The reason why I asked is that in our society the right of a dead to itself is more valuable than any living being. — Heiko

I was reading something about English law being changed to make organ donations the default for every dead person unless they have signed an "OPT OUT" form. I guess that when you are dead you don't need them anymore, so what difference does it make to the dead. If mine were any good to anyone I would give them, but that is not to be. So

Valhalla I am coming!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

My thought was more of a redesign of public pension schemes. — Heiko

They say that there will be more than 8,000,000 old age pensioners in England in the next couple of years. Add to that all of the people that for some medical reason cannot work and those that don't try to find work.
Who is going to pay for all of these people as the number keeps rising and the number of people working drops because no one can afford kids to replace the workers?

Are you registered as an organ donator? — Heiko

No such thing where I live. And I cannot even donate blood for medical reasons.
If I have my way, when I die it will be on top of a mountain of firewood with a dead man's switch hooked up to a big tank of gas so that I can have my Viking funeral. Fuck funeral directors and coffin makers all.

Is that a condition you are talking about? Why this "if"? — Heiko

It is a common, everyday type of if, not IFF. The decision would, obviously, be theirs to take if the thought that their lives lacked those things

Oh sorry I can't not quote someone. I can only regurgitate the thoughts of other people, because I have no thoughts of my own... — Blue Lux

That is what we call quoting. Regurgitate the thoughts of other people.

Consciousness is by virtue of intentionality. — Blue Lux

Who or what is the consciousness part of?

Consciousness is a sort of being, but is not a being-in-itself as might be an intentional object. — Blue Lux

That is contradictory. If consciousness is by virtue of intentionality, then it is an intentional object.

All there is is a presupposing. — Blue Lux

But there must be a presupposee, or is it a being-in-itself?

Intentionality is simply the understanding that consciousness is always conscious of something. — Blue Lux

'Intentionality' is a philosophical term that describes the elements of mental states that are 'directed' at things or ideas—the fact that thinking, feeling, hoping, believing, desiring are 'about' things. How can physical brain processes—electric currents and chemical concentrations—be 'about' things? Intentionality, some claim, is a problem for physicalists.

Nobody should live without affording his or her own life - a simple question of justness. — Heiko

So if I break my back and cannot pay my own living expense then......

Suicide should be an open door without social stigma — Heiko

............nice.

a simple question of freedom. — Heiko

While I agree that life should be allowed to end if a person thinks their life has no worth and there is no dignity to it, I don't want to be asked to get rid of myself just because I cannot afford to pay my way.

And there are no simple questions.

The act of presupposing does not necessitate an I am. — Blue Lux

So who or what is presupposing?

It is so because it does not incorportate intentionality, — Blue Lux

Does being need intentionality? Don't quote what someone else said, explain what you think.

Is this playing semantics? — Blue Lux

Yes.

How can I know that I am indeed and not presupposing that I am — Blue Lux

How could you presuppose if you were not.

Clearly you never dated a stripper. — Akanthinos

:rofl:

Once you have learned that much, the rest is easy.

Take your time and think about what you want to say, then read what you wrote to make sure that they are the same thing.

Know thy enemy. :smile:

But I dont want to sound like a hypocrite, because I dont do much to help "strangers". And I have my reason(s) for it, that I have stated before. If the reason(s) are justifiable is a matter of debate offcourse. — Aleksander Kvam

So you are one of the normal people I spoke of earlier.

I am sure that if you found a starved child you would do whatever you could to help out, but like me you are not going to invite a homeless person to sleep on your couch unless you know the person and their circumstances.

If we could just get rid of those increasing numbers of pesky humans — gloaming

How will take care of you in your old age if you get rid of the pesky humans? :worry:

So, nobody really answered, how does one enlarge one's sphere of interest?

Is that possible? — Posty McPostface

As I stated earlier, I don't think that too many people can.
Think about it, even if you wanted to help the guy living by the dumpster on the corner, what could you do? How much do you have to offer?

Most people, at least most normal people, do try to help the owns they know. Starting with family, then extended family, then depending on the capabilities to do so friends and neighbors. After that it is usually a matter of "If I have some spare change in my pocket" to help strangers.

The ones that maybe would have the chance to help others are the ones that have excessive resources. Unfortunately a lot of them think that keeping their millions in the bank is more important.

I think that while some may say that it is lack of empathy I would call it self preservation. I might be willing to go out and help the homeless but I would not do it knowing that my loved ones would end up suffering because of it. I often work with some of my neighbors and the just as often work with me on some project. But I am not going to take a day of work to do so.

They should start then by using proper grammar, punctuation, and capitalization.

There are some nasty people around here that like to insult you if you make mistakes.
I really don't care as long as it understandable, but the grammar NAZIs do tend to get a bit pissed of.

Another pet peeve.
People believe that just because you argue in favor of something that it is your sacred belief that it is true.

If I want to I can argue in favor of starving people to death if they don't work or against the idea of doing so.
I was taught that if you cannot defend an idea that you find appalling, then you are also unable to to defeat those who do defend it.

