|
I've been on a philosophy kick as of late, but being the massive nerd that I am I've been reading the Blackwell pop culture and philosophy books. One of the recent ones I have read was “Dungeons and Dragons and Philosophy.” They aren't so much saying that pop culture is philosophical, but rather that they are using examples from pop culture. So in the first essay they discuss the nature of evil and free will. The use an example of a creature of pure evil, cooked up in the abyss, an abomination of flesh, and wings, and horns, set to terrorize the planes. But this creature is intelligent also, it has a mind, it has thoughts, it has feeling. It is also evil by definition. And generally speaking, being evil in this world sucks. For such a creature, wouldn’t it be the case that it is MORE deserving of pity because it undeniably had no choice on whether or not to be evil. The essay expands on this concept. We know so much of our behavior comes from chemical reactions in our mind, our genetics, and our environment. We can’t blame the demon for being a demon, and we also can’t blame someone to blame for their behavior if they could not have acted any differently. Our bodies are physical objects, governed by physical laws of chemistry and physics, we are in many ways, machines. Our brains are chemical computers, acting out programing. From the book quote:The Roman philosopher Lucretius (99– 55 bce) wrote in his On the Nature of the Universe, “If all motion is always one long chain, and new motion arises out of the old in order invariable … whence comes this free will?” If I decide to do something irresponsible, like ditching work to play video games, it would have been impossible for me to choose otherwise, the structure of my brain and body made that happen. If we also consider a being with perfect information, it should follow that all of our actions are predetermined. Someone who can see the future, already knows what choices we will make, and therefore, our choices are already made. But what does this mean? I asked if we could have sympathy for monsters. We have prisons filled to the brim with people who have committed unconscionable acts. Some wind up in there of stupid bullshit like marijuana but they are in there with people who have killed people while invading their homes, sexually preyed upon children, or taken lives for the pettiest of reasons. If those people have not truly chosen what they did, if the pedophile has some sickness, if the thief was raised in dire poverty and grew up to believe he needed to take to get ahead, can we justly say that they deserve to suffer. That is not to say that they should not suffer at all or not be locked up as a deterrent or for the safety of the community. But locking people in windowless concrete boxes, allowing them to be raped, creating an environment of daily terror and dog eat dog interpersonal politics, or complaining that inmates can watch TV or read books, it doesn’t seem to me like that is a useful form of suffering but rather a suffering for the sake of suffering. If one accepts that we live in a deterministic universe, it would seem to me that we should have compassion for those who have committed even appalling crimes. But can we? Even if someone is beyond the ability for us to rehabilitate or reprogram, like an ax murderer or a psychopath, shouldn’t we avoid making their living conditions so torturous that we behave in a way that we should condemn?
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 04:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 19:35 |
|
|
Yup. Taking delight in the punishment is an understandable but ultimately counter productive aspect of the justice system. It is human nature to want those who wrong us to be punished, but as with the death penalty it doesn't really help anything. As you've said it really doesn't help anyone or anything to torment people in jail. Even if we find it difficult to empathize with someone who commits the most heinous acts (which we do and in many ways should) we should not take it to the extent that we relish in their suffering. Prison exists, or at least should exist, to rehabilitate and to keep dangerous people out of society, putting people in jail so we can laugh at their beatings, prison rape and so forth is barbaric and frankly counter productive.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 04:18
|
|
|
I think that there's plenty of compassion for monsters. It just only comes out among people that knew them. For everyone else, the monster is not really real, not really a person. Their hypothetical suffering exists in an abstract form and serves a cathartic purpose. 80, 90% of people who talk at length about torturing pedophiles on the internet wouldn't even consider doing anything to one in real life, even free from any sort of consequence. Because fundamentally they are not the sort of person who could actually go through with beating someone to death. Which is a good thing.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 04:22
|
|
|
Yeah thats what gets me, it is such a common attitude to see people saying that pedophiles should be tortured, maimed, or fed to other inmates. That's not okay.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 04:45
|
|
|
Rape, assault, and cannibalism are all crimes and should not be allowed. But when it comes to psychopaths I have no problem locking them up and throwing away the key. They are not human, and do not deserve to be treated as such.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 05:47
|
|
Typical Pubbie posted:
Psychopathy, of course, being defined in the DSM as a consistent pattern of disregarding and violating the rights of others, well, uh, I'm not in favor of locking you up. Personally.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 05:52
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Psychopathy, of course, being defined in the DSM as a consistent pattern of disregarding and violating the rights of others, well, uh, I'm not in favor of locking you up. Personally. If I murder people because my brain is physically wired in such a way that I have an irresistible desire to rob people of their very existence then you have my permission to lock me away forever, ok?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 06:02
|
|
Typical Pubbie posted:If I murder people because my brain is physically wired in such a way that I have an irresistible desire to rob people of their very existence then you have my permission to lock me away forever, ok? I don't think it would matter, since fiction would be irretrievably intruding on reality in such a case.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 06:03
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:I don't think it would matter, since fiction would be irretrievably intruding on reality in such a case. I am genuinely interested in any examples you have of psychopaths being cured.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 06:06
|
|
|
Say we locked up Hitler and allowed him to keep writing from jail. Wouldn't it be a big problem if he was basically able to paint himself as a political prisoner and build another following while in prison?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 06:09
|
|
Typical Pubbie posted:I am genuinely interested in any examples you have of psychopaths being cured. You're not describing anything that exists in reality. Psychopathy is (slightly more unpleasant) sociopathy is a subset of antisocial personality disorder. But there are a great many of the estimated 3 million psychopaths in the USA that kill no one and do nothing more than make life worse for the people around them. You are describing one of the theories behind serial and spree killers, but unfortunately, there is no evidence for it, thanks to limited sample sizes. Several prominent serial killers are widely believed to be psychopathic by professionals, but it's all speculative.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 06:12
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:You're not describing anything that exists in reality. Psychopathy is (slightly more unpleasant) sociopathy is a subset of antisocial personality disorder. But there are a great many of the estimated 3 million psychopaths in the USA that kill no one and do nothing more than make life worse for the people around them. I'm not calling for mandatory brain scans and Rorschach tests to be administered among the general population. I'm specifically talking about people who have been found guilty of acting on whatever impulse compels them to kill. Effectronica posted:You are describing one of the theories behind serial and spree killers, but unfortunately, there is no evidence for it, thanks to limited sample sizes. Several prominent serial killers are widely believed to be psychopathic by professionals, but it's all speculative. I can speculate that people who commit mass murder for one stated misanthropic reason or another are fundamentally different from you and I and should be treated as such. I believe human life is precious which is why these people should be permanently separated from society with no chance of release until such a time that science has progressed to the point that we can verifiably cure them of their condition.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 06:18
|
|
|
on the left posted:Say we locked up Hitler and allowed him to keep writing from jail. Wouldn't it be a big problem if he was basically able to paint himself as a political prisoner and build another following while in prison? That's true, and in such a case I don't think he should be allowed to publish writings from jail. The Norwegians have Breivik in prison, and I don't think he should be allowed to publish any manifestos from jail, although he should be allowed to stay in contact with his family and legal representation. Even after someone has committed horrific crimes, I don't think it does any good for the world to treat them badly. Humane Norwegian prisons have a lower recidivism rate than the harsh American prisons or incredibly brutal Brazilian prisons. So even from a practical standpoint, compassionate treatment of monstrous criminals seems to make them less likely to harm more people in the future, and makes things better for wrongly convicted innocent people. From a purely moral standpoint, even if good treatment had no impact on rehabilitation, I'd argue that prisoners deserve good treatment. Revenge doesn't do anything to help the victims, and once a prisoner is securely jailed, any harshness is only a form of revenge. There's a natural and understandable impulse to kill murderers and let child molesters get raped, but even the worst criminal is still a human who deserves dignity. The state proves it is better than a criminal by taking away their freedom, but not their dignity. Also, no justice system is perfect, so there will always be some innocent people in prison. But that argument only matters to someone who thinks the guilty are beyond any compassion; I think that even if someone is certainly guilty, they should be treated as well as possible with the resources available and to ensure they won't escape. The practical upshot that this leads to lower recidivism rates is another reason to go with the moral argument. Typical Pubbie posted:I can speculate that people who commit mass murder for one stated misanthropic reason or another are fundamentally different from you and I and should be treated as such. I believe human life is precious which is why these people should be permanently separated from society with no chance of release until such a time that science has progressed to the point that we can verifiably cure them of their condition. That's not really what the thread is about. I agree that dangerous mass murderers should be locked up forever. The question is, should they be treated humanely and with compassion, or is it acceptable to let them suffer?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 06:27
