What should you do? — javi2541997

Well, the fat man is my loved one, I'm a bad ass with a gun and his life means more to me than my own or anyone else in the cave. We all die. In all other cases, we wait until just shy of too late, blow his ass up and we all get out.

For the law to say that a dove-tail with Natural Law is mere coincidence, where the law stands alone, is the law saying too much. I see the law standing, indignant, arms crossed, chest puffed out, and saying "I hereby make it a crime to commit suicide and I hereby deem the penalty for a violation thereof to be death!" And there, over in the corner, is Natural Law, rolling it's eyes and saying "Yeah, sure, whatever."

I may have lost track of all my posts and I'm not inclined to go back and read them. However, I don't think I've ever disagreed with you about, or argued any issues regarding the fallibility of this or that law; it being a good or just or bad or unjust law. In fact, I started out trying to parse a distinction between a simple "law is law" argument and "law must be obeyed because it is the law" argument. I tried to figure out the former because I could not believe anyone would believe the latter, especially an American.

But okay, if all you are saying is "the law is the law" then I will stipulate that the law thinks so. Therefor, it is, at least as far as the law is concerned. On the other hand, if you are saying that the law should be obeyed simply because it is the law, I disagree. The law should only be obeyed because I think it should be obeyed, for whatever reason (expediency, don't want the stick, or I personally find it inherently just and in accord with Natural Law).

On that latter point, I think that law review article I cited makes some good points about how even our new and nuanced laws can be traced back to preexisting notions of justice. Thus, some regulation or policy articulated in the bowels of the CFR or FR about this or that which never existed in the world, prior to the development of this or that technology, still finds the genesis of it's result in Natural Law.

If there is a failure of our minds to meet, it could also be due to what I find to be a natural aversion to the way "Natural Law" is sometimes spun by those with whom I disagree. Like some "sovereign" nut in Idaho who thinks his understanding of God = Natural Law. In that case, I'm with you 100%. But I don't think Natural Law is so constrained. And even then, Natural Law, like the law law, often runs head on into conflict with human nature (Prohibition). One might argue that Prohibition found it's roots in Natural Law, but I disagree. For prohibitionists to wrap themselves in the flag of Natural Law is no more legitimate than it would be for Republicans to claim the flag as their own.

In this way we see that nature doesn’t do discrete definitions but rather continuum’s for which science has great difficulty compartmentalising — Benj96

True dat. And if you think science has trouble dealing with nature, you should see the law!

And if something is morally valuable, then it is morally good and if something is morally disvalued then it is morally bad. These are conceptual truths about morality and cannot seriously be disputed. — Bartricks

Is there a case where that which is deemed good has been made so via a confrontation with that which is bad? And if so, doesn't that make bad good? And wouldn't good and bad then be relative?

Thus, moral norms and values are composed of the prescribing and proscribing and valuing activity of an external mind. And for reasons that I will leave for later discussion, that mind will be the mind of God. — Bartricks

That reminds me of a discussion in the other thread about "law is law" and the issue of "Natural Law." Some understandings we have about good and bad seem to be innate to our being. Sure, we have our aberrations, but generally speaking, we know better. As a universal pantheist (as opposed to universal panentheist) I've got not problem with calling it "God."

I had a time putting that all together until the wave analogy. Then I got it. My first thought is about the ocean, out of which we arise, and into which we fall back. All the genes, ever, are in there. But I assume there is some evolution, creating new water molecules that did not exist before.

Anyway, I didn't really see a question in there so I'm just thinking out loud in response. Why stop there:

It does remind me of an argument I made some years ago, where the issue of wolves came up. Some scientist, a biologist (and who am I to argue with him?) offered up that canis familiaris and canis lupus is a false distinction, and that biologically, genetically, they are identical. I argued that if that were true, then it proves the old adage about being greater than the sum of parts; a wolf is greater than the sum of it's parts. You cannot wipe out wolves and think we're still all good because, well, we have dogs. That's BS.

