percieve the world a different way.We cannot say who's do it right.

Then how do you create law? Who's to say Hitler was wrong?

If you don't believe in truth, I don't see how you can have laws. Once you place a law, it states that one "opinion" is right, and it denies the other "opinion", and therefore is a truth.

 

[Naze]

People from the catholic church harmed themselves in order to have the "dignity to live", or something like that. Well, as long as you won't hurt others, you can do what you want with your life.

 

[Gilles]

People from the catholic church harmed themselves in order to have the "dignity to live", or something like that. Well, as long as you won't hurt others, you can do what you want with your life.

Then their retards.

 

[Captain Griffen]

Then how do you create law? Who's to say Hitler was wrong?

If you don't believe in truth, I don't see how you can have laws. Once you place a law, it states that one "opinion" is right, and it denies the other "opinion", and therefore is a truth.

Pragmatics. And also by assuming a few basic tennents and building up, eg: freedom, or utility being good, etc.

The basis of laws do not need to be universal truths - they can be subjective truths, or true if certain premises are held to be true (and you normally can get almost universal agreement on these premises).

Of course, anarchists disagree, and say you cannot, and thus cannot have laws.

I will leave you to define <X> in my definition. I have a definition of what it is, but yours is the one that matters. Under your definitions, right and wrong are defined as opinion. Now I want to know about my incomplete definitions. Define <X> and we may proceed to discuss if there is a "universal" morality.

Hakeem, what X is, assuming it could take anything (eg: overall utility, the welfare of cats, freedom, etc.) then what fills it will entirely make your definition - it could pretty much be turned to anything.

 

[Hakeem]

So since we potentialy all percieve the world a different way.We cannot say who's do it right.

While the way we perceive the world may differ, one thing I think we all interpret the same is language. There is the faint possibility that maybe while I'm saying this, you perceive an entirely different "color", but honestly, I'm gonna use probability and say we all perceive what communication we get the same way. This means that while my pain could be your pleasure, we can communicate the concept of positive and negative emotions and senses. Our experiencing of such things may differ, but the signals are the same in this reality, whatever is may be, though which we interact.

It's pointless to argue the external truth value of the universe when we are embedded in it. So for the purposes of us both being here to argue, reality is taken as true.

Of course, anarchists disagree, and say you cannot, and thus cannot have laws.

You can have laws, but I don't think it wise.

Hakeem, what X is, assuming it could take anything (eg: overall utility, the welfare of cats, freedom, etc.) then what fills it will entirely make your definition - it could pretty much be turned to anything.

Yes, it can be anything. What definition of X do you think best completes the definitions of the terms right and wrong that I gave?

 

[Elenai]

I am reminded of an interesting philosophical thought...

"Gravity" does not exist. yet... ---> Newton's Laws of Physics.

 

[X.e.r.e.X]

I do not bother to read the whole topic, but there is no such thing as "Death with Dignity"

 

[Callahan]

While the way we perceive the world may differ, one thing I think we all interpret the same is language. There is the faint possibility that maybe while I'm saying this, you perceive an entirely different "color", but honestly, I'm gonna use probability and say we all perceive what communication we get the same way. This means that while my pain could be your pleasure, we can communicate the concept of positive and negative emotions and senses. Our experiencing of such things may differ, but the signals are the same in this reality, whatever is may be, though which we interact.

Especially not language.
If I say 'dog' some people may think about a sheperd while other may think about a labrador.
Or else why there would be so many misunderstanding?
Or misinterpretaion of the Qu'ran?

 

[Captain Griffen]

While the way we perceive the world may differ, one thing I think we all interpret the same is language. There is the faint possibility that maybe while I'm saying this, you perceive an entirely different "color", but honestly, I'm gonna use probability and say we all perceive what communication we get the same way. This means that while my pain could be your pleasure, we can communicate the concept of positive and negative emotions and senses. Our experiencing of such things may differ, but the signals are the same in this reality, whatever is may be, though which we interact.

It's pointless to argue the external truth value of the universe when we are embedded in it. So for the purposes of us both being here to argue, reality is taken as true.

Truth does not exist as a part of the universe, but as an idea.

