musKeeto:
Not one to participate in philosophical debates. Let's see how long before I run off.

I do not agree with your conclusion. From premise 1, we agree that life comes before death. A person has the opportunity to have a good experience on earth. Death would mean experiencing nothing, in essence losing the ability to experience something. To outrightly seize one's right to experience life by 'murder', would then be evil/wrong.

Hmm, you missed some things. I did not argue that life comes before death. I argued that first there is death(non-existence) then life(existence) then back to death (non-exitence) again.
If you argue that it is wrong to cut someones experience of life and force him into death, then it should also be wrong to cut someone's experience of death(non-existence) by forcing him into life. Don't you agree?

frank3.16:


i guess u mean striklymi's question... that is my answer above. i am actually still struggling to get over it (especially that of my fiance which it more recent)

Oh yeah, seen it now. Good answer. That's basically the same argument I'm making (though with a little twist)

Mr anony:
Hmm, you missed some things. I did not argue that life comes before death. I argued that first there is death(non-existence) then life(existence) then back to death (non-existence) again.
If you argue that it is wrong to cut someones experience of life and force him into death, then it should also be wrong to cut someone's experience of death(non-existence) by forcing him into life. Don't you agree?

Wouldn't non-existence be different from death, at least technically speaking? Death can only occur if there was life in the first place. Remember you said your premise that souls do not exist. Death is end of existence. Life is beginning of existence.

My initial argument still stands. What experience we have is based on our existence.

striktlymi:
This really has to do with infringing on someone elses right...if death is not necessarily a bad thing (from this looking glass) it still does not give one the licence to take the life another.

By the same token, it should be a bad thing to infringe on someone's right by bringing him/her to life via conception against his/her will

Eating is not a bad thing...as a matter of fact eating is a very good thing...do I now say because eating is good then I go about forcing every adult I see on the way to eat?

It is one thing to allow people kill themselves if they want to and another thing for an individual to forcefully take the life of another...even if death is good, every man should be given the dignity of choosing how he leaves this world (all other factors like accidents etc remaining constant).

Let me throw in another twist. Assuming you came upon a drowned child at the swimming pool, should you attempt to resuscitate him. Mind you, at that point, the person is unconscious and therefore doesn't have a will. Why would you impose your will upon him by forcing him back into life?

musKeeto:

Wouldn't non-existence be different from death, at least technically speaking? Death can only occur if there was life in the first place. Remember you said your premise that souls do not exist. Death is end of existence. Life is beginning of existence.

My initial argument still stands. What experience we have is based on our existence.

Good answer, but remember because there are no souls, we are saying that therefore death = non-existence and life = existence.

Now I think the problem placed before you is to explain how exactly existence is better than non-existence by default. So far you have just assumed it.

Morning Anony,

Mr anony:
By the same token, it should be a bad thing to infringe on someone's right by bringing him/her to life via conception against his/her will

If we go by assumption number one and your first premise then the above would be rather incorrect. Holding that someone's right is infringed upon presupposes the existence of that individual before conception.

It would be appropriate to say that rights and obligations can only be extended to those who are in existence...and considering that existence begins at conception, then the ish of infringing on another's rights to be born or not does not necessarily come up.

The argument thus is:

Only those who are in existence have rights and obligations....
Striktlymi is yet to be born and as such is non-existent...
Therefore striktlymi has no right until he comes into existence...

Simply put: no one can claim what he is not entitled to.

Mr anony:
Let me throw in another twist. Assuming you came upon a drowned child at the swimming pool, should you attempt to resuscitate him. Mind you, at that point, the person is unconscious and therefore doesn't have a will. Why would you impose your will upon him by forcing him back into life?

By assumption number two, we can decipher objectively, what is good or evil...the question now is: is it an act of evil to save a drowning child? Note that the rules for minors is quite different from that for adults...now let the lasoo be a bit tighter around my neck; where you have child let's replace it with an adult...

Now, saving this adult can be a good thing or a bad thing, based on the circumstance involved...I will give two scenarios to make this simple and further add another assumption, though implied from the assumptions already given. Let's assume that the law states that every adult has the right to commit suicide if they so desire...

Even with the above restrictions, saving the life of that adult can still be a good thing...if for instance the adult in question tried to commit suicide which is well within his rights and I saved him only to find out that his reason for attempting suicide is poverty...and by some generosity on my path I gave this poor dude a billion dollars...could it be said that I did wrong to have saved the lad?