I'll roll with #3. BTDT, but it's ineffable, so further this affiant sayeth naught.

I found a few minutes to read that law review article I cited above and will let it speak for itself. I only mention it again because some of it's references brought to mind an old quote that stuck in my mind from school days. I don't remember who said it, when or in what context, but I liked it:

"violates our traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice."

I think I liked it for the sentiment expressed, but I think it stuck with me because of just how contrary it was to my experience with the law as written, interpreted and applied.

I really wish that my father, or some other authority figure would have taken me out back for a little counseling about the distinction between ideas/aspirations and reality. The old saw by Darrow, there is no justice, in or out of court. And sometimes you eat the bear and sometimes the bear eats you. Those lessons would have saved me a lot of heart burn and frustration tilting at windmills. Not to mention saving a lot of clients a lot of money. But, having grown up on 1950s, 60s and 70s T.V. Westerns, which were all about the underdog and the good guy winning in the end, I went into the world pretty ignorant.

And it took a long while for the lessons to sink in. I'm a slow learner. Better late than never.

Once before I trial I was standing outside the court room with opposing counsel (he'd been around the horn). He sensed my chagrin and said: "Jim, the business of law is business." I responded "The business of law is minding other people's business." I won that case, but I started making my exit plans immediately thereafter. Opposing counsel is doing quite well in business. Me, I sleep better at night and give myself the counsel I should have given others: Avoid the law whenever possible, even if that means obeying it. Let Natural Law govern your conduct and the pretender will leave you alone.

A cook who doubts the existence of flour and yeast will get nowhere. — Banno

Doubt does indeed stop a lot of people from doing things. But there is a whole 'nother class of people who don't let a little thing like doubt stop them from whatever.

If 4 people push you evenly from each direction and one gets blocked or pushes less, you go toward them. — Razorback kitten

That makes sense, but I'm not sure it accounts for pressure. When I go down X number of atmospheres under water, pressure increases. It is water pushing at me from all directions, like space, but still mostly down from above? But I'm lighter underwater than I am on the surface of earth where the absence of push from earth is sticking me to it. I'd think if water came to my rescue from the weight of space, then the earth might do likewise?

I'll have to ruminate on this for a while.

the earth is blocking more push than the moon because its bigger. — Razorback kitten

So, in blocking more push, would I not be lighter on earth than on the moon?

The Earth is more massive, so it curves space-time more. — Vince

So why wouldn't it cause me to be lighter? So inculcated I am in the traditional gravity thing that it's hard for me to think that space is pushing me against the earth, but if so, it would seem the earth, in curving space-time more than the moon, would actually be shielding me from the push more than if I were, say, floating in it, or on the moon. Indeed, the pressure would be greater if I were floating in it, would it not?

The center is everywhere. — noname

Thanks. That's a little easier to grasp, at least conceptually. It answers and defeats the intuition that it had to have started some place if that place is actually everywhere. I would then venture that when everywhere was in a singularity, it was really nowhere. Had it been somewhere, then we'd have to grapple with a direction back to a place that never was.

Interesting. I'm curious as to why space would push harder against me on Earth than when I'm on the moon. At first I might guess that the size of the earth draws more push, but since it is me being pushed regardless of what I am on, and I am the same size in either place, why the difference?

Of course the truth of any symbolic expression depends on the interpretation given to the symbols; — fishfry

And hence the gentlemen's agreement.

I'm over my head here but some wag once said, if you are the smartest person in the room, find another room. So I left a political conservative echo chamber and came to tread water in yuse guys, including @Meta and you and everyone else. I'll watch you bait, and learn.

So, rather than gravity pulling me down onto the earth, space is pushing me against it? So the earth doesn't suck after all? Cross thread points with antinatalism? And the sun is pushy, throwing it's weight around?