It is called seeing both sides of the argument, and there are quite a few that really need to take up the practice.

I never said I had any proof and that was never an issue. It was just an example, for the sake of argument. — Aleksander Kvam

But for the sake of the argument to be valid one would have to know his contributions so as to remove them from the equation. As you say there is no proof of his existence so we have to assume that he has no influence on things.

what would be left then offcourse would just be us humans. No higher entities. — Aleksander Kvam

So there is your answer, we would do just what we are doing now.

Quality is one of the attributes of an object, either concrete or abstract, that is used to judge its worth.

"If, in this hypothesis, god didnt exist, how would mankind as a whole decide what is wrong and what is right? moral or immoral?" — Aleksander Kvam

Before anyone can answer this, you have to prove that he does exist so that we can then take him out of the picture and see what is left.
Where is your proof?

Yes, and we both agree they shouldn't do that I presume. — Baden

Yup.

But I would still like to know why it does happen.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6048759/Riot-police-use-water-cannons-tear-gas-thousands-expat-Romanians-protest-Bucharest.html

Reading just the headline made me wonder. If £4billion were sent home by these people in one year,
do British people have a case for being pissed of at foreigners. Would it not be common sense to be angry about that money leaving.

Is it part of human nature to be racist, sexist, and what ever else you can think of to discriminate against?
Would better education and implementing laws against these acts really do anything to help. They certainly don't seem to have done much so far.

None of those are politicians and especially not politicians in power. — Baden

But some of them are officials that represent the government. I was once discriminated against for being British. Back in the late 60's I went to Guatemala and they were refusing to let "that fucking English whores son" out of the airport. Apparently they had believed that Belize should be returned to them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belizean%E2%80%93Guatemalan_territorial_dispute
20th century to 1975

It's mostly common sense isn't it? — Baden

If that were true then racist comments would not exist. On both sides.

Lol what year is it? — Maw

You don't have a calendar on your computer? :wink:

If you're a comedian, yes, because it's your job to make jokes. If you're a politician, no, because it's your job to be neutral about religious affiliation except in policy terms. — Baden

Yes I guess context has a lot to do with it.

houting "haha, look at those idiots, they look like letterboxes" is protected by free speech, yes, but free speech isn't the same as appropriate speech. — Baden

Who decides on the appropriateness of these things? Another article about the same topic had a lot of comments from people that agreed with him. Some even mentioned treatment given to them when they visited muslim countries and even muslim run areas of cities. They did not seem worried about insulting other religions.
I know that it is probably only a minority of the people that do these insulting things on both sides, but why chastise one side and not the other?

And banishing moronic politicians like Boris Johnson for being opportunistic twats using inappropriate speech is a protected right of the PM. I hope she does so. — Baden

There will always be others to replace him, and some of them will be worse.

So who do you think is right?

Should people be allowed to laugh at religion?

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6990648/rowan-atkinson-religious-satire-brendan-oneill-opinion/

I think that we have the right to laugh at anything we want to, what ever makes us laugh.
But should we really make fun, tell jokes about other peoples way of thinking?
Not being religious, I find a lot of religious jokes funny. But why is it that Jews laugh at gentile jokes, christians laugh at muslim jokes and muslim laugh at ................ wait a minute, what do muslims joke about?

Straight out of the "demonizing stereotypes for use by right-wing morons" playbook. :roll: — Sapientia

Asking a simple question is not and never will be demonizing. And I am neither right nor left wing anything, I leave those petty nuances to the humble minded. All politicians for me are the same. So next time read the whole post or stop taking things out of context.

Are the other peoples lives in need of bettering because they don't want to work, or because they have so many kids that they have to stay home and look after them.
Would it be moral to give money to both? — Sir2u

What I am really surprised about is that you failed to call me out on the mistakes, are you getting sloppy in your old age?

Let me point them out for you.
Apostrophe missing.
Are the other people's lives in need of bettering because they don't want to work, or because they have so many kids that they have to stay home and look after them? Question mark missing.

Or maybe you don't want to mention my mistakes because then you would have to mention other people's mistakes as well.

starving children dosent want the bible, they want water, leave the bible at home. — Aleksander Kvam

Don't worry. He could benefit from taking a leaf out of your book. — Sapientia

Yeah really, right on man.

Good night ladies and gentlemen, you too Sapientia.

Sleep tight everyone.

Isn't that irrelevant? — Posty McPostface

Not if it is someone of them that is asking you for money. Would you really give someone money if you thought that they did not deserve it. If you had plenty, maybe. But not many of us have plenty to be giving away.

Besides, if one were to address the issue of people scrounging off of welfare, then that's a small minority, I think. — Posty McPostface

It is basically the same thing as asking a stranger for money, only they have to fill in forms. Is it moral for them to do so? Are they in need because not enough people have expanded spheres of interest?

Long time ago I work for one of those British charities here. I saddened me to see the scandals that are coming out of the dark places and eating away at the good they did.

But there is hardly a day passes when there is not another scandal from the churches (all inclusive) coming to light.

