|
| Thread: The Universal Off-Topic Discussion Thread |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted September 13, 2008 08:12 PM |
|
|
Quote:
But even more, you "increase" his freedom or his happiness.
Quote:
objective good has nothing to do with "people feeling good"
Contradiction? You haven't increased his freedom, because what can he do now that he couldn't do before? But you have increased his happiness, so it's a good action, I agree. But not according to your system.
Quote:
Surely a system that is dependable, that can be measured from an AI, is much better than a subjective preferences (relative morals).
Better for whom? Remember that preferences are subjective!  What's wrong with using your right brain? Really, you're contradicting yourself.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted September 14, 2008 02:38 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I don't recall not holding up. It always holds true. Of course it doesn't hold true if you compare it with subjective definitions. After all, the Earth being round doesn't hold with the Flat Earth definitions, does it?
You see here is the flaw in this argument.
If we provide an example of where your definition does not define something good as good, or vice versa or whatever, you can argue that 'because it doesn't fit the definition it's not good', but we can argue that 'because it's good the definition doesn't fit'. It's a chick and egg situation.
As per the Flat Earth/Round Earth situation: we've been to space, and confirmed round earth. You've never been God
Quote:
lol Good is a pretty simple process, you're either good or you're not.
This is an entirely absurd statement.
Let's contrast it to your earlier post:
Quote:
it's not black & white
Quote:
I'm sure that all those morality books say that everyone is "good" since that's what they think. Why can't people be evil? Does it matter what they think? Some criminals even KNOW they are evil, but they don't care.
Well you're wrong, they don't all say that.
You're making a false assumption.
Also your #,@ thing is kinda true however you're not addressing the fact that we can never know what is objective in a moral situation because we only have our own subjective views of reality. Also, even if yours was to be the ultimate objective view of morality, objectivity doesn't always relate to truth in the situation of what's good and evil.
Quote:
I already gave enough examples of what good is. Check my freedom examples and LOGIC. I am seriously so not gonna repeat it again.
Do you enjoy repeating yourself? Why do you make me repeat myself?
You have given some examples but they don't necessarily coincide with what is "good". You have simply defined them as "good", which is not necessarily true.
The reciprocal nature to me is absurd:
-What if you help to carry a cripple up a mountain?
-What if a man with kidney disease gives his healthy kidney to a man who also has kidney disease?
But you seem to keep relating it back to freedom (rather than talking about good or evil), so what about:
-What if you use your freedom to take away a gun from a toddler (taking away his freedom)?
-What if you release a serial killer from prison?
-What if you give an addict a bunch of drugs?
Of course you can't always relate it back to freedom because then you're basically replacing good with a quantitative analysis of which situation creates more freedom which is ridiculous when applied practically.
Quote:
My whole point was that absolute morals exist.
Sure they exist.
But if you can only have your subjective views and opinions on what they are, then you can never know for sure what they are.
They may as well not exist (for us) because they are unattainable by us.
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted September 14, 2008 02:57 PM |
|
|
@mvass: Quote:
You haven't increased his freedom, because what can he do now that he couldn't do before?
1) The freedom thing only qualifies if you are evil. Freedom is a measure of evilness. To solve the ambiguity between neutral & good, you need his happiness. The fact that he is happy is objective, you said that btw
2) If he's happy then you have increased his freedom of being happy -- he couldn't be happy before
Quote:
Better for whom? Remember that preferences are subjective! What's wrong with using your right brain? Really, you're contradicting yourself.
It's 'better' in the sense that it's dependable. Sure, sometimes even objective truth is not 'better' because it's hard to accept it. Obviously it's not better for evil people, but it's better OBJECTIVELY.
If you have two guys, and one of them is evil, it's obviously not gonna be 'better' for him, it's going to be the same (he doesn't care anyway). But objectively, it's better, since someone EXTERNAL (objective) can classify or attribute the two guys depending on what they do.
@TA: Quote:
You see here is the flaw in this argument.