On the other hand...if I am as poor as this dude and I deprived him of this easy way out, then it can be said that what I did was very unfair but really, if we take a cursory look at both scenarios we can't but say that my attempting to save the life of this individual is objectively good because what really matters is my intention for carrying out the act...

For all we know, the individual might have found himself in the river accidentally without any intent to kill himself...this really would be the determining factor...

Mehn I am making this too long...I need to shut up

striktlymi: Morning Anony,
If we go by assumption number one and your first premise then the above would be rather incorrect. Holding that someone's right is infringed upon presupposes the existence of that individual before conception.

It would be appropriate to say that rights and obligations can only be extended to those who are in existence...and considering that existence begins at conception, then the ish of infringing on another's rights to be born or not does not necessarily come up.

The argument thus is:

Only those who are in existence have rights and obligations....
Striktlymi is yet to be born and as such is non-existent...
Therefore striktlymi has no right until he comes into existence...

Simply put: no one can claim what he is not entitled to.

Beautiful and lovely. Your argument here is by far superior, I'll concede that part. I was wrong and you are absolutely right.

Continuing.....

By assumption number two, we can decipher objectively, what is good or evil...the question now is: is it an act of evil to save a drowning child? Note that the rules for minors is quite different from that for adults...now let the lasoo be a bit tighter around my neck; where you have child let's replace it with an adult...

Let me remind you what we have assumed. We have assumed that there is objective evil however we have not granted that death is evil by default therefore saving a person from death is not good by default irrespective of whether he is a child or an adult.

Now, saving this adult can be a good thing or a bad thing, based on the circumstance involved...I will give two scenarios to make this simple and further add another assumption, though implied from the assumptions already given. Let's assume that the law states that every adult has the right to commit suicide if they so desire...

Even with the above restrictions, saving the life of that adult can still be a good thing...if for instance the adult in question tried to commit suicide which is well within his rights and I saved him only to find out that his reason for attempting suicide is poverty...and by some generosity on my path I gave this poor dude a billion dollars...could it be said that I did wrong to have saved the lad?

I followed you until the bolded. All you did there was manufacture a condition that helps you justify your evil deed of saving him against his will. Remember, you have already violated his will before asking him why he wanted to kill himself. Giving him a billion dollars does not change the fact that the deed is already done.

On the other hand...if I am as poor as this dude and I deprived him of this easy way out, then it can be said that what I did was very unfair but really, if we take a cursory look at both scenarios we can't but say that my attempting to save the life of this individual is objectively good because what really matters is my intention for carrying out the act...

No it is not, you are still wrong here. Because according to you, a persons will ought not to be violated and you willingly and purposefully violated the right of a man to take his life even when he never asked you to save him. You imposed life upon him
(note that the context of this argument, we haven't established that death is worse than life so you cannot say you were "saving him"

For all we know, the individual might have found himself in the river accidentally without any intent to kill himself...this really would be the determining factor...

You have assumed too much here. Remember that since we haven't established that death is a worse condition, you shouldn't feel obliged to do anything about his case

Mehn I am making this too long...I need to shut up

You are doing great. I'm really enjoying the conversation.

Mr anony: First of all, I will start with the following presuppositions for the sake of this discussion.

1. I'll assume that souls do not exist and even if they do, they do not live on after or before death
2. I'll also assume that there is no God or gods (yeah you heard that right) but somehow miraculously there is objective good and evil
3. I will suggest we keep the definition of good and evil simple as what a common man may regard as good and bad without having to go into unnecessary lengthy definitions.

If we accept the above as basic then I will make my argument thus.

Premise 1: A person's existence begins at birth and ends at death
Premise 2: For a thing to be either good or bad, a subject person must exist to experience it
Premise 3: There is no reason to believe that existence is better non-existence
Conclusion: Therefore if to die means to cease to exist, there is nothing wrong with the state death since the dead experience nothing. Furthermore following from this, killing a person is not intrinsically wrong.

the bold is totally wrong, to kill a person is wrong. No one has the right to take another person's life...... except if the victim asks for it.

The only reason death is feared is if the living has something to lose, to protect and because there is no second life.

Dying intself isn't evil, its in fact good for survival, if not, the earth would be overpopulated right now of all living things. But killing is wrong, because every living thing has the right to live.

ooman:

the bold is totally wrong, to kill a person is wrong. No one has the right to take another person's life...... except if the victim asks for it.

Interesting. Nobody is contesting that my conclusion is wrong(morally not logically) in fact we all agree that it is morally wrong including me. However, we are trying to explore a topic and find what logically follows from our initial assumptions. This is purely an intellectual exercise we are having.

