I would say more that energy is a part of God. What I'm referring to in the definition is any potential energy of all of existence. The word for that is Telos. Basically anything that hasn't been created yet, but will eventually come to be in one way or another.

Look I apologize for being rude. You very well might be a nice and helpful human.
But I'm so fucking over your ideology.
It isn't insightful.
It's lazy useless worthless ideology. There are millions of people spouting the same putrid garbage.
Grow the fuck up and take some responsibility.

Fucking lazy hopeless garbage waste.

Do something about it and stop bitching and calling it impossible. Fucking whiner. So annoying.

I don't even have the patience to explain to you how pitiful your perspective is, and how threatening it is to the very biodiversity you pretend to care about

foolish fears

Most will say that's obvious, but few actually attempt to sort out the logistics, often because they find it an impossible task and give up.

I think we solve a lot of problems as soon as we put aside hate and start working better as a unit

we are rare. Where is the other earth? Point to that.

I think if you put this in the dictionary as a definition of god it might help people consider this idea. I've been hearing people say they consider the universe god for decades, and what I'm describing is essentially the same idea, except with an outlook not only on the universe but on the very core of existence itself.

I feel like it helps people relate the traditional definition of God with an outlook that can help them realize they are a part of all of this stuff going on everywhere, and ultimately a part that's important. What use is all of this with nothing to witness it? Nothing to process it and know it is here? We are conscious. We get to experience what existence has formed.

But! I dont know to be honest if that's the best option or if a new word is in order.

so you think human life is unimportant and disposable?

What's the difference between that and slavery? The majority of the planet is succumbed to the toes of this global cast system. What's the difference between slavery, and forfeiting 99% of your production value to 1% of people for rice and a shack? What's the difference? Less whips and hangings and slurs, and more necessity for not dying for opting not to participate at all?

right, and that's the underlying issue. If morality dictates that the choice is morally obvious, then what is the underlying difference between the person who will choose one option over the other? It proposes the question: what is the solution for greed? It proposes the question: is it acceptable to be greedy? It proposes the question: to what extent is it acceptable to be greedy? It proposes the question: what is the core value of human life in the eyes of humanity? What is the percentage of those who share each value, and what effect does this have on society? If the entire planet were to be of the belief that it's their duty to save the man what is the effect of that on society? And the same for the other, the effect if everyone were to be of the belief that they should take the money? What's the effect if this belief is split directly down the middle? The person who will strictly save the man is at a disadvantage in society as compared to the person who will take the money. This is because exploitation is profitable, and profit generates security, but this is only because society has opted to accept exploitation in the first place.

I'm sorry. This is not a very productive writing. Trying to understand greed and trying to find a solution for it that actually resolves it is difficult.

right, the point is self reflection and observation of the reflections of others, and then to consider how that reflects on the nature of humanity.

it is comparable. Take for example those who will claim to spend the money to save more lives. If a huge mass of wealth is merely the precursor to being charitable, then why isn't that already the case? What dollar amount is enough security for an individual to constitute them willing to be charitable? What percentage of what amount is morally acceptable, and are corporations and elites at an ethical responsibility to meet this?

Judaka's issue is that he's already qualified the entire world as similar to him, and so he is in a circular position: the world is cruel and uncharitable, therefore I'll be cruel and uncharitable, therefore adding to the nature of the world, thus proving my position. It's very common, and is the justification of many for taking a selfish approach. It's sort of the precursor for greed. It's the thought that makes greed acceptable in the minds of the greedy.

The problem is that this doesn't just end at the individual level, but it projects into a global phenomenon. Those interested in encouraging the growth of common human welfare are ripe for the exploitation, and often times those who have been exploited accept this as their reasoning to participate in exploitation. People of this nature will consider those who aren't willing to participate in this exploitation weak, when in reality it takes more fortitude not to give into the nature of greed, and to seek the common welfare of life.

Judaka's position may be true, that the majority of people are willing to participate in the exploitation of others for money, but my point is: that doesn't make it right.

Humanity has a lot of potential. Poverty hinders this potential. Greed facilitates poverty.

I havent judged anyone aside from the person being an asshole for the sake of it

not quite. As you can see different people have different views

Like in Jaduka's case where he's obviously just a piece of shit. :up:

Sure there might be a difference between the two, but at the same time the answers here give you an idea of the reasoning behind why one might choose one or the other.

I'm done with you Judaka.

you're awesome lol. I agree with what you've said and it's sad but hilarious

At least I give it an effort while you wallow in piss and shit

Sure I'll just ignore the difficulties society faces and pretend they don't exist. I'll stop searching for resolution just because you are under the impression that I give a flying fuck what you think of me. Ok buddy. :lol:

why dont you just say you're miserable and you have trust issues? save time

both

sorry, by this I meant no details regarding the scenario, such as is the millionaire a crook, is the money dirty, why is the man tied to the tracks etc

I think it's an interesting question, and I think what's even more interesting are the answers, because it's a spectrum, and there isn't a clear cut moral answer that we would all agree on, even in the case that someone's life is on the line. Although the decision might be different in the moment, being that thought would need to be quick, we can still see this spectrum of decisions presented here.

There are those who will choose without question to take the money just to have the money. These people are dedicated to themselves. There's really not much else to say about them.

Then there are people who will save the man. These people are dedicated to ensuring life in it's present form is preserved. That anyone living should have the opportunity to continue to do so.

Then somewhere in between are those who will take the money with the justification of sacrificing life with the intention of preserving more life afterwards. This is the most interesting to me. Compared to the man with a shack and rice, the majority of people here typing on their computers will seem to the man with the shack and rice as fairly abundant, and could surely benefit from even 5% of any of our annual income; to increase their livelihood and to add potential to the survival of themselves and their family, but how many of those answering this question in this way are already willing or are currently seeing this forward? And what amount of money will make someone decide to be charitable? 30k p year? 100? 1million? If so many are so charitable, why does this man have a shack and rice in the first place?

you always have the anti human hot take. So edgy. At least you're consistent I guess

see above replies. You were so sure the "obvious answer" yet here we are

Also... Einstein was definitely a philosopher. Are you daft? :lol:

Sure are spending a lot of time on this attempting to convince me of a moot opinion for someone who could care less.

there arent any additional details because this would change the outline of the circumstances. The question is specifically death or dollars.

because it's a simple way of outlining the root of the issue, and gives the reader the opportunity to consider their decision and compare it to other scenarios.
If observing the question of life vs money is pointless to you, then either you have no moral compass or you're naive to the world and in for a rude awakening.

Let's all just pretend 100m makes you charitable, and that there arent sweatshops across the globe of human beings working for naught but food and shelter. Yeah let's pretend that there's no one starving because money fixes it.

Actually surprised I have to explain this here. Usually a fairly thoughtful group of people

if you're to keen for thought experiments let's just throw relativity out the window while we're at it.

you can certainly apply this principle to common life problems, and in fact we all do on a daily basis in deciding what products and services we use and what paths we take. That's why I've said we have all already answered this question. It's a correlation to the entire global socioeconomic system in a cut and dry simplistic scenario. The choice one would make in this scenario is a reflection of the choice one would make when faced with being rich at the expense of others.

so you opt to neglect the question. I'll take that as no answer

yes, the entire geopolitical socioeconomic system

sounds like you would be surprised of the answers

I think you might be an idiot. No offense.

nonsense