The Couch

Of Murder?

Comments on Of Murder?

Zenoplata
Senior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 08, 2011

Total Topics: 2
Total Comments: 176
#51 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/09/11 - 11:33 AM:

libertygrl wrote:
everyone starts with certain basic rights granted by the society they're born into, presumably the same for everyone. those rights can change though, for example when one commits a crime and winds up in prison. so not all humans are treated with equal value, even in an ideal system. inevitably we're placed in positions where the value of one person overwrites or supercedes that of another. it's impossible for everyone to have equal rights and opportunities 100% of the time.

regarding abortion, i personally don't think i could have one.


Key point being granted by the society they're born into.

Men are not created with basic rights through some work of the universe, this is a man made concept.

I have nothing against it, I enjoy my freedoms as a citizen of the U.S. but those freedoms and rights are imaginary things. The game we play as if they are real is enjoyable, though.
KinNaoko90
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 21, 2008
Location: Fulton County, NY

Total Topics: 36
Total Comments: 298
#52 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/09/11 - 11:48 AM:

Zenoplata wrote:

Men are not created with basic rights through some work of the universe, this is a man made concept.


I have to agree with you on this one. As nice as it is to 'have' rights to life, liberty, and happiness (as well as some others, people, in general, are not born with them without humankind first creating the idea. When humankind first began, they had no rights. We only do now because some enlightened people thought the world (or the US at least) would be better off with the concepts of inalienable rights. They thought it was 'right' for us to have rights and many others agreed.
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
#53 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/09/11 - 11:58 AM:

Zenoplata wrote:


Key point being granted by the society they're born into.

Men are not created with basic rights through some work of the universe, this is a man made concept.

I have nothing against it, I enjoy my freedoms as a citizen of the U.S. but those freedoms and rights are imaginary things. The game we play as if they are real is enjoyable, though.



How are they imaginary things?smiling face
smokinpristiformis
child of the stars
Avatar

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2005
Location: Belgium

Total Topics: 74
Total Comments: 1247
#54 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/09/11 - 12:09 PM:

KinNaoko90 wrote:


I have to agree with you on this one. As nice as it is to 'have' rights to life, liberty, and happiness (as well as some others, people, in general, are not born with them without humankind first creating the idea. When humankind first began, they had no rights. We only do now because some enlightened people thought the world (or the US at least) would be better off with the concepts of inalienable rights. They thought it was 'right' for us to have rights and many others agreed.



Well, the US, and then some. I think what you're getting it at is this little piece of writing:

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml


Although some signatories tend to forget they signed it from time to time. The US being a good (bad?) example, sadly.

Edited by smokinpristiformis on 03/09/11 - 12:15 PM
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
#55 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/09/11 - 12:09 PM:

Zenoplata wrote:
Killing anything is acceptable if deemed so by society.


Not necessarily. Acceptable for society? For me? For you?




Zenoplata wrote:

I do not believe human beings are special little snowflakes with magical souls inside of them. If we have to kill some babies for the benefit of society so be it, nature kills few for the benefit of many every second.


Who decides benefit of society? If power does, power kills----then there arises no question of arguing on 'whether there should be killing or not'---for power will kill. The contemplation is solely being done to churn out some wisdom----some subtlety so that what actually is 'benefit' can be ascertained.



Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't personally kill my child, but what someone else does is none of my concern so long as it doesn't effect me.

Like Quirk said, the universe is amoral.


What Quirk could say, will most probably not be in alignment with 'if society deems...then do' but rather with Quirk's idiosyncrasies.
smokinpristiformis
child of the stars
Avatar

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2005
Location: Belgium

Total Topics: 74
Total Comments: 1247
#56 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/09/11 - 12:12 PM:

Thinker13 wrote:

How are they imaginary things?smiling face



Much like someone first imagined cars and airplanes and walking on the moon, I guess. With enough effort, willpower, some trial and error and a lot of noise and hammering about, it becomes a reality. smiling face
Zenoplata
Senior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 08, 2011

Total Topics: 2
Total Comments: 176
#57 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/09/11 - 12:54 PM:

Thinker13 wrote:



How are they imaginary things?smiling face


They're intangible, abstract things. They don't exist independently of human interpretation of social order.