Damn man, that's actually a very nice quote, not gonna lie. — Manuel

Thank you, and a tip 'o the hat to a mocha venti on a long drive back from the big city. :blush:

That was a bit of cheap bait. — fishfry

Indeed, but it calls to mind a digression:

The first time I argued with a philosophy professor some 40 years ago, after he taught us to trace all premises back to a point of agreement before moving forward, he posited that very equation of 2+2=4. I asked "Two what plus two what; and what do you mean by 'plus' and what do you mean by 'equal.' After all, two people plus two people could equal five people if one couple had a single child. Likewise two drops of water plus two drops of water could equal one drop of water." He agreed and took a step back to set definitions. That was my first exposure to the "gentlemen's agreement" which subsequently fell apart on the burden of proof. LOL! We had fun but I think there was another kid in the room, looking for a grade, who hated digressions. Carry on.

There is agreement. There is disagreement. And the simple fact that neither one matters, itself does not matter. For they both proceed apace as if they did. And that is all that matters.

Thousands of years ago and before writing, we told stories around fires. Stories about good and evil. When we learned to write, the stories were reduced to writing. Eventually they were enshrined in laws. It's all just a story about of collective human experience and how we *should* conduct ourselves. But no form is more valid than another just because one society says it is.

I would say the evidence suggests that gravity is the other force which is at play here, causing different rates of expansion. But gravity and expansion might actually just be two aspects of, or two ways that we approach, the very same thing. — Metaphysician Undercover

That makes sense to me. It was my understanding though, that space only grow between those aspects of non-space that are so far apart that gravity no longer influences them? I don't know if that is a cluster, or super cluster or what, but space is not increasing the distance between us and the earth, earth from sun, sun from galaxy etc.

Is there a government there (or governments, as we in our Glorious Republic have federal, state and local governments)? Has that government adopted rules, regulations, which are intended to apply to the conduct of its citizens? Are they written, or printed? Is there a mechanism by which they are enforced? Are there tribunals which address and decide disputes regarding their application? — Ciceronianus the White

Yes, yes, yes, yes and yes.

If so, do you believe those rules, regulations etc. are Natural Law? Are those who enforce them enforcing Natural Law? Are those tribunals who decide their application tribunals of Natural Law? If you think they aren't, then it's likely because you think there is some difference between those rules and regulations and decisions and Natural Law. If you don't think there is a difference, then I think we can leave it at that. — Ciceronianus the White

The just ones are Natural Law reduced to writing; the unjust ones are an abuse of discretion and not Natural Law. Those who enforce them, enforce them regardless of who thinks they are what. The tribunals decide regardless (sometimes checked by nullification). So here we have a nut: Natural Law is just. Man's law can be just, but is not always so. Both are arguable, but the latter will not always entertain arguments about the former. To that extent, they are unjust. If the are unjust, they are the law in the same way that my son's stick is a stick.

I confess I did not read this article past the first page or two, but it might be worth reading. Especially as it addresses those cases where U.S. Courts deal with Natural Law. Beyond the statute, of course, is common law, cases of first impression, and conflict between law and natural law. https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=4060&context=ndlr

I honestly don't know if and when any court relied upon or distinguished or even addressed natural law but the cite you are looking for may be therein.

But I can reiterate that saying "the law is the law" seems tautological, "self-evident" to those who believe it, and irrelevant to those who don't see "the law is the law." To the latter, it is akin to a little kid talking about unicorns they saw in a book. Yeah, they exist. Okay.

People would just follow Natural Law, wouldn't they? — Ciceronianus the White

People don't always follow the law, written or not. The law is for those who can't take a hint, and it often does not work on them, either. But at least the law can say "I told him so!" as it comes down upon him. And the law can also turn and say to third parties "See how just I am? Follow me." And the law can say to itself "I'm so cool!"