If we provide an example of where your definition does not define something good as good, or vice versa or whatever, you can argue that 'because it doesn't fit the definition it's not good', but we can argue that 'because it's good the definition doesn't fit'. It's a chick and egg situation.
My system actually covers everything. What was the example? I know I make you repeat yourself now, but I'm really curious.
Just because "it doesn't fit the definition thus it's not good" it does NOT mean that it can't be classified. Who said that it has to be good? lol
Quote:
As per the Flat Earth/Round Earth situation: we've been to space, and confirmed round earth. You've never been God
Abstract thinking: I proposed the example of a simulation, where you are God mode (not omniscient, just an "outside viewer"). You see, the "we've been to space" is exactly that: you have been an 'outside' viewer of the planet.
In my case I proposed you to imagine to be an outside viewer, outside the bloody human race, outside the society. I proposed a simple example, where we have no affection towards species, and label them with just.. numbers. Species 1, 2, 3, 4... this way we won't "favor" any one of them, like we favor humans (obviously from animals).
That's God mode. You just need a little bit of imagination, or make a computer simulation yourself
Quote:
This is an entirely absurd statement.
Let's contrast it to your earlier post:
Quote:
it's not black & white
Something is either Good, or not Good. "Not Good" means many things, which is ambiguous, but the statement still holds. "Not Good" can include neutralness, or good in some aspects.
Quote:
Also your #,@ thing is kinda true however you're not addressing the fact that we can never know what is objective in a moral situation because we only have our own subjective views of reality. Also, even if yours was to be the ultimate objective view of morality, objectivity doesn't always relate to truth in the situation of what's good and evil.
'Truth'? There's no such thing as 'truth' here. I am only presenting a neutral POV, from a God view, without you having any affection. And coming up, or in other words, "discovering" morals to apply for everyone. The virtues of MY system are the following:
1) Neutral POV, no preferences on a particular group or view
2) Some logical relationships (see the freedom example)
3) Does not require "updating" the system, works EVERYWHERE, in ANY situation, EVERYTIME
4) Measurable to a certain extent by AIs.
Quote:
You have given some examples but they don't necessarily coincide with what is "good". You have simply defined them as "good", which is not necessarily true.
Look I have been going in circles. It's not necessarily true from our NOT NEUTRAL point of view. Objective = neutral. 'truth' = neutral. Not what humans prefer/believe.
Let's take your examples:
Quote:
-What if you use your freedom to take away a gun from a toddler (taking away his freedom)?
Defense. He was going to be 'evil' (you know, taking away others' freedom). Defense against evil doesn't make you evil.
Quote:
-What if you release a serial killer from prison?
You aren't being evil unless you KNOW he is going to be EVIL. Kinda similar to above (defense).
Quote:
-What if you give an addict a bunch of drugs?
If he wants, then you're most certainly not evil at all. Of course now you can argue that he is "out of his mind" or whatever -- that's hard to measure, since he can say the same. It depends on what we think WE are capable of making decisions, and they not. This is kinda confusing for an external viewer like e.g: an AI.
Quote:
Sure they exist.
But if you can only have your subjective views and opinions on what they are, then you can never know for sure what they are.
They may as well not exist (for us) because they are unattainable by us.
My system is not a novel idea in any way. It is also a "discovery" from a neutral point of view, not created for an individual's or group's BENEFIT. It's DISCOVERED, not CREATED to suit our needs. Thus it's objective.
Objectiveness is discovered. Subjectiveness is created (mostly to suit our needs). Mine does not apply to someone's "needs" at all.
Quote wars 
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 14, 2008 03:16 PM |
|
|
Quote:
2) If he's happy then you have increased his freedom of being happy -- he couldn't be happy before
What is "freedom of being happy"? And you said that objective good has nothing to do with people "feeling good".
Quote:
It's 'better' in the sense that it's dependable.
I could easily say that science is better than religion because it is more dependable.