Zenoplata
Senior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 08, 2011

Total Topics: 2
Total Comments: 176
#58 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/09/11 - 12:55 PM:

smokinpristiformis wrote:



Much like someone first imagined cars and airplanes and walking on the moon, I guess. With enough effort, willpower, some trial and error and a lot of noise and hammering about, it becomes a reality. smiling face


You couldn't be further from the truth. Cars and airplanes are concrete things that exist within temporal and spatial dimensions. smiling face *pat pat*
Zenoplata
Senior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 08, 2011

Total Topics: 2
Total Comments: 176
#59 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/09/11 - 12:57 PM:

Thinker13 wrote:


Not necessarily. Acceptable for society? For me? For you?






Who decides benefit of society? If power does, power kills----then there arises no question of arguing on 'whether there should be killing or not'---for power will kill. The contemplation is solely being done to churn out some wisdom----some subtlety so that what actually is 'benefit' can be ascertained.





What Quirk could say, will most probably not be in alignment with 'if society deems...then do' but rather with Quirk's idiosyncrasies.


Right, acceptable for society. Or you if you deem it so, or me if I deem it so. There is no equation to follow, no matter of truth to be discovered. The acceptability of killing is based entirely on the subjective interpretation of the the action.

Who decides benefit for society? I suppose whoever decides what benefit actually means.

I would guess what Quirk would say would be that what Quirk deems fit Quirk will do. Which I would agree with if that were the case.

I was quoting only a particular sentence for the purpose of that sentence structurally only. Please don't try to make it out as if I were advocating my own opinions for someone else without their consent.

Edited by Zenoplata on 03/09/11 - 1:01 PM
henry quirk
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 17, 2008
Location: here

Total Topics: 47
Total Comments: 1298
#60 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/09/11 - 1:56 PM:

"what Quirk deems fit Quirk will do"

Yep.

And: I'll deal with, or attempt to dodge, the consequences of my choices as I see fit as well.
smokinpristiformis
child of the stars
Avatar

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2005
Location: Belgium

Total Topics: 74
Total Comments: 1247
#61 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/09/11 - 2:28 PM:

Zenoplata wrote:


You couldn't be further from the truth. Cars and airplanes are concrete things that exist within temporal and spatial dimensions. smiling face *pat pat*


A pretty patronizing response and quite besides the point. Can't you do better? What about the social dimension?

Why can't such things as human rights be a very real part of the social operating system. Do you have experience with working in organisations? I'm sure you do - companies, political parties, schools, the scouts. The all have rules - written, spoken, unspoken. It's part of being human. The more humanity advances and grows, the more there will be a need to properly organise things in order to keep advancing and growing.

So that's the ultimate question here. Are we looking to keep humanity flourishing or do we let it diminish?
Zenoplata
Senior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 08, 2011

Total Topics: 2
Total Comments: 176
#62 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/09/11 - 3:49 PM:

Your response was fairly patronizing to begin with. Or maybe I just hate smiley faces.

But the difference is that many of the things you've mentioned are abstract. I generally adhere to a specific form of nominalism where I deny the existence of the abstract.

Are there particular things which embody qualities we may consider "fair" or "just?" Sure. Do they ideals exist independently of them, where we can aspire to some particular notion of "righteousness?" No.

Most prescriptive philosophy just tries to muddy up the waters with this sort of nonsense.

You keep saying, "advancing" "growing" "flourishing." Towards what? What's the endgame?

To quote my friend Tyler Durden, "I say never be complete, I say stop being perfect, I say let... lets evolve, let the chips fall where they may."
libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4672
#63 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/09/11 - 3:54 PM:

Z wrote:
But the difference is that many of the things you've mentioned are abstract.

what about the things he mentioned that aren't abstract? schools, for example. they are products of society, and of ethical concepts/ideals which have been formed and implemented into concrete social structures. after all, a school is more than the bricks that built it. it is also teachers and students, and a general hierarchy obviously found to be socially useful. hardly imaginary, i would say.

likewise, "rights" start out as something conceptually intangible but which are made tangible by practice.
Zenoplata
Senior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 08, 2011

Total Topics: 2
Total Comments: 176
#64 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/09/11 - 4:02 PM:

libertygrl wrote:

what about the things he mentioned that aren't abstract? schools, for example. they are products of society, and of ethical concepts/ideals which have been formed and implemented into concrete social structures. after all, a school is more than the bricks that built it. it is also teachers and students, and a general hierarchy obviously found to be socially useful. hardly imaginary, i would say.

likewise, "rights" start out as something conceptually intangible but which are made tangible by practice.