I wonder why they wrote the Constitution if they thought it already existed. — Ciceronianus the White

Because George III would not take a hint. I suspect George III didn't think much of it once it was reduced to writing, and maybe even less so. I have no evidence for this, but he might grudgingly accept that a man has a right to defend himself, but he'd be ill inclined to agree simply because the man wrote it down. Especially if that man were a serf.

Logic has it's own skeleton in it's own closet. One need not pick examples, analogy, or metaphor, from the other sciences, or any where else for that matter, to make this point. One need only use a logical principle to ask logic a logical question that it cannot answer. But yes, logic is the ultimate "gentlemen's agreement" from which we proceed to all other sciences. Whether or not that is a ball-and-chain remains unresolved, but there are many questions in the other sciences that logic has yet to answer.

Either way, I think both logic and psychology, like all arts, are luxuries brought to us by leisure which in turn is brought to us by abundance which may or may not have been brought to us by logic, or psychology, or anything else. We think we stand on the shoulders of giants, but like the ruminant chewing it's cud, we ultimately stand (or sit, or lay or are based) on the Earth.

I just stopped believing in the big bang. It posses way more questions than it answers. It's a stupid idea. — Razorback kitten

I don't know about that, but I never had a problem with lots of questions. For instance, is there a reason why it had to be a bang? How about an extremely slow, insidious creep; a root that can only venture out when it gains enough strength to overcome the forces that don't want to let it go. Or the water wearing away the rock in the river. Gently, slowly, with patience. I guess a bang is sexier. It draws the attention. Like a shooting.

Is there a center on a spherical surface? I believe every point on it can be the center, so it should be the same if you add one more dimension. Every point in space can be considered the center. — Vince

I agree, and my thinking that way started with a discussion about whether we are the center of the universe. I tried to add the next dimension and came up with my question. It seems to me that if space exists between all that which is not space, then there can be no single not space, but a multitude of not spaces separated by spaces, and there was no single direction from a singularity outward.

An executor will milk the estate for expenses of execution. If you don't have anything worth it, then yeah, you'll not find one. But if you have anything worth the executor's time, then it should not be a problem finding one. Name the homeless guy down the street under the bridge. The court can't make him do it if he doesn't want to. But it it's worth his time, he will. Hell, the court might even help him.

You could always give away all you've got before you die. Timing is key.

Anyway, you are right. It's no reason to have kids.

I don't know where you live, but generally you don't need a trust. You just write a Will and say within it what you want done. It can be holographic but there are a metric shit ton on the web, specifying the jurisdiction you live in. If there is anything left after expenses, it goes where you said you want it to go.

On the other hand, leaving it to the state is not so bad. I'd rather the state tax and spend, than rely on the Plutocracy to decide where they want to throw their scraps.

You can always adopt. You can even leave your estate to Gretta Thunberg or the like.

I guess I'm conflating you with 180 and his statement about consistency. I then ran off on speculating about what might be more or less consistent, and this was based on the notion that negation of suffering could be placed in a calculus of more or less. If it's not that simple, and graduations of dignity are thrown in the mix, then that is what I need to put in my pipe.

As a piece of tobacco I'll be throwing in the pipe, a parent might deem the suicide of a child to be an insult to their dignity, the fruit of their very loins (i.e. themselves). They might be wrong on that, but that is an argument.

:ok:

Okay, I need to put that in my pipe and smoke it for a while. Initial thought, though, is that it seems to address unborn child issue, but when it comes to suicide, it's placing the dignity of the individual who is doing the choosing over the dignity of the individuals who are left behind (like the old saying "Suicide doesn't stop the pain; it just transfers it).

I dont know about 'looking through itself' but at galactic scales we are 'looking into the past' — ernest meyer

The "looking through itself" is a struggle for me to understand, in itself. But what I was struggling with in my post was not so much our looking through, as it was about the experience of space itself at the "start" of the big bang.

So, forget for the moment the issue of speed and time. Just look at the absence of space at the singularity. Then there is space.