Quote:
2) Some logical relationships (see the freedom example)
I apologize in advance for bringing this up, but: the computer example. It is logical that John Smith doesn't have the computer because of something you did. Therefore, you have taken away his future with the computer. Does that mean that your action is "evil"? I know that you said that this is different because the computer wasn't his in the first place, but just use logic. If you didn't bid, then he'd have the computer. If x=0, then John Smith->John Smith with a computer. If x=1, then John Smith.
Now you say:Quote:
Defense. He was going to be 'evil' (you know, taking away others' freedom).
Earlier you said:Quote:
In evil case, if you torture someone and then he tortures you, it's still evil. Because you used SOMETHING (freedom) to abolish that same thing from someone.
Contradiction?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted September 14, 2008 03:30 PM |
|
|
Quote:
What is "freedom of being happy"? And you said that objective good has nothing to do with people "feeling good".
You're right, it doesn't, because it's based more on voluntary support. That is, someone can feel annoyed by something (when he is NOT aggressive or 'evil'), and you can help him. 'feeling good' comes afterwards.
I hope you don't mean "help" is subjective right? I mean it's like voluntary 'acceptance'
Quote:
I could easily say that science is better than religion because it is more dependable.
Don't you already say it? 
Or does that apply only when you like it?
But personally I find religion "dependable" depending on the meaning of the word.
Quote:
It is logical that John Smith doesn't have the computer because of something you did. Therefore, you have taken away his future with the computer. Does that mean that your action is "evil"? I know that you said that this is different because the computer wasn't his in the first place, but just use logic. If you didn't bid, then he'd have the computer. If x=0, then John Smith->John Smith with a computer. If x=1, then John Smith.
You aren't evil because you didn't do it on purpose (only to prevent him from taking it), and it wasn't his in the first place like you said. This action is more like neutral.
Quote:
Now you say:Quote:
Defense. He was going to be 'evil' (you know, taking away others' freedom).
Earlier you said:Quote:
In evil case, if you torture someone and then he tortures you, it's still evil. Because you used SOMETHING (freedom) to abolish that same thing from someone.
Contradiction?
Torture is NOT defense. Defense is just STOPPING him from "abolishing" freedom again. If he tortures your child, you are NOT supposed to torture him in your place and take "vengeance". lol or you'll degenerate into his attitude
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 14, 2008 03:39 PM |
|
|
Quote:
That is, someone can feel annoyed by something (when he is NOT aggressive or 'evil'), and you can help him. 'feeling good' comes afterwards.
Don't quite understand what you mean here. Sorry.
Quote:
Don't you already say it?
Or does that apply only when you like it?
Yes, but you said that it is subjective to think that reliability is good.
Quote:
You aren't evil because you didn't do it on purpose (only to prevent him from taking it), and it wasn't his in the first place like you said. This action is more like neutral.
So if you run over somebody, it isn't evil because you didn't do it on purpose?
Quote:
Defense is just STOPPING him from "abolishing" freedom again.
I was referring to the second sentence: "you used SOMETHING (freedom) to abolish that same thing from someone." So here, you're using your freedom to prevent someone from using their freedom.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted September 14, 2008 03:50 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 15:54, 14 Sep 2008.
|
Quote:
Don't quite understand what you mean here. Sorry.
"help" is the thing that classifies as good. People "feel good" when they are helped. But that's an aftermath effect, so to speak. Helping is objective.
Quote:
Yes, but you said that it is subjective to think that reliability is good.
Of course it is, because something 'being good' is subjective. The fact that my system is 'better' is SUBJECTIVE. The fact that my system is more objective than yours is OBJECTIVE.
If you don't like objective stuff then by all means I'm not saying that is a fact. However, I am not here to tell you it's "better" since that's subjective. I am only saying that it is objective, and thus absolute morals exist and are quite, well, IMO good positions to fulfill if you are not selfish (towards YOUR society, not e.g: alien societies). For me it's best because someone thinking neutrally will classify me as neutral or good, which is fine. They won't have the excuse against me that I am selfish (even for my own species)
Quote:
So if you run over somebody, it isn't evil because you didn't do it on purpose?
