|
| Thread: To donate or not to donate? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
posted June 22, 2008 06:11 PM |
|
|
Quote:
What would you do then? Let all people die (including the one you would've killed) from lack of oxygen?
Ok, so if you're so eager to let the other out, then kill yourself, not decide who should 
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted June 22, 2008 06:14 PM |
|
|
I asked what you would do.
I won't kill myself btw
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 22, 2008 06:16 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 18:17, 22 Jun 2008.
|
Quote:
I asked what you would do.
Honestly, I don't know, it's like when you are supposed to pick one of your children. I think this goes far beyond the topic of this thread and needs one of it's own, suffice to know that I made my point regarding morality at least 
Quote:
I won't kill myself btw
I meant in the example obviously. If you wouldn't then why do you expect someone else to? Morality says it's wrong. One has to sacrifice, by his own will, else it's murder
(even if this murder is actually better for the society, it does not intersect with morals)
|
|
Kipshasz
Undefeatable Hero
Elvin's Darkside
|
|
posted June 22, 2008 06:21 PM |
|
|
i've donated blood a few times. well,i think that donating blood or organs is a good thing,because theres so much people that need this kind of help
____________
"Kip is the Gavin McInnes of HC" - Salamandre
"Ashan to the Trashcan", "I got PTSD from H7. " - LizardWarrior
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 22, 2008 06:30 PM |
|
|
Quote:
When you are not sure of something, it's better to leave it alone and not attempt to use your 'assumptions' in the first place
If euthanasia is OK, then why not harvesting clones?
Quote:
If not, I hope humans will 'evolve' to be tolerant even of other creatures.
Why should we? I mean, humans are one thing, and everybody else is totally another.
Quote:
So? That doesn't have anything to do with morals. I guess you think that all of us are 'nice' just because they profit from it? WRONG. How evolved are we if we only do it for profit (benefit of the society). Honestly now, if saving 1 person would require a lot of wealth (which would be 'harmful' for the society in general), would you do it? From your definition of morals, you are likely not to.
It's not that cut-and-dry. What society tries to do is to encourage altruistic behavior by telling everybody that it's good, and that they'll feel good if they do it. And they do. Saving one person? The emotional benefit might very well outweigh the monetary harm. And it doesn't mean that we rationally evaluate all the costs and benefits of an action. It just means that we are encouraged from an early age to do so, and it becomes innate to an extent.
Quote:
And by life I do not mean "anything that acts like a normal human".
But brainless clones are really not that different from cattle, and humans have no problem with harvesting cattle. You personally do, and I can't convince you that it's OK for us to do so.
Quote:
Based on some calculations, you need to kill at least one for all of you to have enough oxygen. Certainly, the more people get out, the better it is for society. For morals, it's certainly not ok to kill anyone without his/her will. Who are you going to pick? Why not pick yourself?
I think that many people would indeed pick themselves. And I see no conflict in this with what I'm saying. This is basically life sacrifice, which is altruism on a large scale. To a large degree, such thoughts and actions are automatic, so while the origin of the action would be motivated by an emotional benefit, the attitude has become so ingrained that we don't even look for this benefit. Hence, life sacrifice.
Quote:
If we take another example, like in a studio where we need only white people (because we take photos and only those are required), you see the 'important' difference of being white and black?
That is an entirely different situation, and of course hiring only whites would make sense. What is important to look at are the differences that matter, which differ from situation to situation.
Quote:
But to have everyone equal means to be tolerant for everything.
You know why they're called "human rights"? It's because they apply only to humans. And I would say that "tolerant" would be the wrong word to use here, because do we tolerate cows?
Quote:
(even if this murder is actually better for the society, it does not intersect with morals)
This is a very specific case, and society enacts general morals, not specific morals for every unique situation. And the morals would tell you to kill yourself, and that's what society would want, because it doesn't want you attacking others anyway.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 22, 2008 06:52 PM |
|
|
Quote:
If euthanasia is OK, then why not harvesting clones?
There's a difference: when harvesting it's like you make someone a vegetable and then apply euthanasia
Quote:
Why should we? I mean, humans are one thing, and everybody else is totally another.
Well we have to take steps at a time. Remember people said the same about black people in the past.
I mean, white people are one thing, and black people are totally another.
I suppose you don't mean biologically, since in that case even clones are similar
Quote:
It's not that cut-and-dry. What society tries to do is to encourage altruistic behavior by telling everybody that it's good, and that they'll feel good if they do it. And they do. Saving one person? The emotional benefit might very well outweigh the monetary harm.
You don't get it. The emotional benefit would be ok I guess, but for who? For people that are in 'power'? I doubt, and it's usually those people that decide 'for the society'. A few "insignificant" people will not have an impact, and the monetary harm would be for the "significant" ones. So for society, it would be a harm, but from morality, it would be the right thing to do
Quote:
You know why they're called "human rights"? It's because they apply only to humans. And I would say that "tolerant" would be the wrong word to use here, because do we tolerate cows?
Just to pick: You know why they're called "white rights"? It's because they apply only to white people.
Remember that people in the past thought black people are 'scum' and 'non deserving of rights' and all that -- they did not take biology into account, and in the case of clones, biologically they're similar too
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 22, 2008 06:58 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Well we have to take steps at a time. Remember people said the same about black people in the past.
I mean, white people are one thing, and black people are totally another.
The critical difference is that black people can do anything white people can, and vice versa, but brain-dead clones can't.
Quote:
The emotional benefit would be ok I guess, but for who?
The emotional benefit would be for those who help - those who perform the altruistic behavior.
Quote:
For people that are in 'power'? I doubt, and it's usually those people that decide 'for the society'.
I'm not talking about society in that sense. I'm saying real society, society in general, and it wasn't one person or any group of people deciding it. It was just a general process over a long time.
Quote:
A few "insignificant" people will not have an impact, and the monetary harm would be for the "significant" ones. So for society, it would be a harm, but from morality, it would be the right thing to do
The emotional benefit might well outweigh the monetary harm, for both the significant and the insignificant.
Quote:
Remember that people in the past thought black people are 'scum' and 'non deserving of rights' and all that -- they did not take biology into account, and in the case of clones, biologically they're similar too
The difference is that such clones would never be able to live.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 22, 2008 07:08 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The critical difference is that black people can do anything white people can, and vice versa, but brain-dead clones can't.
So let's ban people with disabilities? Because they can't do anything that we can?
Seriously now, it's one thing to not be able to do something, and another one to be that way intentionally by your "creators".
Quote:
The emotional benefit might well outweigh the monetary harm, for both the significant and the insignificant.
I think the government, if it would be the one losing monetary wealth, hits it's head on the wall for that -- you've got to wake up, not everyone is 'emotionally charged' and most of what you call "good of society" don't care about the insignificant -- they just do it for the media.
good of society is a pretty bad goal to base your life upon
Quote:
The difference is that such clones would never be able to live.
Because of us, it's like we intentionally create humans with disabilities. It's like, for example, a mother is pregnant and she drinks something that she knows will yield a child with disabilities (just an example). This is why I think it's wrong in the first place!
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 22, 2008 07:28 PM |
|
|
Quote:
So let's ban people with disabilities? Because they can't do anything that we can?
At least they're able to interact.
Quote:
Seriously now, it's one thing to not be able to do something, and another one to be that way intentionally by your "creators".
I don't see anything wrong with creating tools for ourselves.
Quote:
I think the government, if it would be the one losing monetary wealth, hits it's head on the wall for that -- you've got to wake up, not everyone is 'emotionally charged' and most of what you call "good of society" don't care about the insignificant -- they just do it for the media.
Do you not see what I'm trying to say? I'm not talking about any government. I'm talking about society in general. The individuals in that society might sacrifice a certain quantity of money for emotional benefit. That is, if you see a beggar in the streets, you'll give him money for your emotional benefit (or because of the inertia of this benefit, or because society expects it, but those are different subjects). Or, as you said, some of them may be concerned with the media attention. It's win-win anyway. But people who don't have enough money to give away to generate media attention still do it because of the emotional benefit (or its inertia). And such actions benefit both the individual and society.