You can have laws, but I don't think it wise.

So you are against all laws/rules/enforcement of *your* will onto anyone else's actions?

Yes, it can be anything. What definition of X do you think best completes the definitions of the terms right and wrong that I gave?

That'd require a subjective opinion.

I am reminded of an interesting philosophical thought...

"Gravity" does not exist. yet... ---> Newton's Laws of Physics.

What do you mean gravity does not exist? For what idea of gravity, and what value of 'exists'?

And Newtonian physics is wrong.

 

[Hakeem]

Especially not language.
If I say 'dog' some people may think about a sheperd while other may think about a labrador.
Or else why there would be so many misunderstanding?

Misunderstanding is one thing. I'm talking about me say "My dog ate chocolate and is going to die." and you perceiving that string of text into an idea that I would describe as "Mt. Doom cheese. 1/2 off."

But how would we be able to never detect that I'm talking about one thing and you think another entirely? We can't detect difference in color perception, but language is something I think has no alternate perceptions. (Or very very very few.)

Truth does not exist as a part of the universe, but as an idea.

Ideas are the most powerful force in the universe.
Or I could be more relevant and say that ideas often apply to the universe. To say to me that there is no universal truth is pointless because I am part of that universe whose truth you are questioning.

So you are against all laws/rules/enforcement of *your* will onto anyone else's actions?

I'm against a government trying to generalize a will onto everybody. You cannot apply the same laws to everyone; it oppresses someone somewhere.

That'd require a subjective opinion.

I cannot accept the assertion that there is no universal morality. By my definition of X, there is a universal set of right and wrong actions.

 

[Elenai]

What do you mean gravity does not exist? For what idea of gravity, and what value of 'exists'?

And Newtonian physics is wrong.

You completely missed the point...

"Gravity" does not exist, yet we can still make an absolute law of nature out of it.

 

[Lohengrin]

I cannot accept the assertion that there is no universal morality. By my definition of X, there is a universal set of right and wrong actions.

By your definition, maybe, but I find your definition of right and wrong completely invalid because by the general definitions of right and wrong, something being beneficial or detrimental to x, whatever x is, is in itself a matter of right and wrong. Of course, that would be straying from your definitions but bending definitions doesn't prove anything, I'm sure there is a word for that in the realm of logical fallacies.

"Gravity" does not exist, yet we can still make an absolute law of nature out of it.

As far as I'm concerned, there is no law of gravity; the idea of gravity is a theory: the theory of gravity. In the scientific sense, of course.

 

[Captain Griffen]

I'm against a government trying to generalize a will onto everybody. You cannot apply the same laws to everyone; it oppresses someone somewhere.

Failing to apply laws will create oppression. The laws do not necessarily have to be applied in the same way to everyone, just largely are due to pragmatic reasons.

I cannot accept the assertion that there is no universal morality. By my definition of X, there is a universal set of right and wrong actions.

By YOUR definition? That in itself makes it subjective.

"Gravity" does not exist, yet we can still make an absolute law of nature out of it.

We don't know wtf is up with gravity, so really you can't say anything about that; we can see the effect of matter being pulled towards other matter; that effect is called gravity. That effect exists. Ergo, gravity exists.

 

[Elenai]

We don't know wtf is up with gravity, so really you can't say anything about that; we can see the effect of matter being pulled towards other matter; that effect is called gravity. That effect exists. Ergo, gravity exists.

Gravity and morality are the same thing. (poetic)

They don't exist, gravity is just a name for one or more effects that cause "things to drop", morality is likewise.

They are mysterious,

you don't know the cause,

you are only aware of it because someone told you it was there (the Gauls had no idea what 'gravity' was, it was just "there", and its the same with morality)

you can see its effects, but you don't see the root

there are lots of things you can compare with gravity and morality, both can be perceived in absolutes (what comes up must come down, etc etc, more gravity more pull, always)

 

[Hakeem]

By your definition, maybe, but I find your definition of right and wrong completely invalid because by the general definitions of right and wrong, something being beneficial or detrimental to x, whatever x is, is in itself a matter of right and wrong.

