Originally posted by Gregory
My belief that disease is necessary is "forcing death upon them," is it? There are people lying dead who I "forced death upon" with my beliefs?Name them.
*You* didnt kill anyone(that I know of), but the diseases you believe are 'necessary' have killed countless innocents. The belief itself is immoral, not you in paticular.
Originally posted by Great Vengeance
*You* didnt kill anyone(that I know of), but the diseases you believe are 'necessary' have killed countless innocents. The belief itself is immoral, not you in paticular.
A belief that death is necessary is immoral? That doesn't make sense to me.
If no one had ever died 1 of 2 things would be true,
- We wouldn't be here right now because our ancestors would have eventually stopped having kids to prevent overpopulation.
- We would be hear along with all our ancestors and about 40 Billion other people (Based on a conservative estimate of only the last 6 thousand years since adam and eve, the number would be even higher using evolution figures, but if we used those without death we'd still be some sort of less evolved primate)
Thats if people never died at all. Im just taking into account death from disease, which shortens otherwise 'full' lives. I already acknowledged that there is some practical use in disease, and Im not going to pretend I know the absolute code for morality. Im just going by the common opinion... nearly everyone would rather get to live a full life then have it cut short by some disease.
Originally posted by Great Vengeance
*You* didnt kill anyone(that I know of), but the diseases you believe are 'necessary' have killed countless innocents. The belief itself is immoral, not you in paticular.
Something that does absolutely no harm to anyone, and doesn't even have the potential to harm anyone--like my thoughts on disease--can't be immoral.
Take it another way: What if there was no disease? There are already too many people in the world. What happense when nobody dies except through violence, and the numbers start to grow? Ten billion people? Twenty billion? Just wait. And what happens then? Mass famine, of course. Countless innocents die horribly (they'll be cremated, of course--the graveyards having been torn out to make room for public housing, and even so, there are billions of people without homes--no room.) Is it immoral not to want billions of people out on the street, starving to death in a world that can't possibly sustain them? You can come to your own conclussion; I've already made mine.
Originally posted by Gregory
Something that does absolutely no harm to anyone, and doesn't even have the potential to harm anyone--like my thoughts on disease--can't be immoral.Take it another way: What if there was no disease? There are already too many people in the world. What happense when nobody dies except through violence, and the numbers start to grow? Ten billion people? Twenty billion? Just wait. And what happens then? Mass famine, of course. Countless innocents die horribly (they'll be cremated, of course--the graveyards having been torn out to make room for public housing, and even so, there are billions of people without homes--no room.) Is it immoral not to want billions of people out on the street, starving to death in a world that can't possibly sustain them? You can come to your own conclussion; I've already made mine.
1. Beliefs are immoral by what they imply in the real world. Immorality isnt just restricted to actions.
2. Well first of all...people would die of old age, accidents etc. etc. not just violence. And the rest of your argument consists of *your* interpretation of why disease would not be immoral. Unfortunately your opinion counts no more than anyone else. Your vastly overruled by the majority, who would believe that disease is a bad thing and is a cause for a great deal of the worlds suffering. Not to mention you exaggerate how bad the population problem would be. Sure the world would be less 'comfortable' but depopulation would just be slower, it wouldnt stop and so the problem would never be 'critically' important or atleast not for a long time(which by then we would of invented a solution to the problem, ever heard of 'necessity is the mother of invention'?)
Also I would have to ask you....would you be prepared to give up your *own* life right now to disease, just to support your conclusion that disease is *necessary* for humanity? So other people could enjoy a few more comforts?
Originally posted by Great Vengeance
Also I would have to ask you....would you be prepared to give up your *own* life right now to disease, just to support your conclusion that disease is *necessary* for humanity? So other people could enjoy a few more comforts?
Just because disease might be necessary doesn't mean that the fight against disease couldn't be necessary as well.
I suppose what it comes down to is the eternal question:
What is the meaning of life?
If life has meaning, then disease might be one of the tools to help us understand it. If life has no meaning, disease is unnecessary, but then again, without meaning everything is unnecessary.
Eventually, diseases have increased mankind's ability to survive. Especially the epidemic kinds. They were the cause of bacterial and viral research and have led to great medical discoveries, giving us a better insight on how diseases are caused, spread and how they can be cured. This made us more more prepared to deal with new ones.
Off course all that means jack shit if diseases never existed, but they do. And by being exposed to them humankind has armed itself against them far better than any other being.
Originally posted by Great Vengeance
And the rest of your argument consists of *your* interpretation of why disease would not be immoral.
My post consists of my interpretations? Unheard of! Alert the media!
Unfortunately your opinion counts no more than anyone else. Your vastly overruled by the majority, who would believe that disease is a bad thing and is a cause for a great deal of the worlds suffering.
I do not care what the majority thinks about this. Or the minority, for that matter.
so the problem would never be 'critically' important or atleast not for a long time(which by then we would of invented a solution to the problem, ever heard of 'necessity is the mother of invention'?)
Oh don't worry, we already have a solution. China has already practiced it with
some success, as you might be aware.
Also I would have to ask you....would you be prepared to give up your *own* life right now to disease, just to support your conclusion that disease is *necessary* for humanity? So other people could enjoy a few more comforts?
How the hell did you get from "disease is necessary" to "I want to die of a disease right now"? Actually, no; don't tell me. I probably don't want to know.
To answer your question, no. If people could be counted on to selflessly end their lives for the good of civilization, we wouldn't need disease, now would we? It's because the world consists of selfish bastards, like me, and you, that a population control method is needed that doesn't rely on volunteers. Like, say .... disease.