Accidents? Accidents aren't evil as long as you TRY to be nice and regret it and etc..
Quote:
I was referring to the second sentence: "you used SOMETHING (freedom) to abolish that same thing from someone." So here, you're using your freedom to prevent someone from using their freedom.
If he let's say blows your house up, you are NOT supposed to blow his house up as well. You are supposed to STOP him from doing it. That is defense, not "eye for an eye" . That was my whole point: it is not the stupid eye for an eye principle.
EDIT: fixed some quote stuff
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 14, 2008 09:00 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Helping is objective.
No, it's not. Helping can be an insult to some, make others feel good, etc.
Quote:
The fact that my system is 'better' is SUBJECTIVE.
That's my point.
Quote:
If he let's say blows your house up, you are NOT supposed to blow his house up as well. You are supposed to STOP him from doing it.
But in doing so, wouldn't you be preventing his freedom?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted September 14, 2008 09:59 PM |
|
|
Quote:
No, it's not. Helping can be an insult to some, make others feel good, etc.
If it's an insult to some, then it's not help 
Quote:
Quote:
The fact that my system is 'better' is SUBJECTIVE.
That's my point.
That is the point with EVERYTHING. There is no such thing as 'better' objectively. However, some things are more objective than others. I prefer to choose those. See?
My whole point was to present that my system is more objective. That is all. It doesn't mean YOU have to find it 'better' (even though i do). That is entirely subjective. And that's the same everywhere. There is no "X is better than Y" objectively.
Quote:
But in doing so, wouldn't you be preventing his freedom?
Yes but it's not like he didn't do it or IS going to do it. That's why it's called defense.
It's similar to "stop him the gentlest way possible" principle, if he is going to prevent your freedom.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 14, 2008 11:54 PM |
|
|
Quote:
If it's an insult to some, then it's not help
Under some circumstances, help may not be help. For example, if you're helping a smart and proud person with math (let's say that they have trouble understanding something), he feels insulted. But then, the second time, he feels greatful. So the action is evil the first time, but good the second time? It's the exact same action, done to exactly the same person, in exactly the same context!
Quote:
That is the point with EVERYTHING. There is no such thing as 'better' objectively. However, some things are more objective than others. I prefer to choose those. See?
My whole point was to present that my system is more objective. That is all. It doesn't mean YOU have to find it 'better' (even though i do). That is entirely subjective. And that's the same everywhere. There is no "X is better than Y" objectively.
Good. Now, why are we arguing again?
Quote:
Yes but it's not like he didn't do it or IS going to do it. That's why it's called defense.
Then what if you have a murderer who you know 100% is a murderer and also know 100% that he's not going to murder again? Do you put him in jail? If so, why?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted September 15, 2008 08:26 AM |
|
|
Just on the mvass thing, what if someone gets irrationally annoyed by something someone else does?
Does that make that person evil?
It's restricting the person who is getting annoyed's freedom to be happy or whatever you want to call it.
Quote:
Just because "it doesn't fit the definition thus it's not good" it does NOT mean that it can't be classified. Who said that it has to be good? lol
I honestly don't understand what you're saying here.
Quote:
Quote:
As per the Flat Earth/Round Earth situation: we've been to space, and confirmed round earth. You've never been God
Abstract thinking: I proposed the example of a simulation, where you are God mode (not omniscient, just an "outside viewer"). You see, the "we've been to space" is exactly that: you have been an 'outside' viewer of the planet.
but that's the thing. You can imagine all you like but you will still be a member of the human race with your own subjective view of reality.
that's all I have to say on that matter.
Quote:
Quote:
This is an entirely absurd statement.