If you can find a better definition of X than mine, I would gladly accept it.

Failing to apply laws will create oppression.

That is a matter of mass psychology, for starters. Even were you able to convince me of that statement, that would mean oppression is constant, government or not.

You'll notice in a government that as time goes on, the oppression becomes more and more severe. You cannot achieve the same level of oppression as government is capable, without laws.

By YOUR definition? That in itself makes it subjective.

There is a distinct idea people think of when they think of the terms "right" and "wrong". What definition of X best satisfies that idea?

Just because you subscribe to a different terminology than I, does not mean the idea itself is subjective. The term may be, but acceptance of any truth is subjective.

 

[Captain Griffen]

Gravity and morality are the same thing. (poetic)

They don't exist, gravity is just a name for one or more effects that cause "things to drop", morality is likewise.

Morality is not the name for an effect; it's the name of an idea, an opinion.

They are mysterious,

you don't know the cause,

you are only aware of it because someone told you it was there (the Gauls had no idea what 'gravity' was, it was just "there", and its the same with morality)

you can see its effects, but you don't see the root

there are lots of things you can compare with gravity and morality, both can be perceived in absolutes (what comes up must come down, etc etc, more gravity more pull, always)

Morality has no effects. People's opinions have effects.

More gravity and more pull are one and the same - the gravity is the pull. The Gauls may not have understood gravity, but they knew it was there, it is tangible in a way morality is not.

That is a matter of mass psychology, for starters. Even were you able to convince me of that statement, that would mean oppression is constant, government or not.

You'll notice in a government that as time goes on, the oppression becomes more and more severe. You cannot achieve the same level of oppression as government is capable, without laws.

Me being able to smash your head in without fear of reciprocation is certainly more oppressive than most sets of laws.

There is a distinct idea people think of when they think of the terms "right" and "wrong". What definition of X best satisfies that idea?

Just because you subscribe to a different terminology than I, does not mean the idea itself is subjective. The term may be, but acceptance of any truth is subjective.

Your idea of right and wrong though is putting predefined constraints on right and wrong - which means you are in fact NOT discussing a moral system, as you're already putting in place the moral system before you start the discussion, which totally misses the point.

 

[Gilles]

Pragmatics. And also by assuming a few basic tennents and building up, eg: freedom, or utility being good, etc.

The basis of laws do not need to be universal truths - they can be subjective truths, or true if certain premises are held to be true (and you normally can get almost universal agreement on these premises).

What does pragmatics have to do with Hitler being wrong?
Saying freedom and utility are a "good", you admit to truth.

I never said law always has to be objective. Whether or not it's subjective or objective doesn't take away from the fact that laws are based on truth.

Now you're confusing me a bit. I should probably sit and think about it for a while, but I'm rushed for time. You said earlier:

It's not truth, since right and wrong are opinions in themselves. There is no absolute morality - the best you can do is use a few low level assumptions and then build up from there, but those low level assumptions still require the belief that they are true - an opinion - and hence, everything built on them is also opinion, rather than facts that can be true or false.

Morality can be analysed for consistency, but not for truth.

So you believe that there is no absolute truth. Morality is simply assumption and opinion (do you use reason to come to conclusions?), and whoever holds power, be it a group of people, or one person, laws are created according to his, or their, opinion?

 

[Callahan]

Misunderstanding is one thing. I'm talking about me say "My dog ate chocolate and is going to die." and you perceiving that string of text into an idea that I would describe as "Mt. Doom cheese. 1/2 off."

Not that much.But What kind of dog?What kind of chocoloate?Where is he going to die?When is he going to die?What kind of death?We are all going to die.Does his death related to the fact he ate chocolate?

You see when you says something it's always ambiguous.
Because if you look in the dictionary you'll see that all words are defined by other words.So if you go look definitions of each words that compound the definition of a word you'll get even more words to define.It's like answereing a question by lots more questions.So ultimately words are ambiguous.

 

[PurplePoot]

Then how do you create law? Who's to say Hitler was wrong?

You're making the error of starting with the assumption that Hitler was wrong.