What about them?

Churches are tangible things which adhere to a specific morality and worship an abstract being. Is that proof God is real and their morality is validated?

I'm not really sure what you guys are getting at. Yes, there are schools, I agree with that.
libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4672
#65 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/09/11 - 4:14 PM:

Z wrote:
Churches are tangible things which adhere to a specific morality and worship an abstract being. Is that proof God is real and their morality is validated?

not a great analogy. churches are no more proof of god than schools are proof of what they teach inside.

what you can infer from the existence of churches and schools is a social structure bound together by ideals. ideals which you are calling "imaginary" but which clearly influence tangible matters.
Zenoplata
Senior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 08, 2011

Total Topics: 2
Total Comments: 176
#66 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/09/11 - 4:24 PM:

I would argue it's not the ideals themselves which influence the structures, but human beings. Humans influence the structures, they create them, just like humans create the ideals.

The only difference being that the ideals are abstract. The schools are concrete.

I'm not sure what you mean that the ideals influence tangible matters. As in humans construct them hoping to achieve the ideals? Sure, I guess we can say that, but humans construct the ideals to fulfill their tangible needs and wants.
libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4672
#67 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/09/11 - 4:34 PM:

the point is that they begin as something "imaginary" (not the word i would choose, but fine) and wind up as something concrete. the ideals precede the structures; they are used as a guideline for structuring. so yes, they are born of human creation. but the structures are also born from the ideals.
Zenoplata
Senior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 08, 2011

Total Topics: 2
Total Comments: 176
#68 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/09/11 - 4:41 PM:

libertygrl wrote:
the point is that they begin as something "imaginary" (not the word i would choose, but fine) and wind up as something concrete. the ideals precede the structures; they are used as a guideline for structuring. so yes, they are born of human creation. but the structures are also born from the ideals.


But I do not believe they validate the ideals. A school is just a physical structure.

I would say the specific actions of humans are more likely to fit what you're getting at, but the ideals are so vague that it' hard to gauge how close an action is to them. They seem to be entirely dependent on human subjectivity, and thus are not a reliable tool of measurement.

We took this course of discussion talking about value? That all mean are created equal or something? Well, the only measuring stick I see for equality is tangible.

If you want to say all men are equal based on the fact that all men -are- then fine. I concede that point. But there is nothing I can see to be derived from that in terms of prescriptive philosophy.
Monk2400
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2005

Total Topics: 116
Total Comments: 1518
#69 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/09/11 - 5:23 PM:

Zenoplata wrote:

Killing anything is acceptable if deemed so by society.


Sure sure, social agreement. But then its all relative and we really have nothing to discuss ever, unless you happen to be someone slated for a killin'. Because what society says is acceptable to kill changes with the age. Yesterday it was slaves, today fetuses, tomorrow Republicans.

Zenoplata wrote:

Are you saying sperm do not possess unique DNA?


Yes. It will be the same as the donor.

Zenoplata wrote:

I do not believe human beings are special little snowflakes with magical souls inside of them. If we have to kill some babies for the benefit of society so be it, nature kills few for the benefit of many every second.


True enough. Nature doesn't care. But does than mean we shouldn't either? The issue is what humans should do.


Zenoplata wrote:

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't personally kill my child, but what someone else does is none of my concern so long as it doesn't effect me.


Ha, that's what people say right up until the jack boots are stomping on their front door.

You can't stick your head in the sand in this world and hope that evil passes you by. We have to be aware of what other people are doing because it WILL affect us one way or another.

8)
Zenoplata
Senior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 08, 2011

Total Topics: 2
Total Comments: 176
#70 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/09/11 - 5:32 PM:

Monk2400 wrote:


Sure sure, social agreement. But then its all relative and we really have nothing to discuss ever, unless you happen to be someone slated for a killin'. Because what society says is acceptable to kill changes with the age. Yesterday it was slaves, today fetuses, tomorrow Republicans.



Yes. It will be the same as the donor.