Let's contrast it to your earlier post:
Quote:
it's not black & white
Something is either Good, or not Good. "Not Good" means many things, which is ambiguous, but the statement still holds. "Not Good" can include neutralness, or good in some aspects.
So someone who helps an old lady cross the road is "good", and so is someone who saves the world?
There is not just "good". It's complex. There are varying degrees etc.
It's not a discrete quantity or binomial or whatever. You can't be very pregnant or very eating. But you can be very good or very bad.
nb.
if someone saves the human race, are they evil because of the affliction the human race inflicts on the universe's freedom
Quote:
'Truth'? There's no such thing as 'truth' here. I am only presenting a neutral POV, from a God view, without you having any affection. And coming up, or in other words, "discovering" morals to apply for everyone. The virtues of MY system are the following:
Ah, this clarifies alot.
So your system does not define what is truly good or evil just a system that you might like to help you in... what instance? As a rough guideline if you ever join an intergalactic council?
I miss the point if it does not even attempt to offer insight to truth.
Quote:
You have given some examples but they don't necessarily coincide with what is "good". You have simply defined them as "good", which is not necessarily true.
Quote:
Look I have been going in circles. It's not necessarily true from our NOT NEUTRAL point of view. Objective = neutral. 'truth' = neutral. Not what humans prefer/believe.
It's not necessarily true from an external point either, is it?
I'm not making you go in circles, you just keep bringing it back.
Quote:
Quote:
-What if you use your freedom to take away a gun from a toddler (taking away his freedom)?
Defense. He was going to be 'evil' (you know, taking away others' freedom). Defense against evil doesn't make you evil.
Not necessarily. He more likely wouldn't press the trigger (the trigger is a small part of the gun). It's simply taking away a freedom.
Also if you need a human to clarify what's the point of an AI system.
Quote:
Quote:
-What if you release a serial killer from prison?
You aren't being evil unless you KNOW he is going to be EVIL. Kinda similar to above (defense).
again you need further clarification...
your rules don't really seem to help much if you need these exceptions.
Quote:
Quote:
-What if you give an addict a bunch of drugs?
If he wants, then you're most certainly not evil at all. Of course now you can argue that he is "out of his mind" or whatever -- that's hard to measure, since he can say the same. It depends on what we think WE are capable of making decisions, and they not. This is kinda confusing for an external viewer like e.g: an AI.
So you are good by feeding an addiction? Seeing as it's what he wants?
These and the rest of my examples show that you can't have an absolute definiton for good and evil.
Quote:
Quote:
Sure they exist.
But if you can only have your subjective views and opinions on what they are, then you can never know for sure what they are.
They may as well not exist (for us) because they are unattainable by us.
My system is not a novel idea in any way. It is also a "discovery" from a neutral point of view, not created for an individual's or group's BENEFIT. It's DISCOVERED, not CREATED to suit our needs. Thus it's objective.
Objectiveness is discovered. Subjectiveness is created (mostly to suit our needs). Mine does not apply to someone's "needs" at all.
This is all what you think with your subjective mind
You didn't discover these, you created them (creation has nothing to do with needs).
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted September 15, 2008 12:48 PM |
|
|
@mvass: If he feels insulted, then it's not help. If he feels grateful later on, then it was help but he didn't recognize it. That's all
Quote:
Good. Now, why are we arguing again?
No idea, since I already said, my whole point even in the Moral Philosophy thread was to show that absolute morals exist. I don't force you to choose objectiveness over subjectiveness -- you can even continue to say the Earth is flat, do you think I wanna force you to say that it being round is "better"?? (whatever that means)
Quote:
Then what if you have a murderer who you know 100% is a murderer and also know 100% that he's not going to murder again? Do you put him in jail? If so, why?
Defense. That's why.
Of course this thing is kinda impossible in real life without proof, but that's reserved for another context.
@TA: seriously dude, why did you have to use so many quotes again. Sorry if I am not going to respond with same quote wars in return
Quote:
Just on the mvass thing, what if someone gets irrationally annoyed by something someone else does?