That's not what I asked. I asked how you can be satisfied with things as they are, which is one way of interpreting your remark that you're not sure whether there is more to be done. — Sapientia

Now that I know what you are talking about.

The current state of things in terms relevant to what we're discussing - politically, ethically, economically, socially, culturally. The status quo. — Sapientia

I have not stated that I am in anyway satisfied with any of the situations you stated here. I am not even discussing those topics. We are talking about the morality of giving money to people that are unknown to us as opposed to giving it to those we know.

That suggests that you believe that there are people who need help. So, why did you say that you're not sure whether there is more to be done? — Sapientia

No it does not suggest any such thing. It states that I help the people that I know need help. It implies nothing at all about people I don't know except that I do not know if there is anything I can do to help them.

Do you honestly believe that that would be such an outlandish expectation? There is probably data out there, and this is a philosophy forum after all. — Sapientia

So if you are interested in anything more that anecdotal evidence why don't you provide us with some.

Of course it could be called evidence. It would be evidence. What are you talking about? And the relevant point would obviously be whether or not most people help others to the extent that they are able. — Sapientia

So which was the statement I made that required the evidence you said I gave?

Ah. I wondered how long it would take before you resorted to that level of response. Better cut it off here then. — Sapientia

If you don't like honest, that sucks. Get used to it.

starving children dosent want the bible, they want water, leave the bible at home. — Aleksander Kvam

So why did you quote from it then? :worry:

Given a utilitarian rationale, yes. If the money is spent on bettering the lives of other people, instead of starting wars or such. — Posty McPostface

Are the other peoples lives in need of bettering because they don't want to work, or because they have so many kids that they have to stay home and look after them.
Would it be moral to give money to both?

LOL! The help I received enabled me to go to college and get a well-paying job and pay lots of taxes. — Relativist

You are duly excused then. Feel free to keep on wanking without government handouts. :cool:

And, I think that enlarging one's sphere of interest is a good thing. Seemingly people do agree with this from what posts I gather, perhaps exempt Sir2u. — Posty McPostface

And just where did I say that I was in disagreement with enlarging ones sphere of interest?

I think it's socialism? No? At the very highest of peaks, it's communism, no? — Posty McPostface

And there is the problem with putting political names on things. Everyone automatically looks under their bed.
Both of those systems have been proven to not work well, one more than the other obviously.

Would a functioning society have to fit into one of the niches that have been around for so long?

Are you familiar with the Catholic Worker Movement? — Bitter Crank

No, I have not heard of them before. After looking at their webpage, I find it incredible that all of their branches are in developed counties. Maybe that is why they manage to do some good. I don't know if they work in the third world countries but if they do they are probably not have much success.

I don't like seeing homeless people, and if more welfare would change that for the better, then by all means. — Posty McPostface

Is it morally correct to take more money of the people that work to give to the ones that don't?

How can you reconcile those two seemingly contradictory statements? — Sapientia

In what way do they contradict each other.

Give generously when you can and when, by one's best judgement, the gift will be well used. (When I give a man on the street a dollar, I assume there is a good chance he will buy beer and not invest it in growth stock. Were I in his shoes, I'd buy beer for sure. — Bitter Crank

Best plan, work one on one. Nobody can do things for everyone so why try?

Agreed. What kind of society would that look like, politically? — Posty McPostface

Hang on a minute while I get my crystal ball. Sorry, not even that helps. No idea then. :chin:

There is. How can you be satisfied with things as they are? — Sapientia

Why do I need to widen my sphere of interest? Maybe you situation is better than mine, but I have little to spare and I see no reason to go without so that someone that asks me for money should be obliged.
As I have already stated, I do try to help when it is possible. But why should I go out of my way to do so?

Is this your version of utopia? I hope not. — Sapientia

What is the "this" that you refer to?

But that's anecdotal evidence, so a relatively weak point. And it contradicts my own anecdotal evidence, which effectively means they cancel each other out. — Sapientia

Do you honestly expect me or anyone else to provide any other kind of evidence. I am not even sure it could be called evidence because it is not used to prove any point. But we all know that you use non standard definitions most of the time, so I will just ignore it.

I actually find yours hard to believe, — Sapientia

Who gives a shit what you believe.

which makes me suspect that we're interpreting "the extent that they are able" differently. Maybe your mean instead something more like "the extent that they can live with". — Sapientia

Or maybe you don't understand what I said?

When the situation calls for it, yes. If there were a deadly virus which would wipe out the rest of humanity, and you could easily prevent it, wouldn't you feel obligated to do so? — Sapientia

We were talking about the man asking for money, not some stupid situation invent by a third rate scifi writer.

So tell us, when was the last time you forked out a fiver for some old codger that could not even walk to the corner shop to buy food?

You can send money to the Catholic Worker Movement. They work with the very poor and homeless. — Bitter Crank

They work with them or they work on them?
From what I have seen of those people they probably spend more time fucking them than feeding them.

And I have nothing against the catholic people, it is the goddamned church I cannot stand.

:rofl: I cannot think of anything to say to that. Maybe when the tears dry up. :rofl: