Euthanasia

Post Reply New Topic

You act as if those people are absolute they are not, and many generations before us. They had written material based on what they could understand during their time. We know have more information. There is no perversion or denial of human rights in what I say. It is simply making a collected response based on what we now know.



Reread what I said. I did not say people suicide for entertainment. I said thats something people DONT do. If they did, they would clearly be ignorant of what it means or in an irrational state of mind. The analogy was showing how it is drawn very close to doing suicide as response of one's own body being property and thus they simply do it for the sake of it. I also expressed why Doing it to "ease pain" when considering all variables can also be claimed as an irrational thought, and is definitely not progress.



Actually my arguments that I continued given the previous response were more based on property, not on the house. The house was actually mostly only presented at the very beginning of my reply.

However, If you reread what I said, I already have made note that a human being and a house are not the same. Hence the reason why Property is perhaps not the best term used to define oneself. However, I maintained use of the term Property, in to illustrate the variables in a way other people would not be confused...and in ways that would make the argument as concise as possible.



First...One Both CAN and DOESNT NEED TO note a person's worth based on his contribution to society. If we two people were going to die, and you had to save one person, one who had ensured the creation and development of many aspects of life, and the other person was unable to do more than be a poor laborer, even at his best efforts, saving the life of the first individual will be more beneficial. As a result their is a greater NET WORTH.

However, neither individual is more HUMAN than the other. In fact, I would prefer to exhaust all options attempting to save them BOTH before I let either die. However, in the oddly Inevitable scenario where one person must live and the other must die, than the first individual is worth more.

As I said, not as a human remind you. However, for many other reasons.

Additionally What I argued against suicide is not denying a person a lack of rights based upon contribution, but rather, lack of ever contributing at all. There is NO going back when your dead. There can be no change from that persons perspective. Given that scenario, denying them the ability to allow them to commit the action is a plausible scenario. I am saying that the person committing the suicide is ignorant of all variables.

If they were aware of the variables, and knew how to fix their situation, they would not be committing suicide. This is because they would know how to fix it, and would thus have no reason to give up and commit the suicide. They could relieve their pain AND live.



And as I described, there is a reason why suicide/euthanasia is simply backward and unconventional. My arguments did not present strawman or red herrings as you so assume. At best they did not fully describe the reason why suicide/euthanasia is negative and should not be a viable choice.

The only way I could fully describe in reasoning, would be an extralong paragraph, taken step by step through each logical and algorithmic passage and step and attribute the ideas together in one format.

However, I doubt people would read it, or would still be able to understand it all, and thus would make claims that support their own beliefs against it.

And so I chose to make it long enough to get in all the details, in a way that presented the best quality of detail, without a confusing and longwinded passage.



And I have presented why all scenarios of suicide/euthanasia are essentially no different on the whole, as those special case scenarios.

Suicide/euthanasia is an irrational thought. I presented the conclusions in a step by step format, using some analogies to provide the best understanding.

Hence the reason I say, that suicide is never something that is or should be ANYONES choice. They cannot return from death.

IF they KNEW how to fix their problem...they would not be COMMITTING Suicide. Suicide/euthanasia is an escape based upon ignorance and despair. The despair brought about by the lack of answers and suffering they have endured. And the Ignorance of either seeing no end to their suffering, or being told that it cannot be fixed.

Everything can be fixed. However, we must search for the answers. Suicide is the total opposite of that. And the result is most surely negative on the whole.

Anyways...Since I had seen some of your earlier assertions of what I wrote...I suggest you carefully read what I wrote again, and read it a couple of times to remember it. I sometimes use specific words, but I cannot very well emphasize things with only the buttons on the site. I think you have misunderstood greatly what I wrote given your response.

////////////////////////////
///////////////////////////
//////////////////////////
//////////////////////////

Ok...now to AwesomelyGlorious. I'll try to not go longwinded, but as you've seen I get carried away very easily.



Ya you kind of do...There are people who disagree with evolution, and other sciences. However, it does not change the fact that they are true and valid in the vernacular. In science you don't claim to know what is, but things labeled law or theory, are what you call FACT in the vernacular.