Quote:
It's like, for example, a mother is pregnant and she drinks something that she knows will yield a child with disabilities (just an example).
You might think that it's wrong (and I'd agree), but we have no right to tell her that she can't. And clones are a different article anyway.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 22, 2008 07:40 PM |
|
|
Quote:
At least they're able to interact.
When they were babies/fetuses, they weren't
Quote:
I don't see anything wrong with creating tools for ourselves.
As long as the tool can't get his own will, so to speak, but in this case, it's still a human, and it COULD get that will, if we wouldn't kill it or created it wrongly (with disabilities) for example.
Quote:
Do you not see what I'm trying to say? I'm not talking about any government. I'm talking about society in general. The individuals in that society might sacrifice a certain quantity of money for emotional benefit. That is, if you see a beggar in the streets, you'll give him money for your emotional benefit (or because of the inertia of this benefit, or because society expects it, but those are different subjects). Or, as you said, some of them may be concerned with the media attention. It's win-win anyway. But people who don't have enough money to give away to generate media attention still do it because of the emotional benefit (or its inertia). And such actions benefit both the individual and society.
I understand what you're saying, the only thing I'm pointing is that usually, the "insignificant" people are not worth to the society anyway -- do you even notice if a beggar has been killed? Who does? They are not 'important' for the society. Those that are deep in wealth will usually not care about the weak, they don't serve any good for them (unless emotionally, in which case they don't care too!). And the 'society' is much more influenced by them instead of the insignificant beggars. The beggars will most certainly not be "worth" to the society compared to the 'super-big-wealth-company' or government or whatever. So for the society it's better to not save the beggar. For morality, it's the other way around.
Quote:
You might think that it's wrong (and I'd agree), but we have no right to tell her that she can't.
Then the law is flawed.
|
|
Korejora
Promising
|
|
posted June 22, 2008 07:48 PM |
|
|
What's with the babies not being able to interact thing? How are they not able to interact? They aren't too productive, I guess, but I'm pretty sure they interact just fine.
The disabilities argument confuses me, too. We ban the blind from driving; is that immoral?
I don't think anyone is claiming society is perfect, but it's what we've got and it's better than anarchy. Admitting the presence of or understanding the problem is only the first step, and the first step doesn't get you too far.
I think we do have a right to tell a mother not to screw up her child with alcohol, just as we have the right to tell people not to beat their children half to death. Unless she's planning on killing the kid outright, she has no right to abuse it in that way.
____________
That's the best part. 
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 22, 2008 07:57 PM |
|
|
Quote:
it COULD get that will, if we wouldn't kill it or created it wrongly (with disabilities)
If we created it with a fundamental flaw, then it can't, so it doesn't matter.
Quote:
I understand what you're saying, the only thing I'm pointing is that usually, the "insignificant" people are not worth to the society anyway -- do you even notice if a beggar has been killed?
Yes, but society discourages us from killing anyone, rich or poor. So we should feel bad when we kill (unless it's a duly convicted criminal), and should feel good when we do something good for others.
Quote:
Those that are deep in wealth will usually not care about the weak, they don't serve any good for them (unless emotionally, in which case they don't care too!).
Everything anybody does falls into one of three caregories:
1. Physical benefit or prevention of physical harm
2. Emotional benefit or prevention of emotional harm
3. Inertia
Thus, rich or poor, unless it's inertia, the action is done to some benefit (or at least to prevent or minimize harm).
Quote:
The beggars will most certainly not be "worth" to the society compared to the 'super-big-wealth-company' or government or whatever.
Yes, but that doesn't prevent society from discouraging murder and theft.
Quote:
So for the society it's better to not save the beggar.
I don't see why. Society is composed of every individual. And it's in every individual's interest not to die.
