With NU I can’t justify NOT nuking the entire world of you get the chance much less not killing children. — khaled

If you nuke the planet, you guarantee a certain amount of suffering with the hope that it will prevent some greater amount of suffering in the future. But you can't ever be sure it will, since you're gone. Oh well, what's done is done, I guess.

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. Instead of letting nature run its course and aligning their will with that of nature's, humans must undergo this Promethean effort to wrestle nature into alignment with their will.

his is why I believe, under my view, that it is amoral — JacobPhilosophy

I am not thinking it should be amoral.It is nothing.The infant should be left.But anyways Karl popper(philosopher who introduced NU) knew that it would entail the possibility of killing people.

with the hope that it will prevent some greater amount of suffering in the future — 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.

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

I’m not sure what you mean here. Save the world through nuclear Armageddon? And besides I only brought up that point to show how ridiculous negative utilitarianism can be

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

This is assuming life continues to exist as it does, and that nature does not take a different course.

besides I only brought up that point to show how ridiculous negative utilitarianism can be — khaled

Fair enough.

Coming at this issue from the perspective of the abortion debate, if there's controversy regarding abortion as to whether it's murder or not, doesn't it follow that infanticide is through and through murder and ergo impermissible.

Too, taking your position - painless death, no one to mourn the death, ergo ok to kill - to its logical conclusion means that we can kill people who have no friends or family so long as a painless death can be assured but then that flies against our moral intuitions that killing people (even painlessly, even if such people don't have friends or family) is outright immoral.

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.

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 think this topic is now wandering outside NU because in NU our only goal is to remove suffering and I think the baby is neither happy nor suffering now.So we can justify its killing even in positive utilitarianism because as you said killing the baby is fun for the parents and no on outside mourns for the infants death.

Good point. I I think I was just trying to say that my personal philosophy is a branch of NU, and if no net suffering is caused, the even is neither moral nor immoral.

I just want to clarify that I find the concept of murdering a baby naturally repulsive (obviously). The debate isn't whether it's ok to kill a baby, it is WHY is it immoral, so that I can alter my ethical groundwork.

The nature of death in a pleasure/pain based system is a difficult issue. I do not believe (painless) death is a negative experience for the individual experiencing it. Naturally, in a pleasure/pain based system one seeks external suffering caused by death. This is where I am currently struggling.

In regards to abortion: in my opinion, once a being is sentient and has a preference to live, that preference should not be contradicted unless absolutely necessary. These are my thoughts in regards to animal agriculture also. However, it seems rather arbitrary to say that the preference to live has moral value, when it causes neither pleasure nor pain to anyone involved

Currently, the way I solve this conundrum is through the basis that ethics derived from contractarianism, and such strategic compassion led to enate biological empathy, that we now extend to anything that has a preference to live.

The key thing with grounding your ultimately subjective morals is in being consistent. For example, I think it is wrong to kill and eat a severely mentally handicapped orphan if I don't have to, therefore I do not eat meat.

I think it is wrong to kill a baby, but the baby has sentience, which distinguishes it from early embryos, therefore I am not inconsistent to deem abortion amoral and infanticide immoral.

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

The point is the reasons you proffered - no one to mourn, painless death - is applicable to people other than just babies and that's what should cause you "feeling unsafe and insecure in society".

but if it were illegal for anyone over the age of 1 to die it wouldn't cause me to feel insecure

but if it were illegal for anyone over the age of 1 to die it wouldn't cause me to feel insecure — JacobPhilosophy

That's a mouthful but look at what you're saying:

1. If it were illegal for anyone over the the age of 1 to die then it wouldn't cause me to feel insecure.

Contraposition of 1:

2. It would cause me to feel insecure only if it were legal for anyone over the age of 1 to die.

Contraposition of 2:

3. If it were legal for anyone over the age of 1 to die then it would cause me to feel secure

Compare statement 3 with what you said below:

killing someone with no friends or family is wrong — JacobPhilosophy

Is this "someone" over the age of 1?

I may have made some mistakes. If I have, please show me where?

yes, 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?

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

Select the text you want to quote and you'll see a "quote" button. Click it.