Theories on things such as...the earth is 6000 years old, are not Theories/law in science...so they are not fact. They are Theories in the vernacular, which in other words means opinion/belief, which basically means they hold no grounds as they are.



It would be the same house given the variables attributed to a changing human body. All of the energy/matter present in your body as a baby is different than the energy/matter present there when you are an adult. However, you are still you.

Since you were using that as reasoning to provide your next argument, I have given you adequate reason, as to why the rebuilt house is still the same house, but with different material.

If you choose to say that You are not still you, given my above assumption, than I can agree that the house is the same.

However, remember that if you argue that, than your argument FOR suicide/euthanasia goes out the window, on the idea that if you committed such an act you would take away the human rights of further Yous.

If you can find another scenario, you can attempt to present it, however I doubt you will find an If-then comparison, that can accurately work realistically OR Theoretically beyond these two instances.



No, You can't. You cannot REPLACE a human. Not unless you can rebuild their body...or even moreso their conscience.

And if we are maintaining the above analogy of a house, than both are required. A house rebuilt to its identical appearance given time, requires that the person be rebuilt to their identical foundations given time, in order for it to be an accurate analogy.



Sane is not arbitary. Though we are not perfect we still can arrive at the answers. Universal law can dictate what is sane, without any motive. We can still define sanity...however, we cannot accurately describe what is the Perfect definition of sanity without being flawless and knowing everything.

However, Using logic, we can still tell what IS NOT sane, even though we may not have a concensus on everyone is is sane/not sane and what that means.

Some answers we have, others we do not.

Additionally, people destroying property because of bad memories assosciated with it, are not the same as people killing themselves because of bad memories and suffering. You can rebuild the property. You cannot rebuild the person.

And even under your idea of "replacement"...a replaced item is essentially identical to what disappeared if you get the same item. You cannot replace a person with an identical duplicate. A lot of that also goes out the window when you consider consciousness.

If the consciousness is not the same, than it is not identical, and therefore, not an adequate replacement.



Benefit is not subjective. Benefit is absolute. How one values the benefit is an entirely different story, and could be called subjective. Regardless, it goes back to what I said. If they do not value or see the benefit because of their inability or ignorance, than they should have no problem with someone taking the property from them, to prevent its destruction and reap the benefits.



Lets both not try to have the other run around in circles with Philosophical b******. One can easily define something find that it fits well enough into a description as a moral or ethics, and have it be absolute.

The reason we sometimes have difficulty with morals/ethics, is because we are not omniscient. We must calculate given the data provided. However, while it may be difficult to determine the best answers...we can easily calculate wrong ones. And in doing so create accurate beliefs which we call morals/ethics.

Finding good answers...hard....finding bad ones, extraordinarily easy.

Allowing destruction of an item that person does not care for, if it clearly has benefit, is irrational. Now, with an item they may be able to replace it, unlike a person, however, there is one less of that item in the world. And thus the net benefit has receeded.



You really need to cut up whole logical steps. Its getting annoying trying to describe each thing step by step twenty times.

But regardless...if they see the benefit, than likely they will. If they do, and the destroyer does not care about it or need it, it is only rational that if the outsider desires it, the destroyer makes no effort to stop them from taking it.



All rational action SHOULD be bound by something(not necessarily desire, but something in the least)...we agree. Which is exactly my reason, why if given the scenario that a person were to destroy something for a reason outside of that paradigm it would be irrational. I don't pretend to know what ALL people do. SImply to state that acting outside of the paradigm is irrational, therefore unprogressive, and therefore should be denied if someone chooses to deny it.

We do have access to moral truth, we simply are not advanced enough to know every variable, or be omniscient on the subject.

Universal law, and everything therein as pertains to logic, is where that truth is located. The reasons we have disagreeing opinions and make mistakes is because we don't know everything. If we did we wouldn't make mistakes.

However, as I said, although I don't presume to know the best answer, or even a good answer, I can most certainly prove a WRONG one.



If you had pictures of a relative in playboy magazine and want them burn, there is a possibly beneficial reason for doing so. That reason is to protect the integrity of that relative. So that they would not be harassed by shady or ignorant persons.