|
|
|
Chamale posted:That's true, and in such a case I don't think he should be allowed to publish writings from jail. The Norwegians have Breivik in prison, and I don't think he should be allowed to publish any manifestos from jail, although he should be allowed to stay in contact with his family and legal representation. The trick is though that we don't want to make it illegal for criminals to deny/minimize their crimes from jail, yet this would be exactly the way for Brevik/Hitler to retrench their followers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 06:37
|
|
|
Typical Pubbie posted:Rape, assault, and cannibalism are all crimes and should not be allowed. But when it comes to psychopaths I have no problem locking them up and throwing away the key. They are not human, and do not deserve to be treated as such. How are psychopaths not human? And sure we might lock them up for long or even life sentences if they have committed a crime but that doesn't mean they are beyond compassion
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 06:42
|
|
|
I'm pro-treating prisoners with humanity and dignity. This goes even for violent offenders such as rapists and murderers. If I try to imagine what i would do if I had someone like that at my mercy, I can't imagine actually doing anything to them. It just feels gross. So I guess they don't actually deserve to have that happen to them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 06:48
|
|
|
Kill them all.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 06:48
|
|
|
As Effectronica pointed out, we know very little about what makes people commit truly despicable actions. Those who commit sex offenses against children (as opposed to merely being pedophiles who experience the desire to do so) are actually fairly well understood compared to spree and serial killers. It's their brain chemistry. Now there's a lot of pure barbarism contained in each of us that the right circumstances will bring out, look at IS or Abu Ghraib. But these forms of monstrosity seem understandable to us as well. Heck just look at the fantasies of butchering pedophiles espoused by some posters in this very forum; people are just itching to cast off their civilized veneer and pour blood all over themselves. So all those people, pedophiles, war criminals, tribalist killers etc. I can have empathy for, because it's possible for me to understand what has created them. But spree killers and corporate executives are ciphers to me; it's difficult to have empathy for them because it's hard to understand what drives them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 07:03
|
|
|
Of course we can what a dumb question. Obligatory: http://www.radiolab.org/story/317421-blame/ My personal feeling is that our current culture of blame-slinging and eye-for-an-eye sense of justice is ultimately what perpetuates humanity's tendency towards large-scale violence. Hate breeds hate and all that. If someone's a danger to society, sure, take steps to prevent further harm, maybe try to get them to realize how lovely the things they have done are, but for gently caress's sake show a little love you heartless poo poo nuggets. snorch fucked around with this message at 10:56 on Mar 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 10:44
|
|
|
If you're going to 'lock them up forever,' what is the practical, meaningful difference between that and just killing them? I assume that what you mean is 'put this human person in jail now with no opportunity for release ever, they will definitely die in prison.' Which is a workaround for 'We give up on you. Go away forever.' Are we locking them up forever as punishment? That's a really loving heartless punishment. "You lose, you're done, you've gone too far to ever be redeemed. But rather than finish things, we're gonna let you die in a box a long way from us at the end of your normal lifespan, anywhere from two to eighty years from now." Are we locking them up forever to protect the outside world? That's a loving expensive way to protect the outside world, seeing as we've already established that we never, ever want them back anyway. Are we locking them up forever because we really want them gone, but there's an off chance that maybe they didn't do it, new evidence might come to light to exonerate them, and we want them around in case we have to let them back out again? That's basically the only non-evil reading that I can have on this whole thing, but holy gently caress, it's not a great one. "Yeah, we got the wrong guy and stuck you in a box for fifty years, but at least you get the last two of them out among us normal people! Hope you can relate to a society with the internet." Imprisonment is a loving terrible way to deal with people who have done wrong. Counselling and therapy might fix whatever is broken. Supervised mandatory labour would at least get stuff done. Just locking people up so that we can all forget about them is, at