Quote:
Then the law is flawed.
Perhaps I expressed myself poorly. We do have the right to tell her that she shouldn't, but we have no right to use force to stop her from doing so.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 22, 2008 08:11 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Yes, but that doesn't prevent society from discouraging murder and theft.
It does so only as long as public/media is concerned -- a lot of 'assassinations' are for the "good" of society or economics.
Quote:
I don't see why. Society is composed of every individual. And it's in every individual's interest not to die.
But I was talking about the fact that the person NEEDS money to be rescued. Most people, based on the good of society overall, would not rescue, simply because the money would be used for the good of society better than an insignificant person. Morally I think it's just plain wrong.
Quote:
Perhaps I expressed myself poorly. We do have the right to tell her that she shouldn't, but we have no right to use force to stop her from doing so.
So the law is flawed, because she is affecting a person, not only herself
"do what you want as long as you don't harm others" principle holds here as well
just because you give life to someone does not mean you can do whatever you want with it 
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted June 22, 2008 08:27 PM |
|
|
Quote:
just because you give life to someone does not mean you can do whatever you want with it
But the baby before (s)he is born is not a person. If you consider him/her a person before being born it means you also are completely against abortion, since you kill (murder?) a person, right? But I do support abortion when the mother does not want a child.
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 22, 2008 08:29 PM |
|
|
Quote:
a lot of 'assassinations' are for the "good" of society or economics
If people start going around and assassinating people, that would be extremely detrimental to society and economics. Property rights must be respected.
Quote:
Most people, based on the good of society overall, would not rescue, simply because the money would be used for the good of society better than an insignificant person.
There's no such thing as the abstract "good of society". There is something that benefits many members of society, which can be termed the good of society. But society, let us remember, is composed of individuals, and they want to encourage people to help each other. But here you're acting like someone has a choice between helping a whole bunch of people and helping one person.
Quote:
So the law is flawed, because she is affecting a person, not only herself
And we wade back into the abortion debate.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 22, 2008 08:29 PM |
|
|
Quote:
But the baby before (s)he is born is not a person. If you consider him/her a person before being born it means you also are completely against abortion, since you kill (murder?) a person, right? But I do support abortion when the mother does not want a child.
Yeah I am against abortion and I discussed this in another thread (something like the mother should take responsibility if she does not want the child, etc).
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted June 22, 2008 08:36 PM |
|
|
Wow, gone a few days and look what my thread turned into.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 22, 2008 08:36 PM |
|
|
TheDeath, you're just an authoritarian who want to take away people's rights of free association and control over personal property and the self. You have a radically different understanding of the causes of human action. It's like you're from a completely different planet. I'll respect your opinion, but I think that it's radically wrong. You can't build a utopia by forcing your prefrences upon others.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 22, 2008 08:41 PM |
|
|
Quote:
TheDeath, you're just an authoritarian who want to take away people's rights of free association and control over personal property and the self.
I don't know what made me this image of 'authoritarian' but I think otherwise. I may have different definitions of "harming others" -- you see, for me forcing someone into your property and then harming him is no way 'justifiable' just because he broke your property. You just think that property is above all else, and nullifies all rights, especially the 'harm others' part.
You see, I am on the opinion that "do what you want as long as you don't harm others" should be extended not only to 'normal' physical attacks (like punching) -- harm can come in so many other ways. You obviously think property should be above these rights.
But then if you intentionally create something, then claim that it's in your property, sorry but it doesn't hold. If I build a teleporter, does that give me the right to teleport people into my home and the kill them, because they were in my property? I forced them 
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted June 22, 2008 08:46 PM |
|
Edited by Asheera at 20:46, 22 Jun 2008.
|
@Death: Are you claiming that if you build a computer you can't brake it if you want? If yes then don't read below, it's pointless.
Human clones, like computers, don't have a soul or a brain, they are just some cells. I don't see anything about harming someone here, on the contrary, we can help a lot of people with those cells that make up the organs.
____________
|
| |
|
|