Suicide does not benefit the integrity of your relatives. That would be the most idiotic and irrational reason for suicide ever...and Im not even sure how you would arrive at such a twisted example.

The closest I can presume is japanese seppuku when they have "supposedly" embarassed their superiors. However, that is STILL not the same thing, and was done out of ignorance and inability to understand that seppuku was foolish in the first place. Other reasons are already bad enough, but Shame or embarrassment as means for suicide is even more irrational.



Um yea...actually all desire is in effect rational. As long as we are only arguing on the basis of the desire alone. Desire like other things is a heuristic element meant to drive and motivate a species. Given what was before, the development process involving it, was most successful. Hence the reason people desire. It is more certainly rational.

People seek to live for many number of reasons. It may end in death, but that does not make their life pointless. Unless they did absolutely nothing and died on day 1 they would have caused change to SOMETHING. Even developing in the womb causes change. so they still would've impacted the world.



Society is a collaboration and seeks to progress human existence.

Choice and ownership are two entirely different things. Even if you do not own oneself, you still have choice. And even if you do not own yourself, that is not the same as being unhappy. One could be a slave and happy.

In fact, you are a slave. Everyone is. There are forces stronger than us, that have ownership over us. That fact we cannot change. We are NOT completely free. We never CAN BE.

THe laws of the universe hold ownership over us. WE cannot break above logic and exceed it. We are bound by the logic of what is in place.

Given that, we are never truly free. The best we can do, is use all the variables presented to us to progress to our greatest heights.



See above...Pure mode of desire is perfectly rational.



Um...continued existence causes continued UTILITY. Disutility requires Death. Hence the reason DEATH IS A PROBLEM. One that I have mentioned before...YOU CANT COME BACK FROM. When you die, you cannot contribute, and therefore can utilize nothing.

However, we have both agreed that utility seeking is the proper behavior of rational men.



Life may SEEM negative to you, given what your presented. However, being alive allows you do provide change, and thus the ability to do progress. Positive and negative are not weighed by an individual perspective, but rather absolutes. When you weight everything together and how everyone and every atom of the universe is effective, that determines the absolute.

Death, given the circumstances, will almost certainly be negative. A positive death when assuming all variables...either does not exist, or is so extremely rare, that it could be considered null.

Progress is what the universe enforces through evolution. Even if the human race were to die today, it would continue until something exceeding past where we were. Progress and transformation are the very foundation of our reality.

And the more progress one attains, the higher the quality of life(which is a form of progress), will rise. Hence people will be happier. Regardless of if people are aware of it or not.

Egoistic, is simply a human's attempt at maintaining ignorance of absolutes. Regardless of what you believe, absolutes are how the universe operates. You might choose not to see it, but all things happen for a purpose, and will continue to.

You are claiming absolutism on your ideas...because you do not see a good answer. Given our level of progress, it could possibly benefit you. However, it does not change the fact that there are TRUE absolutes out there, that people do not know about, or choose not to see.



Hence the point of why choosing such a method is an irrational thought. If you review what I said previously, down to this point and quote I attributed earlier, and analyze it, you will see the bigger picture.

If they are dead, the fact they felt pain does NOT matter. The Pain they felt CAUSED them, the irrational thought of suicide. If they could have the feeling of death, while retaining consciousness, they could more accurately understand why it is something they should NOT attempt.

This is why suicide should not be viable.

I see now why you don't consolidate your posts.

Please forgive my misinterperating your posts. I shall merely declare that I disagree, and leave my first post to this thread as my sole contribution to it.

He acts as if those people are good scholars and worthy to listen to. How do we have *more* information on moral theory? We hardly have a lot of improvement and our society is still based upon enlightenment principles as are most of the societies of the rest of the developed world. We have additional arguments by Nozick and Rawls perhaps, but still Bastiat and Locke are more modern thinkers and still referenced.

I disagree, it is the perfect way to establish a relationship of power and authority over an object, and is essential for defining anything.