In order for you to contest it, I would prefer that you gave us logical and philosophical reasons why death is worse than life because if death is not worse than life, you haven't put a person in a worse condition by killing him.

If your argument is about wills, Are you going to concede that it is right to kill a person as long as the person made the request?

ooman: The only reason death is feared is if the living has something to lose, to protect and because there is no second life.

Dying intself isn't evil, its in fact good for survival, if not, the earth would be overpopulated right now of all living things. But killing is wrong, because every living thing has the right to live.

Why? I don't see how being in a particular state automatically gives one the right to be in that state.

Mr anony:
Why? I don't see how being in a particular state automatically gives one the right to be in that state.

how would you feel if a scientist turn you into a chimp or if the government tell you you've done enough alive, its time to die?

the fact that you are born human gives you the right to be human, live among humans and enjoy every other human benefit.

everything living has the right to live because non is more important than the other

ooman:

how would you feel if a scientist turn you into a chimp or if the government tell you you've done enough alive, its time to die?

My feelings do not automatically bestow rights upon me

the fact that you are born human gives you the right to be human, live among humans and enjoy every other human benefit.
everything living has the right to live because non is more important than the other

You still haven't given us a logical justification for this claim.

Besides it is even more problematic because if every living thing had the right to life, no living thing would feed because in order to feed, they will have to end the life of another living thing hence life as a whole would be illegal

Mr anony:
By the same token, it should be a bad thing to infringe on someone's right by bringing him/her to life via conception against his/her will

Who/where/whom is the person whose right is being infringed upon while non-existent?


How about this? Rather than just Existent and Non-Existent, we divide 'nonexistence' into potentiality and impotentiality. So in nonexistence there are persons and things that exist as potentials, and that is a state of being, from which they can be brought into a state of actual existence. That is different from the impotential that can never be made actual.

If non existent things can be said to 'exist' as potentials then we can now talk about their rights as potentials and their will as potentials.

Hey, I'm just throwing wild ideas out there.

Pastor AIO:

Who/where/whom is the person whose right is being infringed upon while non-existent?


How about this? Rather than just Existent and Non-Existent, we divide 'nonexistence' into potentiality and impotentiality. So in nonexistence there are persons and things that exist as potentials, and that is a state of being, from which they can be brought into a state of actual existence. That is different from the impotential that can never be made actual.

If non existent things can be said to 'exist' as potentials then we can now talk about their rights as potentials and their will as potentials.

Hey, I'm just throwing wild ideas out there.

Lol, that was my weakest argument on here and striktlymi took me to the cleaners on that one.

But then when you raise the issue of potentiality, we now have to ask where do we draw the line? At the foetus in the womb? or the concieved zygote? or the choice of individuals to make babies?
In which case, every time two people choose to have reproductive sex they would bear the moral burden of bringing potential beings (who by the way we haven't established if a will may be ascribed to them) into existence...

...it gets murkier and murkier as we go down the rabbit hole.

Mr Anony: Interesting. Nobody is contesting that my conclusion is wrong(morally not logically) in fact we all agree that it is morally wrong including me. However, we are trying to explore a topic and find what logically follows from our initial assumptions. This is purely an intellectual exercise we are having.

Ok

Mr Anony: In order for you to contest it, I would prefer that you gave us logical and philosophical reasons why death is worse than life because if death is not worse than life, you haven't put a person in a worse condition by killing him.

The bold is still very wrong, no one has the right to kill another person, it is left for the killed to ask for being killed by the killer, to kill another simply because the killer thinks his victim’s life is pathetic or so, is wrong, the killer is putting himself in an authoritarian position by that.

Now, because living in a particular form (being you) can only happen once (though it has been calculated that there is a chance that matter can form dna to form an individual in a precise way as now, the chance are too low, we are talking about 1 in a trillion, trillion and trillion in a trillion trillion and even if that happens to occur, that you will live in the same environment is another variable factor). So because you are unique, and probably loved and love, living is better than dying.

Being dead means being at metabolic equilibrium with your environment, meaning increase in disorder of the environment. So your whole complex body is an energy conserving machine. To nature, this is why you should rather live than die. But then disorder always increase anyway, this is why you will still die and this is why you replicate, so your descendants cells or whole organism will continue to do the good work of conservation.
So, according to Jane Reece, a biologist, try to stay alive for as long as your system can remain conserved.

