The Wow I Can't Believe That News Story Thread

[Lucem Ferre]

Originally Posted by elphenor

Postmodernism strongly disputes that we're morally evolving in every way

Postmodernism is a ****ty faux philosophy that nobody can even agree on as a thing.

Edit: And who ever said that we're evolving in every way? We're evolving in some ways, perhaps devolving in other ways. But realizing that we shouldn't enslave or dehumanize other people based on their race is definitely an evolution.

[Lucem Ferre]

Originally Posted by jwb

if I see a homeless person walking down the street who is clearly suffering, and he has no family or friends to speak of, is it not a good thing for me to kill him swiftly and painlessly as possible?

I would be ending a lot of suffering, and causing little if no new suffering. So is it the right thing to do?

No, because you're assuming that he'll always be suffering. You're likely preventing any chance of him to feel something that isn't suffering. It's also a very very lazy way to end his suffering.

[Lucem Ferre]

Originally Posted by elphenor

it's not but some of the reading is challenging so it's easier to say this

No, it's absolutely a faux philosophy. Meaning it's not really a philosophy it's a movement made up of several philosophies which is why nobody can agree on what postmodernism is which is actually the most postmodern thing ever.

[Lucem Ferre]

Originally Posted by elphenor

I'm just sayin everyone else got a childhood man

Our fetish with childhood is kind of weird. I get that it's huge in impacting your life as an adult put pretending a happy childhood isn't as important as a happy adulthood is bizarre. It's such a small piece of our lives. For a lot of us it might even be the worst part of our lives.

So sticking that in my face is meaningless to me.

[Chula Vista]

Originally Posted by Lucem Ferre

pretending a happy childhood isn't as important as a happy adulthood is bizarre

Who did that?

[Lucem Ferre]

Originally Posted by elphenor

it's not that, it's just mathematically if you got an 80 year old and a 30 year old, all health being equal I'd say the 80 year old already got 50 extra and so it's only fair

There's variables in everything. How ever you have no clue of the ages of any of the 100.

Or if the kid will even make it to adulthood even if you save him.

[Psy-Fi]

[jwb]

Originally Posted by Lucem Ferre

No, because you're assuming that he'll always be suffering. You're likely preventing any chance of him to feel something that isn't suffering. It's also a very very lazy way to end his suffering.

so your objection is that I can't accurately predict the suffering that will be caused/prevented

I would argue that is also true of most of the thought experiments meant to argue in favor of utilitarianism.

E.G. your example of killing one child to save 100 people. That 1 person you kill might end up doing more to alleviate suffering than the other 100 combined. Or they might be a monster. Or somewhere in between. There is no way of knowing.

Let's say for the sake of argument (since all of this is already based on unrealistic hypothetical situations) that you somehow know for a fact that if you kill him you will alleviate more suffering than you cause. Is it still wrong?

[OccultHawk]

Originally Posted by Psy-Fi

Was there even a train to wreck?

[Lucem Ferre]

Originally Posted by jwb

so your objection is that I can't accurately predict the suffering that will be caused/prevented

I would argue that is also true of most of the thought experiments meant to argue in favor of utilitarianism.

How is that an argument? That's something I was saying in the other experiments.

E.G. your example of killing one child to save 100 people. That 1 person you kill might end up doing more to alleviate suffering than the other 100 combined. Or they might be a monster. Or somewhere in between. There is no way of knowing.

I acknowledged the differing variables already.

Let's say for the sake of argument (since all of this is already based on unrealistic hypothetical situations) that you somehow know for a fact that if you kill him you will alleviate more suffering than you cause. Is it still wrong?

I'm going to assume that you're talking about the homeless person.

If the homeless person didn't want to die then it's going to be immoral. It's not your choice to make and thinking you have that authority is immoral. If the homeless person wants to endure their suffering let them. If the homeless person wants to end it I assume they have all the ability to do that them self.