And what if the latter one, the "less beneficial" one, was your child. Wouldn't this be somewhat different? What if you simply liked the latter a lot better? I still think it is subjective.


Worth more only is useful if you are evaluating something. If I am the appraiser then I may place whatever price I want on whomever or whatever I want as value is inherently subjective and not objective.


We're all ignorant of all of the variables, but we all are allowed to make choices.


Possibly so, but they still can make choices on whatever they want, as nobody knows all of the variables.

Don't present things with anal amounts of detail and learn to shorten your writings. It is a simple skill, and you'll need it.


Rationality in human action is a self-aggrandizing lie.
And when you say should, you refer back to moral truth. Can you prove that moral truth even exists? No. Therefore, how can you prove that suicide is morally wrong?


I assuredly don't have to trump that 1+1=3, now do I? Laws are facts, theories aren't, but rather good estimations, as there are competing theories in most areas.


Well, technically, as you stated. Science doesn't assert what facts are, however, if one proposed a 6000 year old earth theory based upon a really old book without much proof then I don't really have to trump it because the means to establish the claim is already seen as illegitimate. 6000 year old earth is hardly a theory, it is a belief.

It would not be the same house because it literally isn't the same house. It could be a very good approximation to that same house, but it would not be the same house. Continuity in the human being is a more complex thing than what you give it, and it is not that essential of a thing either, as in both cases a structure was lost and in both cases a structure can be replaced.

I disagree with your reasoning. I assert that human beings can be replaced.

Nope, I am still me due to continuity. If I were cloned and my clone were given all of the same attributes, and even if it was after my death and everything, then that clone would not be me because of the lack of continuity.

I don't believe in human rights, I believe in property. If I dispose of future mes according to my self-ownership then that is what I do.

Yes you can. You don't have to rebuild them or their conscience, you just have to get a being to fill their position.

Sane is arbitrary. No, universal law cannot, as there are not universal laws that we have direct access to, in order to determine how beings ought to act. I say that we cannot define sanity.

I disagree with both. How do we know sane? How do we know insane? We have no absolute means of telling how a being ought to act or how they ought not to act, therefore I say that sanity is a social construct. You can assert whatever you want, but how can you prove that your basis of measurement is not subjectively chosen?

You may not necessarily be able to rebuild the item destroyed. If I destroy an heirloom, a wedding dress, or anything like that then I cannot get that item back. Not only that, but I still don't think that something not being restorable even MATTERS. You assert it does, I say that the claim is baseless as restoration has nothing to do with ownership.

Nothing is identical, and frankly, adequate is subjective. It does not matter if we have the same individual back.

Benefit is subjective, there may be absolute elements to benefit such as mental reactions, but benefit itself is subjective. No, they your assertion of "should" is stupid and only self-serving.


I completely and totally disagree with that statement and no definition of yours of good or moral or ethical will sate me. We do not know, and we CANNOT know, and therefore anything you say is nonsense.

It is not an issue of calculation. There is NO data. As David Hume wrote: "In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remark'd, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary ways of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when all of a sudden I am surpriz'd to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, 'tis necessary that it shou'd be observ'd and explain'd; and at the same time that a reason should be given; for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it."

Both are impossible.


Why? If we define this item as the other person's item then it is totally rational. That item belongs to them, intruding upon that would be going against the rule set up. Net benefit is not something I care about, once again, a social definition of rights being imposed upon the problem.

Your posts are too long and your logical processes are too annoying. I take it chunk by chunk as most of the time there is nothing gained through your additional words.

No, because the destroyer desires it to be destroyed. It is irrational for him to cede his desires to another being. We can argue that the desire for destruction is irrational, but rationality in desire is a stupid concept prone only to self-serving concepts, especially given that all of these truth based assertions are baseless.


Well, rational actions must follow from something and the most rational thing I can think of *is* desire, as otherwise we merely impose values based upon our desires.

No, we know no variables.

But most of the knowledge is beyond our reach anyway, in economic analysis for example we have the division of positive and normative economics, where positive economics is merely facts, and normative is judgment. The two aren't the same because facts are different than judgment, as the latter requires moral ideas and moral ideas are beyond the reach of knowledge.