 

[Captain Griffen]

What does pragmatics have to do with Hitler being wrong?
Saying freedom and utility are a "good", you admit to truth.

I'm not saying Hitler is wrong, or that utility or freedom are good. I'm saying I believe that, but do not know it.

I never said law always has to be objective. Whether or not it's subjective or objective doesn't take away from the fact that laws are based on truth.

No, they aren't. Back that up.

So you believe that there is no absolute truth. Morality is simply assumption and opinion (do you use reason to come to conclusions?), and whoever holds power, be it a group of people, or one person, laws are created according to his, or their, opinion?

Correct.

 

[PurplePoot]

Well, Gilles, you live in BC. Just look at the left-wingers and the right-wingers and what they want/try to do.

 

[Gilles]

I'm not saying Hitler is wrong, or that utility or freedom are good. I'm saying I believe that, but do not know it.

So would you have tried to stop him from killing people?

No, they aren't. Back that up.

Okay.
As soon as you arrest someone, you are subjecting them to your opinion. When you subject someone to your opinion, you have to believe in truth. If you didn't, how can you tell them what they did was wrong? Even if you aren't sure if your opinion is correct, because you subjected them to your opinion, you at least think your opinion is truth. Without truth, you have anarchy.

Correct.

Once you form an opinion on whether or not rape is wrong, you admit to truth. As soon as you say that truth doesn't exist, you hold no grounds to stop anyone from raping since it's their opinion that it's right.

Edit: Poot, I don't follow you. I also rarely follow Canadian politics, unfortunately. I suppose we young adults should show more interest, but meh.

 

[Elenai]

You can see the effects of Morality. All the time.

Mother Teresa thought charity and service for the poor was good, and so did it. The effects helped many lives.

Mao thought The Great Leap Forward was good, and so it too effected many lives, in detrimental means, and invading the rights and lives of China's citizens...though he thought it was good in his opinion, it was still 'wrong', to take those lives, lives that do not belong to him. And the effects of these actions, based on his moral code "opinion" have rippled through out history.

The thing is, there is an absolute truth in the morality of things.

It is absolutely wrong to unjustly invade the rights of another human being, such invasions of rights that Mao committed, he does not own the rights of the individual after all.

 

[Gilles]

You can see the effects of Morality. All the time.

Mother Teresa thought charity and service for the poor was good, and so did it. The effects helped many lives.

Mao thought The Great Leap Forward was good, and so it too effected many lives, in detrimental means, and invading the rights and lives of China's citizens...though he thought it was good in his opinion, it was still 'wrong', to take those lives, lives that do not belong to him. And the effects of these actions, based on his moral code "opinion" have rippled through out history.

The thing is, there is an absolute truth in the morality of things.

It is absolutely wrong to unjustly invade the rights of another human being, such invasions of rights that Mao committed, he does not own the rights of the individual after all.

Exactly. That's called self-sufficient truth.

Also, Griffen, are you saying there is no such thing as truth, or that there is no such thing as natural law? I can understand your stance a little more if you believe in your own personal truth, but not a universal truth (you're still wrong, but at least it makes a little more sense).

 

[Captain Griffen]

So would you have tried to stop him from killing people?

Yes, because of subjective opinions I hold.

Okay.
As soon as you arrest someone, you are subjecting them to your opinion. When you subject someone to your opinion, you have to believe in truth.

Substantiate. Why can I not just act on what I believe? We can never know anything for certain aside from that we ourselves, in some form or other, exist, hence we have to, in some way, work with the pragmatics of it.

Once you form an opinion on whether or not rape is wrong, you admit to truth.

No I don't, what makes you think that?

As soon as you say that truth doesn't exist, you hold no grounds to stop anyone from raping since it's their opinion that it's right.

So? Doesn't stop me from stopping them, as it's my opinion that I have the right, and even the responsibility to do so.

You can see the effects of Morality. All the time.

Elenai, learn to differentiate someone's OPINIONS about morality, and morality itself. Gravity has an effect that is not affected by whatever I think about it, whereas the effect of morality does not directly exist - purely through what people believe about it?

The thing is, there is an absolute truth in the morality of things.