You seem not to know the extent of your argument, I would suggest you look up life and thermodynamics to learn more.

Mr Anony: If your argument is about wills, Are you going to concede that it is right to kill a person as long as the person made the request?

Euthanasia is something I have no problems with.
Away from that, if a person does not want to continue living, why force life on them. Vanity on vanity, all is vanity. There is no satisfaction to lie and in life, no inherent meaning to life. All is just meaningless, so if a person thinks life is too pathetic to continue to live, why force life on them?

Since life evolved for no ‘fixed’ purpose, which is why it is pathetic and meaningless to begin with, as Solomon first stated, destroying creation of life, because everything created are purposeful, if a person does not want to live anymore, they should be granted death.

I think death may be granted upon request. Every living thing has the right to live or terminate their own life only.

Mr anony: First of all, I will start with the following presuppositions for the sake of this discussion.

1. I'll assume that souls do not exist and even if they do, they do not live on after or before death

Premise 1: A person's existence begins at birth and ends at death

#Okay, as assumption go.

2. I'll also assume that there is no God or gods (yeah you heard that right) but somehow miraculously there is objective good and evil

#There cannot be No God. It is popular fallacy that god is the supreme single person that our mainstream religions preach. But even the christian scripture tells that god is a spirit and that we are all gods. So what this means is that god is that principle(spirit) by which each man uses to evaluate his reasons and actions. So every conscious person has god in his conscience to either justify or condemn his actions/inactions. Even atheism is a god(spirit or principle), being a system of evaluating life values.

3. I will suggest we keep the definition of good and evil simple as what a common man may regard as good and bad without having to go into unnecessary lengthy definitions.

Premise 2: For a thing to be either good or bad, a subject person must exist to experience it

#Good =To recognize, protect and improve the value of one's natural attributes.
Evil =To be against one's natural attributes.

Premise 3: There is no reason to believe that existence is better non-existence

Conclusion: Therefore if to die means to cease to exist, there is nothing wrong with the state death since the dead experience nothing. Furthermore following from this, killing a person is not intrinsically wrong.

#First: Nobody has isolated non-existence in order to compare it to existence. At least we know what happens to dead bodies in this world of matter, It is not a pleasant sight.

#Death is not exactly "to cease to exist". Death is the [size=13pt]loss[/size] of life(or ability to live). And death is intrinsically evil because this attribute is taken away from a person who loves it and would want to keep this attribute forever. Therefore taking it away would be evil. Just like it is evil to forcibly take away a person's property, wealth or rights which by the way is recoverable, but when you lose life as we know it; you cannot get it back. How can that not be evil??

Mr anony: My feelings do not automatically bestow rights upon me

not your feelings, your being.

Mr anony: You still haven't given us a logical justification for this claim.

Besides it is even more problematic because if every living thing had the right to life, no living thing would feed because in order to feed, they will have to end the life of another living thing hence life as a whole would be illegal

exactly why life is pathetic and meaningless.

To live is to kill, its about causing chaos to remain conserved

Its about encroaching on others to survive

Its about survival of the fittest and never once has it being about design.

Yes indeed, life as a whole is illegal. A lion would kill a human to stay alive, humans do the same.

This is why there is no specific purpose or meaning to things and why moral laws are limited to within a species only.

You may harm and kill other species to eat, its right, but not your species, because it means death to your own species.

Life occurs invidiously.

Mr anony:
Beautiful and lovely. Your argument here is by far superior, I'll concede that part. I was wrong and you are absolutely right.

Cool!

Mr anony:
Continuing.....

Let me remind you what we have assumed. We have assumed that there is objective evil however we have not granted that death is evil by default therefore saving a person from death is not good by default irrespective of whether he is a child or an adult.

Agreed! But again, does the child enjoy the same rights as an adult in this situation? Can we safely say that the child has a right to commit suicide if he so desires? If the child must be at least 18yrs old before making such major decisions, then I don't see why it would be inappropriate to save the child.

Mr anony:
I followed you until the bolded. All you did there was manufacture a condition that helps you justify your evil deed of saving him against his will. Remember, you have already violated his will before asking him why he wanted to kill himself. Giving him a billion dollars does not change the fact that the deed is already done.

Again you are correct...but the bold got me thinking...

In this hypothetical situation who or what exactly determines whether an act is good or bad? Is it left to the individual? Is there some law governing everyone, from where we can infer what might be deemed good or evil? Do we limit the 'definition' of objective good or evil to death alone?

