Originally posted by The thinker
Well, if 1 life has no value, then then life as a whole, has no value.
If your life has a value of 0, then 100000 lives still has a value of 0.
0 + 0= 0
Therefore, life as a whole must have no value.
Is that the way you see it?
I agree up to the "Therefore, life as a whole must have value." ....I don't see that, how did you come to that conclusion?
[edit] Okay. Yeah, basically.
Originally posted by Bardock42
You didn't read beyond the "no", did you?Not at all, what I am trying to say is that you choose to care for other people's life. Nothing wrong with that, you just choose to do so. Not a necessity, not bad nor good.
Lets look at that logically.
You: Killing is wrong.
Ian Brady: Killing is cool.So, what decides who is right now? Nothing. Because there is nothing that can decide. So both your opinions are equal. Ans since there is nothing to compare them to, that isn't equal they are neither good or bad.
Think of it as numbers. THere are only zeros. If there was a 1 we could say that 0 is smaller than 1...but there is no 1 in morality, get the analogy? No. Whatever it's true.
Your logic is so damn flawed.
I mean okay, lets say I like to live. Good. Lets say other people also like to live. Cool. And now is where your illogical jump comes, now you say because I like to live I have to accept that other people also like to live.....why? That's your subjective opinion. Nothing else. You argue with something you seem to think is a fact (besides being your opinion) to prove another opinion of yours.That's like me saying Homosexuality is evil (my opinion) because God said so (the very existence of good would only be my opinion...not a fact). Get it? Good. Stop with logic though. There are other subjects that probably suit you more. Drawing maybe....or Theology.
that would make perfect sense if i desired life and ian brady didnt, which wud be logical because ian brady said what he believed in and i said what i believed in. but the problem is even ian desires life makig the logic wrong. to DESIRE life and say its only desireable to u only means that you CHOOSE not to care for others. it doesnt mean that life is NOT desireable over death as the only way that would be true is if ian brady didnt value or desire all life INCLUDING his own.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
that would make perfect sense if i desired life and ian brady didnt, which wud be logical because ian brady said what he believed in and i said what i believed in. but the problem is even ian desires life makig the logic wrong. to DESIRE life and say its only desireable to u only means that you CHOOSE not to care for others. it doesnt mean that life is NOT desireable over death as the only way that would be true is if ian brady didnt value or desire all life INCLUDING his own.
No, he desires HIS life....great ****ing difference.
No, I actually do not care. That's the given. We are then made to care or choose to care whatever you like to call it.
What about people that kill themself?
Originally posted by leonheartmm
and another thing. it wasnt my OPPINIONas i have met talked to and listened to the views of countless others throughout my life and THEY desired life almost all of them. u seem to forget what words mean , its every1's oppinion and not mine as i asked.
Since when did popular opinion create facts?
popular oppinion is different from popular INSTINCTUAL oppinion also as i said before self preservation is FUNDAMENTAL and people dont just grow up to like or not like life but have no choice form birth but to like and work for its preservation. suicides are different most people who kill themselves dont believe that they WONT EXIST anymore but even if theyu wont go to an afterlife, they will be at PEACE which actually requires some state of BEING or exiting. the very few who dont do it for peace are not thinking because they just want their misery to be over as they cant cope with it or because they are so mentally ill that they CANT really think.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
popular oppinion is different from popular INSTINCTUAL oppinion also as i said before self preservation is FUNDAMENTAL and people dont just grow up to like or not like life but have no choice form birth but to like and work for its preservation. suicides are different most people who kill themselves dont believe that they WONT EXIST anymore but even if theyu wont go to an afterlife, they will be at PEACE which actually requires some state of BEING or exiting. the very few who dont do it for peace are not thinking because they just want their misery to be over as they cant cope with it or because they are so mentally ill that they CANT really think.
Haha, it's just popular opinion, nothing more. And not even that popular there are many people nowadays who agree there are no absolute morals.
Not "it's" preservation "their lives" preservation. That is really different.
No, suicide just destroys your whole reasoning. That's it. If self preservation is not absolute...and it isn't...then you re wrong (and even if it was in all humans...still it is a subjective human trait....proves nothing)
You cling to this stupid idea that because most people value their own life life generally must be valuable. That is not a logical step to take.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
popular oppinion is different from popular INSTINCTUAL oppinion also as i said before self preservation is FUNDAMENTAL and people dont just grow up to like or not like life but have no choice form birth but to like and work for its preservation. suicides are different most people who kill themselves dont believe that they WONT EXIST anymore but even if theyu wont go to an afterlife, they will be at PEACE which actually requires some state of BEING or exiting. the very few who dont do it for peace are not thinking because they just want their misery to be over as they cant cope with it or because they are so mentally ill that they CANT really think.
read my post again it has adressed exactly the points u have brought up in the last post. adamantly repeating points which have already been adressed does no1 any good. besides evolution is a product of the self preservation instinct inherent fundamentally in the very idea of LIFE and existance/conciounce. thats scientific evidence.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
read my post again it has adressed exactly the points u have brought up in the last post. adamantly repeating points which have already been adressed does no1 any good. besides evolution is a product of the self preservation instinct inherent fundamentally in the very idea of LIFE and existance/conciounce. thats scientific evidence.
You know why that happened? Because I exactly replied to your post. That's why it might seem that the issues covered might be slightly similar.
And? Since when did evolution become an absolute moral code? Oh yeah, it isn't.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
no i didnt. u merely dismissed it saying "thats not my point of view" which is stubborn. playing with words is different from making a logical point the only one u made so far was of people comitting suicide and i already addressed that.
Boy, I pointed out why each single one of your arguments is either wrong or flawed. If you don't accept it that's okay. But it is just actually true.
no u didnt, u just MENIONED that they were wrong, u never proved or tried much for that matter. as i said before if u believe in personal{if not social} self preservation and u also believe that all human beings are equal than you CANT logically say that all actions are neutral. however if u DO indeed disagree with either than u should say it and well just call it a conflict of interest and leave it at that but u cant both accept those two facts and and keep up ur defiant position.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
no u didnt, u just MENIONED that they were wrong, u never proved or tried much for that matter. as i said before if u believe in personal{if not social} self preservation and u also believe that all human beings are equal than you CANT logically say that all actions are neutral. however if u DO indeed disagree with either than u should say it and well just call it a conflict of interest and leave it at that but u cant both accept those two facts and and keep up ur defiant position.
I didn't have to try much...it was easy and yeah, you had no valid argument so far.
Look, this sentence "if u believe in personal{if not social} self preservation and u also believe that all human beings are equal than you CANT logically say that all actions are neutral" is wrong. How did you get it? As you see I believe that people want to preserve themselves, I also believe that all human beings are equal (as in not better or worse...the very definition of neutral)...because everything is neutral. Get it. If there is no moral code everyone has to go by, and there isn't then everything action neutral and every person is equal. Do you know what neutral means?
Where is your reasoning that if I accept those two facts I cannot believe actions are neutral? Why? You severely lack logic...again.