Does that make that person evil?
It's restricting the person who is getting annoyed's freedom to be happy or whatever you want to call it.
Oh sure, as long as that person's "annoyance" is not going to abolish someone else's freedom. If a vampire is happy only after he kills, then he is the evil one, since he kills in the first place. And 'happiness' is hard to measure since it's subjective -- you don't even know if he's lying or not (that he's annoyed for example).
This happiness thing is used to distinguish between good and neutral, it has nothing to do with evil
Quote:
I honestly don't understand what you're saying here.
Just because people THINK that what they do is good doesn't mean that they are necessarily good (objectively). Who says that whatever someone does must be good? It's very simple: when someone thinks he is doing good, then how about he "thinks" from his target's perspective as well? You can't have two "good" that are opposite of each other, at least not objectively.
Quote:
but that's the thing. You can imagine all you like but you will still be a member of the human race with your own subjective view of reality.
Here's where you are mistaken. Do you think that computers or mathematics are subjective? How come we humans created them? Humans are capable of thinking "outside the box", outside their race and their 'subjective view'. Of course my view is subjective in reality, but I can use imagination, a very powerful concept, which I think you don't know how to use it properly if you say that.
Further, attributing just plain numbers to each species/individual makes it easier to not have any feelings towards one or another. After all, you don't have feelings for species 5 more than 7, unless you have feelings for the number 5 more than 7
Quote:
So someone who helps an old lady cross the road is "good", and so is someone who saves the world?
There is not just "good". It's complex. There are varying degrees etc.
It's not a discrete quantity or binomial or whatever. You can't be very pregnant or very eating. But you can be very good or very bad.
Power has absolutely nothing to do with 'goodness'. If you help a lady, because that's all you could do, it doesn't make you less good than superman, just because you LACK the power to save the world. Doh.
Quote:
So your system does not define what is truly good or evil just a system that you might like to help you in... what instance? As a rough guideline if you ever join an intergalactic council?
I miss the point if it does not even attempt to offer insight to truth.
I don't think you get the point of all this.
In truth, it means that things that are not true, don't exist, or "don't work". For example, it's not true that computers work with, let's say, ice-cream. Attempting to do so will mean they don't WORK, they are "broken".
No such thing in good/evil. What do you actually mean by "truth"? Truth is when either something is true or false. How can morals be "false"? After all, people CAN be evil all the time -- it doesn't mean "they don't work" or "they're broken", it's perfectly fine to be evil. People can be good as well.
Tell me something: do you consider attributes like selfishness or altruism "truth" or "true/false"? WTF? 
Quote:
So you are good by feeding an addiction? Seeing as it's what he wants?
Tell me something: if someone else comes at you and takes away from you all your stuff, saying that "it makes you addicted to them", are you going to feel comfortable? Is he good?
I'm sure you'll say: "You can't compare the two", but who are you to decide?. What about the computer? All electronic stuff? They make you addicted to them. What if someone decides to take them away from you because "you don't know what's good for you?" Do you feel comfortable? Why would YOU or society decide for a drug addict what he needs while YOU would not like someone else to decide for YOU?
Where do you draw the line? Who decides?
Quote:
This is all what you think with your subjective mind
You didn't discover these, you created them (creation has nothing to do with needs).
It is good to point out however that I have created them after imagination and observation from God-mode (I advised you to do the same). I'm not sure if it would called creation in the first place -- it's not like they ENFORCE anything, they just CLASSIFY. When you find someone selfish, you DISCOVER that attribute, and you create a WORD for it: in our case, the word 'selfish' in english. However, the meaning of the word was discovered when you saw a selfish person.
Similar to mine. (of course I already gave examples why I consider evil "evil" and good "good")
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted September 15, 2008 01:04 PM |
|
|
@Death: You say that the "freedom" should happen to absolutely ALL species, right? Then if we kill animals for food, we are evil, aren't we?