Mr anony:
No it is not, you are still wrong here. Because according to you, a persons will ought not to be violated and you willingly and purposefully violated the right of a man to take his life even when he never asked you to save him. You imposed life upon him
(note that the context of this argument, we haven't established that death is worse than life so you cannot say you were "saving him"

Hmmm...If I choose to allow the drowning man die, probably because I believe it is none of my business, but deep down the dude wants to be helped, do we take this act of 'negligence' as a praiseworthy deed?

What lead us to this point really, is the ish of individuals having rights i.e. no man is meant to deprive another of his fundamental right to live if he has the choice to live...now if an individual does not want to be helped out from drowning then the only option is to apologize to him and throw him back in the river to continue from where he left of. But if he does want to be helped then I think that would be a good thing.

I believe everyone should have the right to life without someone else coming to deprive him of this right. It is said that our right to punch another ends at that moment when the individual's right to self defence begins...if someone wants so much to take a life, why doesn't he start with his own?

What is so special about his own life that he wants to keep it and take that of another? If he likes life and wants to enjoy it then the other man have the same right to enjoy same, if he does not like life and prefers death then no ish as long as he deprives himself of this life first.

Mr anony:
You have assumed too much here. Remember that since we haven't established that death is a worse condition, you shouldn't feel obliged to do anything about his case

Hmmm...this really depends on viewpoints as I mentioned before...for one who loves life and prefers to be alive then death necessarily deprives him of something...hence in this scenario death is bad.

The converse would be one who prefers to end it all because he probably is sick and tired of the responsibilities and so many other challenges life has to throw at him...for this individual being alive is bad while death is good.

ooman:

Ok




The bold is still very wrong, no one has the right to kill another person, it is left for the killed to ask for being killed by the killer, to kill another simply because the killer thinks his victim’s life is pathetic or so, is wrong, the killer is putting himself in an authoritarian position by that.

Now, because living in a particular form (being you) can only happen once (though it has been calculated that there is a chance that matter can form dna to form an individual in a precise way as now, the chance are too low, we are talking about 1 in a trillion, trillion and trillion in a trillion trillion and even if that happens to occur, that you will live in the same environment is another variable factor). So because you are unique, and probably loved and love, living is better than dying.

Being dead means being at metabolic equilibrium with your environment, meaning increase in disorder of the environment. So your whole complex body is an energy conserving machine. To nature, this is why you should rather live than die. But then disorder always increase anyway, this is why you will still die and this is why you replicate, so your descendants cells or whole organism will continue to do the good work of conservation.
So, according to Jane Reece, a biologist, try to stay alive for as long as your system can remain conserved.

You seem not to know the extent of your argument, I would suggest you look up life and thermodynamics to learn more.

I would suggest you read my post again, I feel you didn't quite grasp it.

Euthanasia is something I have no problems with.
Away from that, if a person does not want to continue living, why force life on them. Vanity on vanity, all is vanity. There is no satisfaction to lie and in life, no inherent meaning to life. All is just meaningless, so if a person thinks life is too pathetic to continue to live, why force life on them?

Since life evolved for no ‘fixed’ purpose, which is why it is pathetic and meaningless to begin with, as Solomon first stated, destroying creation of life, because everything created are purposeful, if a person does not want to live anymore, they should be granted death.

I think death may be granted upon request. Every living thing has the right to live or terminate their own life only.

If life is so meaningless and purposeless as you claim, why is it a right?

Mr anony:
I would suggest you read my post again, I feel you didn't quite grasp it.




If life is so meaningless and purposeless as you claim, why is it a right?

why not. If I say my property is useless to me,that doesn't mean I dont own it anymore, I still have right to keep it or lose it. It still mine.

okeyxyz:
#Okay, as assumption go.



#There cannot be No God. It is popular fallacy that god is the supreme single person that our mainstream religions preach. But even the christian scripture tells that god is a spirit and that we are all gods. So what this means is that god is that principle(spirit) by which each man uses to evaluate his reasons and actions. So every conscious person has god in his conscience to either justify or condemn his actions/inactions. Even atheism is a god(spirit or principle), being a system of evaluating life values.

I know that there cannot be "no God" I am only taking that presupposition for the sake of argument.

#Good =To recognize, protect and improve the value of one's natural attributes.
Evil =To be against one's natural attributes.

fair enough

#First: Nobody has isolated non-existence in order to compare it to existence. At least we know what happens to dead bodies in this world of matter, It is not a pleasant sight.

Nice one there. . . .however, non existence does not have attributes and hence it is easy to compare, it is simply the opposite of existence i.e. everything existence is not.