I disagree, you can't prove a wrong one.

Actually, some evolutionary biologists think that suicide arose for the reason of benefiting the integrity of one's relatives. http://www.a1b2c3.com/suilodge/facstu1.htm Do a search for evolutionary and you'll find that theory, it should be somewhat below the middle of the page.

But driving and motivating a species doesn't matter to the individual in the species. Very few people live in a strictly Darwinian manner. Also, if all desire is rational then how can we call any desire irrational.

But why does impacting the world matter? I'd argue that there is no inherent reason why we should say it matters.
Society is a construct and a rather unimportant one.

No, if you don't own yourself then the choice is illegitimate as others are meant to choose for you and will force you into their choices. Like I said, I don't care much about a Sartrean definition of freedom in a discussion of liberty, it is sort of stupid and disingenuous. Also, happiness is really not what I am aiming at, I don't care about happiness.


Um..... no. Nonsensical statements and ultimately just sophistry.

No, disutility does not require death. Continued existence is perceived by suicidal individuals as causing disutility. Utilizing things is not important, nor is contributing, what matters is living or dying by your choices.

Not exactly, as we are defining the terms differently. I'd argue that utility seeking is not the "proper behavior" but rather IS the behavior, and argue that utility seeking is expressed by fulfilling ones desires, including suicide, including religion, including all things egoistic and altruistic.


Um.... so? Change and progress don't have inherent meaning, heck, progress is only highly trumpeted by you because it is a god term within our society.

Yeah, you are now getting religious. The universe enforces nothing. Evolution IS not anything so anthropomorphic. Not only that, but there is no reason why another highly intelligent species would pop up, we really aren't that important. Progress is not a foundation, as progress means positive change. The universe changes, and that is all. Entropy can be seen as progress but most see it as negative.

Ok, I still disagree. Especially given that we are operating on the assumption that suicide must be bad.

People have bodies, people have choices with their bodies, people should be able to choose without the morality of others forced upon them, therefore suicide.

Seems to me the basic assumption here is that living is good and dying is not.

To the best of my knowledge... everyone dies... eventually.
So when and how someone dies is just a variable that can be changed by a great many factors.

To argue that suicide is selfish is to say that we owe other people our continued existence.

To argue that suicide is an end and death should be avoided at all costs is to assume that there is something wrong with dying, even though we know it will happen no matter what we do.

Arguments about one's sanity and ability to make rational decisions whether to live or die will never be absolutely proven one way or another.

I believe that on an individual level, a person has the inherent right to decide when and how they will die... be it suicide or natural causes. Accidental death would be one defined as being out of their control.

The argument against suicide and euthanasia comes from two kinds fo people... the one's left behind when a person dies, and persons who attempt suicide - fail - then change their mind about dying.

The people left behind take the position that they know that living is better than dying... even when they could not possibly know this. It may be the fear of the unkown, or a selfish interest in keeping a loved one alive, that drives their feelings.

The person who attempts suicide but fails and then is glad they did not succeed does not become the spokesperson for anyone contemplating suicide, yet our societies use them as such (or they do this themselves sometimes).

Oh that I had your temperance and theory of mind awesomelyglorious.

And if only I had a duck avatar. Frankly, I regret my stubbornness, each post I read is a few pages long, if only I were given simple syllogisms so that I could say "I disagree with premise 3!" or some such.

lol... the duck is mine! squeek SQUEEK!

As for the rest of it.. it's a shame we don't disagree more. I'm sick and tired of trying to decipher long and complex and inherently complex posts. I should just leave that up to you in future.

I seem to always get it wrong, and even when I get it right they person seems to be able to think they can get away with "oh, I didn't mean it like that" and then invent another meaning for the words they have spoken. I know my theory of mind sucks and I have a great deal of troubles looking at a problem from other people's perspectives. Which is why I think I sometimes come across as a complete arse in this subforum. But it's always nice reading your posts because while I disagree with some basic premises of yours... at least your premises remain constant. This Hero is like trying to debate "snake(numbers)" Anyhow... you should probably get back to this right to life business.