Also, let's consider a world where only two types of species exist: A and B. The only food A can eat is B, and the only food B can eat is A. Now, would you consider both of them evil because they hunt each other to survive? Do you think they should just let themselves go extinct?
Or something else: You said Jesus is 100% good (your claim), but then even he gave fishes to people to eat. By your definition, this was an evil act. So, Jesus was EVIL (or at least not 100% good), therefore your "objective" definitions of good and evil are flawed, I'm afraid.
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted September 15, 2008 01:11 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 13:12, 15 Sep 2008.
|
Quote:
@Death: You say that the "freedom" should happen to absolutely ALL species, right? Then if we kill animals for food, we are evil, aren't we?
Yups. Why wouldn't we be? If aliens come and kill us for food, it wouldn't be good. Just because it's inconvenient for you doesn't mean it's evil.
And killing animals for food -- I can understand that if you show some respect like some ancient japanese did (before they ate for example), not like today's world
(also animals are in our Earth system, and some might argue they are not "sentient" or whatever). Then again, there's always the choice of being vegetarian
Quote:
Also, let's consider a world where only two types of species exist: A and B. The only food A can eat is B, and the only food B can eat is A. Now, would you consider both of them evil because they hunt each other to survive? Do you think they should just let themselves go extinct?
Ok, let's consider a vampire set loose that can only survive if he drinks blood every 5 minutes and kills people. I'm sure you find him good
Sometimes sacrifices are for the good. In this case, you say he needs to live, yeah but a lot of other people want to live as well. Why should he and not them? 
Quote:
Or something else: You said Jesus is 100% good (your claim), but then even he gave fishes to people to eat. By your definition, this was an evil act. So, Jesus was EVIL (or at least not 100% good), therefore your "objective" definitions of good and evil are flawed, I'm afraid.
Not sure how fish work, but I'm sure people then thanked God for the food and showed respect and did not over-fished for PROFIT. There's a difference between killing for profit and killing (naturally, since it happens in nature in our Earth, not "in someone else's homes") just for survival and showing some respect.
But I'm pretty sure you find it "inconvenient". After all, what tyrant doesn't find "inconvenience" in freeing his slaves?
Inconvenience =/= Good/Evil objectively. Period.
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted September 15, 2008 01:26 PM |
|
|
Does it apply to plants?
Why should animals have special treatment?
Where do you draw the line?
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted September 15, 2008 01:32 PM |
|
|
Two possible (pick the one convenient) arguments:
1) Plants don't have 'freedom' in the same sense
2) More natural method than eating apples or vegetables I don't know of (I mean, what's the purpose of an apple or a vegetable?).
I may have missed something. If you have interesting  then share them
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted September 15, 2008 01:37 PM |
|
|
What's the purpose of a human?
An apple and a human are both living. One is just more mobile.
Then is a cripple not deserving of morals and can be eaten?
Or is it intelligence? Or sentience? Is someone with a mental disability next into the slaughterhouse?
Why doesn't an apple have freedom? It has the freedom to live, exactly the same as we do.
Do you see how ridiculous this objective definition is?
Or should we be careful not to step on the bacteria?
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted September 15, 2008 01:43 PM |
|
|
An apple is free? What's your definition of freedom? It can't do anything and it doesn't even think.
Ask some vegetarians (those that oppose animal killings, unless naturally (overpopulation)) why they think vegetables/fruits are different
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted September 15, 2008 01:49 PM |
|
|
Oh so you have to be able to think.
How do you define thinking?
How can you measure if something is thinking?
It can't do anything, that's a bit speciest of you god mode objective
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted September 15, 2008 01:55 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Not sure how fish work, but I'm sure people then thanked God for the food and showed respect and did not over-fished for PROFIT. There's a difference between killing for profit and killing
It doesn't matter respect or not, you favor humans
Let's say that Vampire is also somehow "good" and kills with respect and only to survive. There's no difference between this vampire and those humans eating animals.
____________
|
| |
|
|