#Death is not exactly "to cease to exist". Death is the [size=13pt]loss[/size] of life(or ability to live). And death is intrinsically evil because this attribute is taken away from a person who loves it and would want to keep this attribute forever. Therefore taking it away would be evil. Just like it is evil to forcibly take away a person's property, wealth or rights which by the way is recoverable, but when you lose life as we know it; you cannot get it back. How can that not be evil??

Remember since we have presupposed that souls don't exist, life is no longer a property that can be lost rather it is the person himself such that losing life would mean that the person is no longer existing. What you need to show here is why you think existing is better than not existing. Don't merely assert it.

ooman:

not your feelings, your being.

By "being", do you mean my "soul"? If not, what do you mean?

exactly why life is pathetic and meaningless.

To live is to kill, its about causing chaos to remain conserved

Its about encroaching on others to survive

Its about survival of the fittest and never once has it being about design.

Yes indeed, life as a whole is illegal. A lion would kill a human to stay alive, humans do the same.

This is why there is no specific purpose or meaning to things and why moral laws are limited to within a species only.

You may harm and kill other species to eat, its right, but not your species, because it means death to your own species.

Life occurs invidiously.

Why then were you complaining that killing is wrong when it is in fact the nature of life itself?

Mr anony:
By "being", do you mean my "soul"? If not, what do you mean?


Why then were you complaining that killing is wrong when it is in fact the nature of life itself?

why should your being mean your soul? your being is you, your existence.


did you read with open eyes? did you not see this "You may harm and kill other species to eat, its right, but not
your species, because it means
death to your own species."

striktlymi:

Cool!



Agreed! But again, does the child enjoy the same rights as an adult in this situation? Can we safely say that the child has a right to commit suicide if he so desires? If the child must be at least 18yrs old before making such major decisions, then I don't see why it would be inappropriate to save the child.

permit me to skip the issue of child vs adult as it will lead us on a tangent

Again you are correct...but the bold got me thinking...

In this hypothetical situation who or what exactly determines whether an act is good or bad? Is it left to the individual? Is there some law governing everyone, from where we can infer what might be deemed good or evil? Do we limit the 'definition' of objective good or evil to death alone?

Lol, I don't know what else can determine good and evil objectively if not God. However since we have decided to leave God out of it, let us say that good and evil was determined by the law of the land a societal consensus of sorts whereby it is measured by the amount of harm/insult done.
My point will then be that since in a state of death, no harm can be experienced, putting a person in such a state is not necessarily a bad thing.

Hmmm...If I choose to allow the drowning man die, probably because I believe it is none of my business, but deep down the dude wants to be helped, do we take this act of 'negligence' as a praiseworthy deed?

Neither, you can't be blamed for not knowing his thoughts

What lead us to this point really, is the ish of individuals having rights i.e. no man is meant to deprive another of his fundamental right to live if he has the choice to live...now if an individual does not want to be helped out from drowning then the only option is to apologize to him and throw him back in the river to continue from where he left of. But if he does want to be helped then I think that would be a good thing.

lololol.......I totally agree with the bolded. However, I think you are not visualizing the scenario properly. In a world where death is a morally neutral thing, no one will really feel any urge to "correct" a dying man much like how you won't necessarily feel any urge to correct a person on the right way to use cutlery.

I believe everyone should have the right to life without someone else coming to deprive him of this right. It is said that our right to punch another ends at that moment when the individual's right to self defence begins...if someone wants so much to take a life, why doesn't he start with his own?

You could say that, but I'll argue that even if he chose to take another person's life he hasn't really done anything morally wrong. much like you won't feel morally wronged if your host served your tea with a fork and not a teaspoon. At best you'll feel it was socially awkward and that is not exactly the same as something being wrong morally. Get my drift?

What is so special about his own life that he wants to keep it and take that of another? If he likes life and wants to enjoy it then the other man have the same right to enjoy same, if he does not like life and prefers death then no ish as long as he deprives himself of this life first.

Same as above

Hmmm...this really depends on viewpoints as I mentioned before...for one who loves life and prefers to be alive then death necessarily deprives him of something...hence in this scenario death is bad.

Yeah but the question is will it be morally wrong? Note that life here is a mere preference and not a right. Therefore death here will be no worse than serving you vanilla when you would have preferred chocolate.

The converse would be one who prefers to end it all because he probably is sick and tired of the responsibilities and so many other challenges life has to throw at him...for this individual being alive is bad while death is good.