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

Are you saying it would make you feel secure if it were permissible to kill people older than 1 year of age?

If you are then you're contradicting what you said here:

killing someone with no friends or family is wrong — JacobPhilosophy

1 is a rough number I just picked. I see the irrationality of picking a random characteristic that doesn't apply to me and saying it is permissible to kill them as it wouldn't lead to my own death. I suppose more generally, life has to be valued in order for society to function and so therefore the under 1 analogy doesn't really work.

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.

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

I see. Here's a question that seems relevant to your point: What is the nature of and I quote "comprehend[iing] their [our] own death"? Doesn't the comprehension of our death revolve around one single thing - nonexistence. It all boils down to nonexistence. Yes, those who comprehend it have the additional burden of fear but the fact of the matter is nonexistence is what the entire issue rests on. That being the case, killing anything, whether an infant who doesn't comprehend death or someone who does, amounts to making that infant/person nonexistent and that's pecisely the heart of the issue, isn't it?

Consider the following thought experiment. Imagine an idyllic place nestled somewhere in the Himalayan mountains, surrounded by green mountains with rivers of sparkling water winding in the valleys. Let's call this place Shambhala. In this heaven on earth - Shambhala - there's a law that protects its denizens from murder. Among the many inhabitants of this mountain paradise there are two people, X and Y. X is a very learned man, a walking encyclopedia if you will and among the many things he can claim to know is the law that protects the people of Shambhala from murder. On the other hand, Y is a simpleton, an ignorant buffoon as it were and most importantly, he isn't aware that there's a law in Shambhala that protects people from being murdered. 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:

I'd say the difference between that and my hypothetical is that Y has a natural and biological understanding of death, and therefore anarchy would still cause suffering to him through the lack of ensured safety.

Also, I believe that just because an agent doesn't have moral AGENCY (the ability to comprehend morals), that doesn't mean they don't have moral WORTH. I don't deny that babies have moral worth, but to me moral worth only ensures that suffering is not caused. (Again, rationally, not practically).

Y has a natural and biological understanding of death — JacobPhilosophy

So does the infant who you think it's permissible to kill.

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 think comprehending death is different from understanding that there is law that protects you.Even if X does not know about that law he will still have a fear of death because he is old enough to process that information in his mind and he will still fear nonexistence.But an infant does not care about it in the sense that it cannot recognize itself as living because it does not know that there is also nonliving(nonexistence).

I don't deny that babies have moral worth, but to me moral worth only ensures that suffering is not caused. — JacobPhilosophy

What is suffering to you? The way I see it, the fundamental stuff of suffering is pain. Give some consideration to the idea of pain. Pain occurs in circumstances where a person's physical or mental integrity is threatened. Set aside mental pain for the moment and focus on physical pain. 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.

fear of death — philosopher004

Read my reply to @JacobPhilosophy

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. If it were true that death were the greatest form of pain, surely you would have an issue with euthanasia. If so, I'm not going to get into that debate but I completely understand your disagreement; if not there are holes in your philosophy.

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

But death is not a physical sensation it is the loss of all capability to sense things around you anymore.

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

I haven't driven a lot in my life but I do recall a trip where I saw a road sign that read "falling boulders". The sign didn't scare me as much as the prospect of a giant rock flattening my car.

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.

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.

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

What do you mean? To be honest, a distinction can be made between dying and death. Both are painful and I've met people who wish for a painless, usually sudden and quick death. However, this doesn't imply that pain isn't what it actually is - a warning of imminent death.

That said, consider the worst case scenario, as imagined and described in exquisite detail by our dear forefathers, viz. hell. Hell is, in essence, a world of pain - you don't go to hell to die but to suffer and that too eternally. It appears that whoever it was that first conceived of hell didn't realize what pain is in actuality. Nevertheless, as suicide will attest to, some forms of pain/suffering can be worse than death. Thus hell I suppose.

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. :chin:

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:

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"?

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?

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

Good point:chin: But even when we are young we know that there is something known as death and life . The first case about young adult you raised is interesting but I think I do not have an answer for that.

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

By fathom I didn't mean that you have to know the meaning of life but just acknowledging that you are in a state known as 'living'.