EDIT: I mean that "right to life" as in "the right to own (and dispose) of that life" rather than the "right to have someone else force you to live"

I would not call his post complex. I suppose it is complex, but the ideas he references seem rather simple. He distrusts old Enlightenment liberals and dislikes our obsession with their values. He refers to progress as if it is inherently good and calls things irrational if he dislikes them. He tends to think of reality as a huge math problem with missing variables and thus is rigidly rationalistic. He regards all human values from a communal perspective and thus when we say as methodological individualists "why not?" his question will start off as "why?". He thinks very highly of his intelligence and analytical ability when most of what he does is he uses terms very literally or unusually in some form or fashion and invokes his own odd philosophy. His English seems odd, like either a foreigner, a younger individual or someone with odder issues, which could explain why his philosophy seems unusual. I think he is most likely a young person though given his cockiness and insulting nature, and the fact that odd political leanings are common at that age and he seems to have an odd political leaning. He tends to hold to a view of choice which could be described as Sartrean, in that freedom can never diminish from his view, he likely uses this idea to argue that less free societies are not actually less free, and it seems a dead give away that he hates liberal ideas of society. Seems to be a utilitarian with a worship for "progress". And that is only what I got from just one of his major posts, other posts he seems to express a deference for some universal rules.


He has his own theory of mind problems from what I can tell, and really, "oh, I didn't mean it like that." is simply a problem to be found on the internet. Heck, I've said "oh, I didn't mean it like that" a few times before, mostly if I run into something I consider an improper interpretation. I probably have my own theory of mind problems as I know that there are some thinkers I have major problems in debating as even though I don't think that I am wrong, neither side can really effectively communicate with the other. Thanks, I am glad that my premises remain relatively constant. I think our major disagreements might end up being on the meaning of objective reality and on moral truth as I know you are an objectivist, but I end up seeming rather skeptical on both of those issues.

I figured as such. I didn't think you were talking about abortions.

Sorry to sound so incoherent and raw earlier. I think I was having an acute allergic reaction to the cetylpyridinium chloride in that mouthwash. I'm not using that stuff anymore, oy! My tongue was swelled-up as a football bat!

Anyway, I think that the key to this issue is to actually try to get past the idea of "self-ownership" and take this to a deeper level. The question we should ask is not whether or not a person should die, but why a person lives. What is it that causes us to value the lives of ourselves and others? What is it that compels us to preserve it? When we can answer this question clearly and succinctly, then it shouldn't be difficult to answer the question as to when or whether someone has a "right to die."

wow... you have a great depth of analysis. I tend to just see posts as much more simplistic. I analyse posts more to the following:

"If I accepted this as true, what would it mean to/for me?"

Then: What is the Metaphysical Premise?
Then: What is the Epistemological Premise?
Then: What is the Ethical Premise?
Then I start by answering the metaphysical.

I don't even think (or think to think) of half the stuff you just labeled.

So when I say your premises remain constant that is how I mean them. I have seen you argue a few different sides at times but your underlying premises remain the same. You'd make a good objectivists lol

Why get past that? Frankly, that deeper question is specifically the one I'm trying to avoid, the reason being that there is no knowable correct answer. I mean, I could say personal preferences easily and go along just fine with that simply going in line with my tendency to post as a moral skeptic, but others might invoke some more higher moral construct, and once we go into morality then we lose any ability to speak of things we can know and it is this icky complicated mess where the question cannot be answered clearly or succinctly.

The reason that I pose the question, though, is that the matter should be entirely elective if we seriously can't think of any particular reason that a person should live. It should be either socially arbitrated or a matter of individual choice.

To be perfectly honest, why give people an individual choice in the matter? If there is really no universal moral skeletal structure within which to make such decisions, then it is all as well to force one decision or another upon someone. The one thing that libertarians never consider about morality is that strong concepts of "liberty" are still a brand of moralizing. It just isn't traditionally acknowledged as such. Libertarians are just as determined as any other politically active group to go about "legislating morality."

