With NU I can’t justify NOT nuking the entire world of you get the chance much less not killing children. — khaled
his is why I believe, under my view, that it is amoral — JacobPhilosophy
with the hope that it will prevent some greater amount of suffering in the future — darthbarracuda
But anyway, all of this assumes a whole lot about humanity, e.g. that it has a manifest destiny to save the world, as if humans are masters of the world and not simply a product (or an abberration) of it. — darthbarracuda
Well if you add up all the suffering of 7 billion people over long periods of time it would be more than the nuke eventually. Especially considering that as we keep growing in number all of us individually suffer more. — khaled
besides I only brought up that point to show how ridiculous negative utilitarianism can be — khaled
As baby's don't have comprehension or fear of their own death it wouldn't cause any suffering, so far as I can tell. — JacobPhilosophy
I explained that killing someone with no friends or family is wrong because it would lead to people, such as myself, feeling unsafe and insecure in society, ergo causing suffering. As baby's don't have comprehension or fear of their own death it wouldn't cause any suffering, so far as I can tell. — JacobPhilosophy
but if it were illegal for anyone over the age of 1 to die it wouldn't cause me to feel insecure — JacobPhilosophy
killing someone with no friends or family is wrong — JacobPhilosophy
I was assuming that someone was over 1 year old. How do I quote? I did the whole quote /quote thing but how do I make it say the person's name underneath? — JacobPhilosophy
yes, I was assuming that someone was over 1 year old. — JacobPhilosophy
If it were legal for anyone over the age of 1 to die then it would cause me to feel secure — TheMadFool
killing someone with no friends or family is wrong — JacobPhilosophy
My point was that if it were legal to kill those who dont comprehend their own death (babies), but illegal to kill those that do, (young children and older), it wouldn't cause overt suffering to anyone, as it wouldn't lead to me fearing the possibility that my parents may one day decide to kill me — JacobPhilosophy
Y has a natural and biological understanding of death — JacobPhilosophy
Is it permissible to ensure the safety of X but not that of Y based solely on the fact that X has knowledge of the law but Y doesn't? Is it ok to kill an infant because it doesn't comprehend death? :chin: — TheMadFool
I don't deny that babies have moral worth, but to me moral worth only ensures that suffering is not caused. — JacobPhilosophy
As biology and medicine informs us physical pain is all about maintaing health/preventing or avoiding injury. In other words pain is the body's way of avoiding death. In effect then you can't treat death and suffering as two different things - pain is about death.
See what this leads to?
There can't be such a thing as painless death for death is the biggest pain there is. — TheMadFool
I disagree. Pain is a form of stimuli that alerts us of danger, in order to AVOID death. It's a system engrained into us in order to prevent death. Therefore, death is not the greatest form of pain, but a neutral state that our biology attempts to avoid — JacobPhilosophy
But death is not a physical sensation it is the loss of all capability to sense things around you anymore. — philosopher004
Dying is a physical sensation, it leads to death. Both are undesirable fearsome/fearful states to be in. — TheMadFool
When you say somebody is dying is that person experiencing death in itself. They are experiencing the feeling that they are close to death but still not engulfed by it. I can accept that we will never know whether there is a feeling that is peculiar to death or if there is none unless we experience it. — philosopher004
How does all this relate to the issue at hand? Well, a painless death, if offered as a choice, is to be grasped, with both hands and your pearly white teeth, and held onto for dear "life". Nevertheless, to my reckoning, it can't be employed to justify killing infants because in that case the choice isn't between a painful death and a painlese death but between life and death albeit painless — TheMadFool
But does losing life matter to the infant?It just does not fully fathom that it is in a state known as living and there will be a state known as death.Does the infant lose anything by dying?:brow — philosopher004
It's highly likely that I don't fall within the 99th percentile of young adults but as one I too didn't "fully fathom that [me]it [was]is in a state known as living and there will be a state known as death". Does that mean it would've been okay for someone to have killed me? By the way, as a young child did you ever remember an occasion where you did "fully fathom that [you]it is in a state known as living and [that] there will be a state known as death"? — TheMadFool
Too this brings us back to the point I was making, to wit, we don't judge a person's worth, here right to life, by what s/he can or can't "fathom". Does anyone know the meaning of life? No. Should we then leave no stone unturned to bump people off? — TheMadFool
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.