It is absolutely wrong to unjustly invade the rights of another human being, such invasions of rights that Mao committed, he does not own the rights of the individual after all.

Substantiate.

Also, Griffen, are you saying there is no such thing as truth, or that there is no such thing as natural law? I can understand your stance a little more if you believe in your own personal truth, but not a universal truth (you're still wrong, but at least it makes a little more sense).

There no natural law or absolute truth in morality. No there is no personal truth for it either really, but there are justifications for acting as if things which are not true/false, or which you do not know to be true/false, as if they are true (or false).

 

[Gilles]

Why has murder been seen wrong since the beginning of time Griffen?

 

[Elenai]

Elenai, learn to differentiate someone's OPINIONS about morality, and morality itself. Gravity has an effect that is not affected by whatever I think about it, whereas the effect of morality does not directly exist - purely through what people believe about it?

Morality is the sum of the results of our actions. Right and Wrong, and for a hypothetical scenario of right and wrong: Was my decision to kill this puppy in cold blood, skin it alive, and eat its eyeballs in front of sheltered six year old school children right or wrong?

The effect of my decision and the morality behind it are clearly seen in the after effects, there is no opinion in clearly seen, and palpable in the cause and effects that follow.

I may have perceived such an action to be good, to shock them into the reality of a cruel world, but it was not good, fore it was 'wrong'.

The children are traumatized and will no longer be able to look at a puppy the right way again, I have forever scared their perception and altered them from their state of 'proper being', I have invaded their rights, I have stolen their innocent natures, I have done wrong, and the effects of my action will reverberate through out their lives with effect, upon effect, culminating in what may be a mental breakdown. The effects of my actions were wrong, and the action itself was wrong, not because I believe it was wrong, or society does, but because the effects of my actions caused a great disturbance in the minds of the children, and invaded their rights of peace and homeostatic existence.

It is not what you "just believe" about it, because what I did in this hypothetical scenario to these children, and even to the puppy itself, cannot be "believed" to have happened. The effects "are happening" no matter if you believe they were traumatized or not, cause and effect which is calculable to some degree in the mental state of these children.

Substantiate.

According to common human rights laws, and the laws of nature:

I do not own you, I do not have a right to invade your rights to life, liberty, and existence. I am not given authority to take them. I cannot murder you, I cannot kill you without the just cause of the law, I cannot steal from you, I cannot cause you pain with malicious intent, I cannot traumatize you. To do these things, to break you out of your homeostatic existence against your will is to commit "wrong doing" and that is the absolute truth behind it, because it is absolute truth that one human being, cannot own the humanity of another individual, and therefore cannot have rights to it, and therefore has no right to cause a negative shift in their homeostatis.

It is basic law, and basic instinct. Natural law, and common human rights laws that stem from that.

"You hurt me, I feel hurt, I feel the effects of that hurt, I cannot function (as well/at all), you have invaded my rights to function against my will, you have committed a wrong."

True or False, am I allowed to without any good reason, justification, or otherwise, hinder your personal rights with the primary goal being negative? (like, make you a slave for example, just because I want to)

 

[Verhalthur]

Who cares about dignity, I don't wanna DIE.

 

[Naze]

It is so simple. We just can't invade other's lifes and say "No, you won't/can die with diginity because it is stupid/it is honorable". As long as the suicidal guy don't hurt others... I have nothing to do with him.

 

[VeljkoM]

Dieing with dignity is point of view.But suicide is wrong.Why would you throw away something precious like that.You get only once to live.

And in Christianity it is a sin to take away your life.

 

[shadow3]

I decide to go to 3 different worlds and hurt a person on each of them.

In world A it is looked upon as a terrible and evil act to inflict pain.
In world B it is looked upon as a honorable act.
In world C receiving pain is looked upon as a great gift.

If I hurt a person in world A, I am evil.
If I hurt a person in world B, I am honorable.
If I hurt a person in world C, I am kind.


None of these are weird or stupid, in fact, they're all here on our own planet!

A is obvious, the opinion most people have.
B can be said about soldiers.
C I can only find as part of something sex-related, but it's there.

And again, here we can have different opinions, is the soldier hurting a person honorable?