best, othering. At worst it's dehumanising. Look at the title of the loving thread. Monsters, Ax Murder[er]s, Pedophiles. Other people in the thread have used the word Psychopaths without loving blinking. Those aren't things people do, those are things people become, or were all along- and that's a terrible way to think about humans and human nature. The point at which we start thinking about people in terms of what they are on the inside, rather than what they've done, is the point at which all conversation about them becomes meaningless. We're no longer talking about a person, we're talking about this monstrous 'character.' Of course you lock up the psychopath! That's really loving easy to justify! All he's ever done is psychopathic stuff. He probably eats his cornflakes psychopathically. He was born a psychopath and he will die a psychopath, having spent his entire life being either a psychopath or a psychopath pretending to be normal. If you let him out he'll just do psychopathic stuff again! There's no human there. You can't rehabilitate 'a murderer.' You can certainly rehabilitate 'a person who killed someone once.' You can't fix 'a paedo,' but 'a person with paedophilic urges' can certainly be mended. 'A psychopath' is a monster to be put away forever, but 'a person with severe, violent sociopathy' has a disease that needs to be cured. So much of our hatred for people who have done crimes is based on this carefully maintained wall of 'who they really are' which prevents us from seeing the people who did the things. This sort of thinking, incidentally, is one of the major reasons that rape culture is such a nightmare to even discuss. We have an image of 'a rapist' as being this thing that a someone who seems like a person really is on the inside. And because people don't see themselves as being 'rapists,' they don't comprehend that they are able to rape. That's something rapists do. Rapists are rapists on the inside. They're not rapists on the inside, so what they did couldn't have really been rape. Yes the loving definitions are circular. But circular definitions go both ways. My former Religious Studies lecturer did a lot of work with the New Zealand restorative justice group. They worked with non-violent offences only, but quite a bit of vandalism and theft cases. Their main thing was getting the victim and the perpetrator into a meeting, in the same room, where they had to just talk. Usually about the case, sometimes about the circumstances that led to the events, sometimes about themselves. In one case, it was a hate crime- a man with white supremacist views who vandalised an immigrant's corner shop. The perpetrator had this view that the person he was attacking was 'A Foreigner,' which is another one of those wonderful characters, and he came to the restorative justice meeting with this incredible air of self-righteousness and aggression. Then after a few minutes of talking with the guy whose shop he'd damaged, he deflated. He realised he wasn't a hero talking to a villain, he was a person, talking to another person, and both of them were confused and scared and alienated. Restorative justice tends to end with a sentence for mandatory counselling, or budget management, or job training. Never imprisonment. There is no point at which we should condemn a person to being a character. No matter what they have done they are still people. People who have done monstrous things, yes. People who have a debt to pay off to society as a whole because of what they've done, absolutely. People who are at the mercy of some serious loving problems, some of which may never be fixed, definitely. But still people.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 12:12
|
|
|
On the other hand, is killing or otherwise victimizing people wrong in the first place? There are so many of them; too many really. Obviously I don't want to be raped and/or murdered, but from an objective standpoint what's the net effect of, say, some random kid being violently and painfully killed? What's the environmental externality this potential person would have inflicted on the world? What would he really have accomplished in a lifetime of gorging on cheap calories, mindless consumerism and unfulfilling relationships? What if, god forbid, he or she should have children? And, in the long run, and with the impenetrable loneliness of the human condition, does it matter what pains or indignities this putative person suffered in his or her moments or hours of being dispatched? Not in any tangible sense. Maybe we should rethink the harm, or indeed the value of the "monsters, ax murders, and pedophiles" of society. To say nothing of the wide array of similar (sometimes virtually indistinguishable) activities carried out in the name of the state and unironically held up as necessary and desirable for the advancement of political, economic, and moral interests.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 16:26
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:On the other hand, is killing or otherwise victimizing people wrong in the first place? There are so many of them; too many really. Obviously I don't want to be raped and/or murdered, but from an objective standpoint what's the net effect of, say, some random kid being violently and painfully killed? What's the environmental externality this potential person would have inflicted on the world? What would he really have accomplished in a lifetime of gorging on cheap calories, mindless consumerism and unfulfilling relationships? What if, god forbid, he or she should have children? And, in the long run, and with the impenetrable loneliness of the human condition, does it matter what pains or indignities this putative person suffered in his or her moments or hours of being dispatched? Not in any tangible sense. Maybe we should rethink the harm, or indeed the value of the "monsters, ax murders, and pedophiles" of society. Please report to your local Healing Center for healing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 16:30