But whenever a scientist tries to explain this to me, they say "imagine the balloon." Okay, I get that. But then they say "Remember, though, the balloon analogy is simply a way for us to simplify it so you get the gist of things not moving away from each other, but, rather, space is inflating between them. In reality, it is not a balloon, but 3d."

So I say okay, now I must try to conceive of space expansion in all directions at once. After all, the balloon analogy is just a simplification. When I do that though, it seems to me that space could not grow out from a fixed point, but would also have to grow in and through itself and out the other side at the same time.

Sum and substance :It is a simultaneous explosion and implosion (with the implosion going through itself and out the other side to join the explosion). And then there is instantaneous space between everything with there having never been a center from which to bang outward. No space, then space, and growing?

:100: Humor is necessary. No, it isn't. Yes it is.

Aside from euthanasia (assisted suicide), killing people increases the suffering of kin, lovers & friends of the victim. Killing people also increases fear in neighbors and wider community; and fear is suffering. Lastly, killing someone increases her suffering because the victim is unwilling, thereby traumatized before death. — 180 Proof

I get that. I was talking about a net. I apparently have not been able to explain myself, let me try again: There are 7b people on the planet. Joe and Vlad press he button and wipe out 6.5b. Therefor, .5b are left to suffer, but 6.5b no longer suffer. Where the guy who had no kids and then kills himself is consistent, and the guy who has no kids, kills a few people and then kills himself is less consistent because he creates a net increase in suffering, is the guy who has no kids, kills more than are left behind to suffer, and then kills himself more consistent? Or, substitute the 6.5b with one "victim" who has no loved ones and who no one would miss.

One does not have to be an aggregate utilitarian to be an antinatalist. Thats where your conclusion went wrong. — schopenhauer1

I didn't think I had a conclusion? But now that you mention it, is the antinatalist only concerned with heading off the suffering of one? And if more than one, then why? Wouldn't aggregation be a consideration, even if not utilitarian? Or maybe even then?

Don't neglect, then, the unknown unknowables, aka, unanticipated consequences, the unexpected. — tim wood

:up:

Is this one clearer? — 180 Proof

It is clearer, and it confirms my assumption set forth in the post to which you just responded.

So, as asked in that post, if one can kill more others (stop their suffering) than would be left behind to suffer the loss, would the net justify the killing in the eyes of an antinatalist? And likewise, if one found a person who no one would miss at all (Earl, in Goodbye Earl, Dixie Chicks) would it help to take him out?

We appear to be at the center, because this is a map of the expanding universe. If the substratum of the universe, space-time itself, is expanding, then it must expand from every point. The result is that any point becomes the center point, when mapped in this way. — Metaphysician Undercover

I alluded to that at some point on this forum. I tried to account for the possibility that I am at the center of this expanding universe while it is itself expanding away from fewer than infinite others, which would then allow for me to not be at the center. I also tried to account for the possibility that I'm not at the center of this expanding universe because different parts are expanding at different rates. That would allow me to not be at the center of this one. But I don't recall anyone schooling me on that. It seems to be the most probable, but then there would have to be a forward and a backward if the different rates had anything to do with deceleration. If some other force is at play to cause the different rates, then I guess I might not be at the center so long as there was an equally spaced, equal number of parts speeding away at their various rates. But it does seem that whenever something doesn't fall in line with the way someone says it should, they just pull something out of their ass to explain it, without proving what that thing is. So, when some troglodyte like me wanders by and says "Hey, maybe dark matter is the past, or dark energy is the future, and time, like energy and matter, can convert too" then has slapped on the back of the head, ignored or laughed at. The wizards like to use numbers and symbols (other than the alphabet put together in words and sentences that dummies like me can read) like a clique to keep others out. I too understand the need for shorthand, and a desire to work on the problem instead of explaining it to the masses, but I also stay in my lab and talk to my peers when I do so, and don't venture into the public, spreading my shit without expecting some questions.