You too like to dey sit on the fence sha.

Anyway you are getting really close to the true purpose of my creating this thread. I'm guessing that by now you've probably begun to suspect it.

ooman:
why should your being mean your soul? your being is you, your existence.

This doesn't make sense. Remember you started by asking me how I would feel if I was told I'd be killed. I said my feelings doesn't count. Now you are talking "being" by which you mean "existence". How exactly does it fit into our original train of thought? I'm afraid I can't see it.

did you read with open eyes? did you not see this "You may harm and kill other species to eat, its right, but not
your species, because it means
death to your own species."

All I see is you giving laws without backing them up. From a purely evolutionary standpoint, there is nothing wrong with killing your own species. It could free up some much needed resources for your survival.

Mr anony:
This doesn't make sense. Remember you started by asking me how I would feel if I was told I'd be killed. I said my feelings doesn't count. Now you are talking "being" by which you mean "existence". How exactly does it fit into our original train of thought? I'm afraid I can't see it.


All I see is you giving laws without backing them up. From a purely evolutionary standpoint, there is nothing wrong with killing your own species. It could free up some much needed resources for your survival.

Still missing the point...your existence, the fact that you are, bestows right upon you to live and not to be killed against your wish.
This is why above 14-20 weeks old fetal abortion are called murder in US states.

That's a lie. Evolution never supports killing your own kind. You are bringing eugenics up now, intelligent selection of traits and that is wrong because all organism except man aren't intelligent enough to know which gene to retain or remove.

Evolution means the weak will die and the strong will survive, never that the strong will kill the weak.

And evolution is not concerned with survival of individuals but with survival of the group or species, this is the only time speciation can occur. so you are pathetically wrong, once again.

Mr anony:
permit me to skip the issue of child vs adult as it will lead us on a tangent

Okay, no P!

Mr anony:
Lol, I don't know what else can determine good and evil objectively if not God. However since we have decided to leave God out of it, let us say that good and evil was determined by the law of the land a societal consensus of sorts whereby it is measured by the amount of harm/insult done.
My point will then be that since in a state of death, no harm can be experienced, putting a person in such a state is not necessarily a bad thing.

Hmmm...cool! The bold seems very promising...let's see how we can use that to our advantage.

Mr anony:
Neither, you can't be blamed for not knowing his thoughts

Agreed but sometimes inactivity can make one culpable.

Mr anony:
lololol.......I totally agree with the bolded. However, I think you are not visualizing the scenario properly. In a world where death is a morally neutral thing, no one will really feel any urge to "correct" a dying man much like how you won't necessarily feel any urge to correct a person on the right way to use cutlery.

I quite agree with you on the above...if my visualization of this world is accurate then the general feel of the above is a world where everyone is expected to mind their own business i.e. what I choose to do with my life is no one elses business as long as I follow the cardinal rule of not bringing harm to someone else...

If the above is correct then it would be safe to say that someone who kills another without the individual's consent necessarily brings harm to that individual and as such the act of killing that person can be viewed as evil.

Mr anony:
You could say that, but I'll argue that even if he chose to take another person's life he hasn't really done anything morally wrong. much like you won't feel morally wronged if your host served your tea with a fork and not a teaspoon. At best you'll feel it was socially awkward and that is not exactly the same as something being wrong morally. Get my drift?

Same as above

This is where I disagree a bit with you...yes, it can be argued that taken another's life need not be wrong by necessity but doing same without the 'meeting of the minds' or rather mutual agreement could mean that the individual's life was maliciously ended which in itself makes the act of killing that individual evil.

Whether or not the act of killing another person is good or evil is largely dependent on CONSENT!!! If the individual has not given his consent then no one should have the right to end his life...a different set of rules might apply where the individual is not properly disposed to give his consent.

Mr anony:
Yeah but the question is will it be morally wrong? Note that life here is a mere preference and not a right. Therefore death here will be no worse than serving you vanilla when you would have preferred chocolate.

Lol!!! If I want vanilla but they brought me chocolate then I should have the right to reject the chocolate if I don't want it...in the case of death my assailant refuses to give me the option of choosing which would be very unfair; and also another reason why it is wrong.

Mr anony:
You too like to dey sit on the fence sha.

Mr anony:
Anyway you are getting really close to the true purpose of my creating this thread. I'm guessing that by now you've probably begun to suspect it.

Really? But why do I feel that my thoughts are anywhere but the point?