|
|
|
Are you suggesting I should be kept against my will in a state institution, without any evidence to suggest that this incarceration might benefit me or society in any way? I doubt you would suggest that I come into your basement to be restrained for years; that would make you a "monster." But you are unconcerned at the thought of the state taking an equivalent action.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 16:38
|
|
|
Typical Pubbie posted:If I murder people because my brain is physically wired in such a way that I have an irresistible desire to rob people of their very existence then you have my permission to lock me away forever, ok? Not to mention that treating people as monsters is a pretty drat effective way of making monsters.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 16:40
|
|
|
Mandy Thompson posted:I've been on a philosophy kick as of late, but being the massive nerd that I am I've been reading the Blackwell pop culture and philosophy books. One of the recent ones I have read was “Dungeons and Dragons and Philosophy.” They aren't so much saying that pop culture is philosophical, but rather that they are using examples from pop culture. Indeed you are a massive nerd, OP. But it's not your fault just the inevitable consequence of all the factors leading up to your nerditry at this point. Also, nothing wrong with being a nerd. =) Mandy Thompson posted:So in the first essay they discuss the nature of evil and free will. The use an example of a creature of pure evil, cooked up in the abyss, an abomination of flesh, and wings, and horns, set to terrorize the planes. But this creature is intelligent also, it has a mind, it has thoughts, it has feeling. It is also evil by definition. And generally speaking, being evil in this world sucks. For such a creature, wouldn’t it be the case that it is MORE deserving of pity because it undeniably had no choice on whether or not to be evil. I think the author has it wrong, though. The Demon knows it's evil, knows it's doing evil things, and is totes ok with it. Is enjoying it, in fact, usually right up until it encounters consequences in the form of the player characters. If it hypothetically were given a choice whether to be evil or not it would choose to keep being evil at any point before it became clear the PCs were going to successfully harvest it for XP. From what perspective could we pity it that wouldn't just be masturbating to the appreciation of our own virtuous moral reletavism? The demon doesn't give a gently caress what else it could have been. Many of the people we supposedly should pity don't give a gently caress either. They're contentedy (if not happily, maybe) acting according to their natures right up until they catch consequences. Your pity is something you do because emotional wanking is fun sometimes. There's no particular reason to treat them inhumanely but IMO no reasons for warm feelings about them either.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 16:51
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Are you suggesting I should be kept against my will in a state institution, without any evidence to suggest that this incarceration might benefit me or society in any way? I doubt you would suggest that I come into your basement to be restrained for years; that would make you a "monster." But you are unconcerned at the thought of the state taking an equivalent action. I don't require that the state control you, but if you don't see the inherent value in human life and quality of life then somebody needs to.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 16:51
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Indeed you are a massive nerd, OP. But it's not your fault just the inevitable consequence of all the factors leading up to your nerditry at this point. Couldn't you just have chopped these two paragraphs down to "pity is masturbation"? Omit needless words, man.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 16:56
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I don't require that the state control you, but if you don't see the inherent value in human life and quality of life then somebody needs to. So would you say that the world would a priori be a better place with 12 billion people in it? 20 billion? 100 billion? Do you revel in how wonderfully more rich the world your life has become as the world welcomed 3 billion more people in the last 60 years? Is your life measurably or hell even intangibly improved by all this new value? The answer should be yes. If human life inherently has value this conclusion seems inevitable. Arglebargle III fucked around with this message at 17:08 on Mar 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 17:06
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:So would you say that the world would a priori be a better place with 12 billion people in it? 20 billion? 100 billion? If human life inherently has value, after all. Sure, just like the world would be a better place with ten million exact duplicates of the Mona Lisa
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 17:08
