ITT pose and answer difficult questions

[ohnoitsbonnie]

Originally Posted by ohnoitsbonnie

Not sure that life is miraculous within the universe but it can safely be assumed that life forms on this planet are unique. Anyway the earth has been around for over 4 billion years and it'll be around for much longer after humans fade away. Equilibrium will be reached again (and unlike what happens in Wall-E, plants will continue to survive). Hey did you know that on Enceladus, water ice is actually rock

I was super tired when I wrote this and shivering with fear while thinking of space (I have a phobia) but yeah by that I mean when it's -100 either F or C, water has no hope of being liquid so we can assume that it's as permafrost as it's gonna get (although that isn't what permafrost is) so it is basically more geological than hydrological. It's like how rock can be melted down but here on Earth we consider those temps to be v hot. All relative to what is going on.

But afawk these "extreme" conditions are not conductive to life

[ohnoitsbonnie]

Cryovolcanoes

[ohnoitsbonnie]

This is one of the reasons I have nothing but respect for those that study geology and other universal sciences. All I have a small understanding, an innate understanding, is plants and afaik plants are but an earth phenonom!

[redbreegull]

ITT: intro to philosophy

[redbreegull]

why do my feet sweat in the cold?

[Disco King]

Originally Posted by teh b0lly!!1

my answer is no to both questions.

everybody operates under the immediate logic that you always need to save as many human lives as possible. i understand it's linked with perceived empathy or whatever but i strongly disagree with that. now this doesn't mean i would enjoy or even be able to stomach the deaths of 14 people, but it wouldn't be wrong to let them die. this world is severely, sickly overpopulated and the less people living in it, the better it would be for the 'greater good'.

So, you're saying that the true solution is

http://i66.tinypic.com/142sgsi.jpg

[Elphenor]

Originally Posted by vixnix

if the specifics of a situation are unimportant, it isn't a useful question to answer.

Of course there is no hard logic to our morality. The logic only exists in an artificial (and arguably, arbitrary) system of organised values, all of which are deeply personal.

In other words, you can only make a morally 'right' decision if you have already decided what you think is right.

Nearly everyone answers yes then no, I mean nearly everyone likes french fries. Who cares.

Because it is one thing to say morality isn't absolute and another to have it demonstrated to you

[Elphenor]

Originally Posted by teh b0lly!!1

my answer is no to both questions.

everybody operates under the immediate logic that you always need to save as many human lives as possible. i understand it's linked with perceived empathy or whatever but i strongly disagree with that. now this doesn't mean i would enjoy or even be able to stomach the deaths of 14 people, but it wouldn't be wrong to let them die. this world is severely, sickly overpopulated and the less people living in it, the better it would be for the 'greater good'.

You might as well jump onto the track with them if you're serious about curing our "sickly overpopulation"

Be the change you want to see in the world

[vixnix]

Originally Posted by Elphenor

Because it is one thing to say morality isn't absolute and another to have it demonstrated to you

I guess better and more relevant examples are things like late term abortions, euthanasia and the criminal justice system but you know, whatever floats your boat.

Sometimes hypothetical situations help the more squeamish among us to think these things through.

[Elphenor]

You're being obtuse about a fun philosophy demonstration

[redbreegull]

it's notoriously easy to think of outlandish, sensationalist examples which would cause even the most hardened Benthamite to question utilitarianism.

but it's still overall the most sensible and logical theory of morality

[buzzard]

I Kina spiser de hunde!

[run2pee]

I thought we already had a poopin thread

Carey on tho, wherterver, I liek it

[vixnix]

Originally Posted by Elphenor

You're being obtuse about a fun philosophy demonstration

A fun philosophy demonstration is one where an up-themselves deontologist publishes what basically amounts to a manifesto in an academic journal and then gets slaughtered by the nuance and subtext of the replies that follow, in the next issue.

What you have there, is Hard Choices for Basic Bitches.

[teh b0lly!!1]

Originally Posted by Elphenor

You might as well jump onto the track with them if you're serious about curing our "sickly overpopulation"

Be the change you want to see in the world

i think about it erryday bro

[teh b0lly!!1]

i don't wanna wait
something something life terminado

[ohnoitsbonnie]

Originally Posted by teh b0lly!!1

i think about it erryday bro

Try not to please

[Elphenor]

I like people but only when they behave exactly how I want

[yo soy el mejor]

netphoria so deep.

[vixnix]

It's an illusion. Like a duck pond.

[MyOneAndOnly]

just ordered "Against Empathy" by Paul Bloom. can't wait to read it over Xmas break

We often think of our capacity to experience the suffering of others as the ultimate source of goodness. Many of our wisest policy-makers, activists, scientists, and philosophers agree that the only problem with empathy is that we don’t have enough of it.

Nothing could be farther from the truth, argues Yale researcher Paul Bloom. In AGAINST EMPATHY, Bloom reveals empathy to be one of the leading motivators of inequality and immorality in society. Far from helping us to improve the lives of others, empathy is a capricious and irrational emotion that appeals to our narrow prejudices. It muddles our judgment and, ironically, often leads to cruelty. We are at our best when we are smart enough not to rely on it, but to draw instead upon a more distanced compassion.

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon....4,203,200_.jpg

[Elphenor]

I'm skeptical but that's probably an interesting read

[redbreegull]

Empathy is a choice though, and research has supported that. If you are only empathetic towards people of your own tribe, that's a choice you are making, not an innate failure of the emotion of empathy.

[crabshack]

Originally Posted by scottytheoneand

just ordered "Against Empathy" by Paul Bloom. can't wait to read it over Xmas break



https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon....4,203,200_.jpg

I hope this book will inspire you to stop spending so much time on facebook and quoting the mindless bullshit from the links you find from there.

[MyOneAndOnly]

nope. it won't dissuade me from THAT

[MyOneAndOnly]

LOL that's the best part of my day!!

[crabshack]

You and my family have a lot in common.

[MyOneAndOnly]

you come from great people

[crabshack]

Happy Holidays

[yo soy el mejor]

crabshack loves his family lol