Finally something worthwhile to engage with. I've had to toy with OLAADEGBU during your absence. I'll be moving on from him then.

Mr anony: First of all, I will start with the following presuppositions for the sake of this discussion.

1. I'll assume that souls do not exist and even if they do, they do not live on after or before death
2. I'll also assume that there is no God or gods (yeah you heard that right) but somehow miraculously there is objective good and evil
3. I will suggest we keep the definition of good and evil simple as what a common man may regard as good and bad without having to go into unnecessary lengthy definitions.

This third point is probably going to be where the meat of the problem with your post will lie.

Mr anony:
If we accept the above as basic then I will make my argument thus.

Premise 1: A person's existence begins at birth and ends at death
Premise 2: For a thing to be either good or bad, a subject person must exist to experience it
Premise 3: There is no reason to believe that existence is better non-existence
Conclusion: Therefore if to die means to cease to exist, there is nothing wrong with the state death since the dead experience nothing. Furthermore following from this, killing a person is not intrinsically wrong.


Disclaimer for the over excited ones: I am not personally convicted by the above argument but I have presented it to see how you will tackle it. I am also willing to defend it

Let the fun begin!

Let's examine these premises and see if the conclusion follows.

Premise 1 is acceptable.

I guess that for premise 2, you mean for an action to be good or bad rather than a thing since I don't think things like tools are inherently good or bad.

Premise 3 is faulty because existence is a property that an object may or may not have so what object are you referring to that would be better or not if it existed? Do you mean a person?

From your conclusion, it looks like you mean for people. And I agree that there is nothing wrong with the state of death. I also agree that killing a person isn't intrinsically wrong. One can kill someone else in self-defense or in defense of a loved one.

I wonder if this is the argument you actually wanted to make.

Hmm.

Ihedinobi: My twin's back! Yay!....Is he?

Well, here I am. And I think that Death is evil.

I think it is because

1. Evil is a corruption, distortion or, perhaps, outright negation of good or that which is true and right.

What is "that which is true and right"? Is a light bulb "that which is true and right"? Or is Hip Hop "that which is true and right"?

Ihedinobi:
2. Harmonious relationships is true, good and right as nature evidences that when things are rightly and properly related to one another, the best outcomes are realized.

So stochastic relationships aren't good and right yet we find that they're useful in the way we live our lives and even obtain information about the world we live in.

Ihedinobi:
3. Death is a rupture of relationships. The physical type ruptures the relationships between the various parts of the organism's being and between it and the world around it. That is a negation of the right order of things. The spiritual type ruptures the relationship between a man and God. The eternal type is a total separation from the Source of Life.

Thus, Death is evil.

Edit: so sorry, twin bro. I began editing after your op but got otherwise engaged so I didn't see your following post until I posted. Will see about addressing your argument sha, but later

Eating is a rupture of relationships between the atoms of complex molecules of the organism that initially contained them. Is eating evil?

.

Mr anony:
Lol, I was getting really addicted to NL so in order to lock myself out changed my passwords to a long string of characters I can't remember and then changed my email to some random stuff so that I won't be able to retrieve it. The new ids are the price I paid for a lack of self-control.


Nice illustration there but you are taking for granted a position we have not established. You are assuming that the deaths are wrong by default but that is precisely what I am challenging. I see no reason why non-existence can be wrong. That's the philosophical question I want you to grapple first. Why is existence better than non-existence?

I purposely skipped explaining which is morally acceptable between existence and non-existence. My mobile phone hangs after composing a lengthy article, coupled with network wahala.
....
Nothing can be said to be non-existent until it has existed.
And neither do I assume that death is wrong.
This is how I see it.
Existence cannot solidy be said to be better than non-existence, neither can we say the same of non-existence without considering a very important factor.
I don't think it is an argument that can produce an answer universal and able to incorporate the existence of all beings.
The proper answer I think must be individualistic. Based on the value an individual placed on himself as a result of his existenbe and contrasting these values with the dormancy of his non-existence.
This is what I mean.
When the effect the existent has on the environment is good (already, I have identified what it means to be good), and by comparison between what it means to be good with the absence of the bringer of the good and the good itself, non-existence will deny the environment the privilege of this good. Hence, this is evil.
Because the moment this entity emanating good is terminated from existence, it also carries with it the termination of a particular good.
On another note, some other entity might be the ramification of the absence of good. A termination of this entity negates the presence of evil, which is a good thing.
The answer I think should be based on individual life and the effect on the collective whole, rather than the generalized existence/non-existence of the collective whole.