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Sure, just like the world would be a better place with ten million exact duplicates of the Mona Lisa The world currently possesses effectively infinite duplicates of the Mona Lisa of indifferent quality, and a large number of high quality duplicates. What benefit would you say you derive from them? Not to get too caught up in your poorly chosen analogy but I would like you to at least contemplate this reckless assignation of value. I can't help but point out that people are more unlike copies of the Mona Lisa than not, and that one of the important ways that they are unlike copies of the Mona Lisa is that they compete for finite resources with other people.* Other than maple and paint, of course, which one might say that copies of the Mona Lisa compete for indirectly, not having agency, which incidentally is one of the many ways in which they do not resemble people. *More or less but not exactly equally unlike copies of the Mona Lisa. (Your analogy is terrible.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 17:14
|
|
|
Human rights for the right humans.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 17:15
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:So would you say that the world would a priori be a better place with 12 billion people in it? 20 billion? 100 billion? Do you revel in how wonderfully more rich the world your life has become as the world welcomed 3 billion more people in the last 60 years? Is your life measurably or hell even intangibly improved by all this new value? The answer should be yes. If human life inherently has value this conclusion seems inevitable. No, I just find your reasoning spooky and devoid of certain essential qualities humans need to live together safely.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 17:15
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:The world currently possesses effectively infinite duplicates of the Mona Lisa of indifferent quality, and a large number of high quality duplicates. What benefit would you say you derive from them? Not to get too caught up in your poorly chosen analogy but I would like you to at least contemplate this reckless assignation of value. The Mona Lisa has value. This is essentially indisputable. Surely, we should be maximizing value as much as possible by turning everything that is not what we absolutely need to live into copies of the Mona Lisa. Do you disagree? Why?
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 17:23
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:No, I just find your reasoning spooky and devoid of certain essential qualities humans need to live together safely. There is no need to assign human life a priori positive "value"* in order to live safely in a community. Humans have lived together "safely" forever with these "monsters, ax murders, and pedophiles" in their midst. In the last 60 years violent deaths per human life have plummeted and more generally the trend is downward. I have serious doubts about whether these "monsters" are actually responsible for very much harm**, and I have philosophical objections to the unquestioning assumption that violent murder is a morally or socially undesirable act. You never really did respond to my question of why you would call the state to lock me up but not imprison me in your basement. Presumably the distinction goes beyond the purely pragmatic in your mind? *We haven't even touched on what the "value" of a human life means. Value in what sense? To whom? How quantified? **Same problem. Harm to whom? How quantified?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 17:32
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:The Mona Lisa has value. This is essentially indisputable. Surely, we should be maximizing value as much as possible by turning everything that is not what we absolutely need to live into copies of the Mona Lisa. Do you disagree? Why? So you agree that such a thing as too many human beings is possible?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 17:37
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:So you agree that such a thing as too many human beings is possible? Did I say that?
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 17:40
|
|
|
A yes or a no would be adequate.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 17:43
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:A yes or a no would be adequate. When did you stop beating your wife?
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 17:45
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:On the other hand, is killing or otherwise victimizing people wrong in the first place? There are so many of them; too many really. Obviously I don't want to be raped and/or murdered, but from an objective standpoint what's the net effect of, say, some random kid being violently and painfully killed? What's the environmental externality this potential person would have inflicted on the world? What would he really have accomplished in a lifetime of gorging on cheap calories, mindless consumerism and unfulfilling relationships? What if, god forbid, he or she should have children? And, in the long run, and with the impenetrable loneliness of the human condition, does it matter what pains or indignities this putative person suffered in his or her moments or hours of being dispatched? Not in any tangible sense. Maybe we should rethink the harm, or indeed the value of the "monsters, ax murders, and pedophiles" of society. lol
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 17:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 19:35 |
|
|
you're right arglebuckle, human life has no inherent value. So why haven't you killed yourself yet?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 17:55
|
|