True enough. Nature doesn't care. But does than mean we shouldn't either? The issue is what humans should do.




Ha, that's what people say right up until the jack boots are stomping on their front door.

You can't stick your head in the sand in this world and hope that evil passes you by. We have to be aware of what other people are doing because it WILL affect us one way or another.

8)


How do we account for discrepancies in humans from one generation to the next? (I don't really know anything about biology, I'm not trying to prove a point, just being genuinely curious.)

What should we do? Whatever we do we do. There is no should.

Death comes to us all, I have no intention of quivering in fear when it comes stomping at my front door.

But if I do at some point find it suitable and beneficial to make the claim for whatever form of ethics, why not? If Christians were to say they'll kill anyone that doesn't believe in their God and their ethics, then sign me up, I don't have a God of my own, what do I care?

libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4672
#71 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/09/11 - 6:17 PM:

Z wrote:
But I do not believe they validate the ideals. A school is just a physical structure.

if it were really true that a school is "just a physical structure", then there would be no difference between a school, a church or a hospital, or any other building that is also a physical structure. what happens inside the school is quantifiable and does matter to its definition. if it were really as difficult as you say, we'd all be wandering around in a fog trying to figure out if a school is really a school and not some other thing. simply put, a school is where specific things happen, and where people *do* specific things. i don't think it's that difficult to measure.

Z wrote:
I would say the specific actions of humans are more likely to fit what you're getting at, but the ideals are so vague that it' hard to gauge how close an action is to them. They seem to be entirely dependent on human subjectivity, and thus are not a reliable tool of measurement.

again, i don't think it's all that hard to tell a school from a church or from a hospital. it's clearly about more than the physical structure. it's about what's happening inside. it's not that vague.

Z wrote:
We took this course of discussion talking about value? That all mean are created equal or something? Well, the only measuring stick I see for equality is tangible.

i don't believe all men are created equal, so i'll have to leave this part to someone else to answer. equal rights and equal opportunities are something worth shooting for, in my view. not always attainable, though, as i mentioned before.
Zenoplata
Senior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 08, 2011

Total Topics: 2
Total Comments: 176
#72 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/09/11 - 8:17 PM:

Ideals are vague, not actions.

Justice is vague. Equality is vague. Rights are vague.

I fully understand the difference between a church and school. My point in saying they were just structures was actually parallel to what you are saying about the occurrences helping to define what they are.

But, I don't think that matters. I still don't believe the existence of institutions which some people believe exemplify ideals is any sort of validation for those ideals.
libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4672
#73 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/09/11 - 8:28 PM:

what, in your view, "validates" ideals?
Zenoplata
Senior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 08, 2011

Total Topics: 2
Total Comments: 176
#74 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/09/11 - 8:30 PM:

Nothing.

Ideals are subjective. Whichever ideals we choose to create and attempt to live up to are irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.
libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4672
#75 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/09/11 - 8:45 PM:

but they matter in the here and now. sure, if you want to look at the really big big picture, it's like seeing your world as solipsism - it's easy to get to a place where nothing means anything anymore. you can outwardly label them as "invalid", but obviously some things do have meaning to you, and these things do influence your behavior. more to the point, being denied certain things will no doubt make you very frustrated and angry. when enough people agree on that point, then the concept of rights is born.

what does "right" mean? it means something that feels right to have. it feels right, it feels good, it's what we want for ourselves. we connect it to a sense of entitlement, because we've come to believe the things we want are also things we deserve. if you want to think of it as a game where people are playing with imaginary things, making inconsequential matters out of ideals impossible to validate, sure, go ahead. but i find it very similar to trying to frame one's perspective as a solipsism. in short, it doesn't strike me as terribly practical. if that's how you see it, though, so be it.
Search thread for
Download thread as
  • 0/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5



Sorry, you don't have permission . Log in, or register if you haven't yet.



Acknowledgements:

Couch logo design by Midnight_Monk. The photo hanging above the couch was taken by Paul.

Powered by WSN Forum. Free smileys here.
Special thanks to Maria Cristina, Jesse , Echolist Directory, The Star Online,
Hosting Free Webs, and dmoz.org for referring visitors to this site!

Copyright notice:

Except where noted otherwise, copyright belongs to respective authors
for artwork, photography and text posted in this forum.