I'm certainly pro-choice in all but a slim few respects, but I think that we should take a broader view of what we deem to consist of "morality" or "moralizing." After all, the conflict between conservatism and liberalism is no more than two moral paradigms at war. One just doesn't call itself such.

I do point by point analyses as multipoint posts seem too common.


Most of these are just observations from trying to do a point by point analysis on what he types. It really just boils down to a different type of analysis.

I'd think I'd make a pretty good objectivist too. I know I can accept a lot of their ideas, but I also know I don't really agree with their solution to the is-ought problem though. If they ignored the is-ought problem or had different foundations for their meta-ethics then I might like 'em more. They really should have avoided the questions and followed Max Stirner's somewhat existential path or explained action using Austrian praxeology(though in all fairness, Austrian praxeology was developed around the same time as her philosophy).

Well, the question will fall down to it being socially arbitrated or a matter of individual choice, the problem is that we can't necessarily prove the value of either.


Ah, there is a difference. There is no *known* universal moral structure. Sure, liberty is a moral idea. The logic really ends up going, there is no known higher universal authority, I want less coercion for my life, and you don't have a good reason to coerce me anyway, so therefore, I should be given the right over my life, you should be given the right over your life, and we all will have less to fight over in terms of who must live and who must die, as we have decentralized the decision making and thus less of a moral dilemma. Not only that, but we have more ability to all pursue the unknown good.

Ok, I recognize that.

I am perfectly fine with voluntary euthanasia for the terminally ill. I am, however, totally opposed to INVOLUNTARY euthanasia. Also, I have a strong distaste for perfectly healthy people committing suicide, I consider it a form of cowardice and almost always associated with depression and thus the person committing suicide is usually not in their right mind.

Ok...There have been way to many passages...also awesomelyglorious, it would be a lot simpler in that original continued paragraph if you had simply answered in my response to you, not the entire thing, and Izaak to his. Since they are taken from different perspectives it makes things a LOT easier.

--------------------------------------

You must weigh ALL variables. ALso, I was giving simple variables in the description, to make it easier to understand.

Either way it is not subjective in truth. One of the people will still pose a greater net worth than their other. However, to KNOW the truth, you must weigh every variable assosciated with the individuals.

If you lossed your friend or child, you would definitely FEEL bad. However, it doesn't change the absolute. It just sucks for you, but would still be beneficial on the whole.



That is because we don't know everything. It doesn't change the fact that THERE ARE absolutes. Whether or not we KNOW everything has nothing to do with it.

You may than ask "Why attempt to evaluate all variables?"

Well, the more variables you throw in, the better and more accurate answer you arrive at, when they are evaluated.



Detail is a good thing. Most of the greatest written material we have documented has come in the form of books, which requires much detail and writing. As a result I prefer to add more detail when possible.



I know the universe is made up of absolutes. I know therefore, that there is a best answer for all situations.

If you apply various laws of the universe to how humans act. And which of those humans have most benefit. And call that morals/ethics. Than moral truth does exist.

If you are going to apply morals as in a sense of "hey this color/shape/item, looks cooler", IE in a subjective sense where their are no true variables, than I simply do not care.

Such items mean little to nothing to me. I can choose to say something is cool or not at any time. It would have no merit.

As a result, I will only use the objective model. Using the objective model, allows me to argue under the constructs and models of math, logic, and science. One should not be using those constructs in the other subjective sense. It would be pointless to do.



We attribute Theory in science to mean "fact" in the vernacular.

The Law of Gravity is still a THEORY in science. The difference is that it was a Theory that was accurate on and on and on and on and on...etc.

However, Using Newton's model, we were only correct with the simple variables on the situation of the planet.

As we had more quantum models...Newton's law showed to be not accurate in all cases. So a more elaborate model was introduced that could be correct in both cases.

However, we generally will still use Newton's model in reference to our planet. And we use the other more accurate model, when necessary and the other is too inaccurate.

If we knew all the variables in reference to gravity than we could make a perfect model of gravity. It would not be what you call "an estimate." It would work in all cases. And there IS a perfect model. We simply do not know it, so we work with what we have.



I only really need this part of that paragraph to answer this.

If you read that quote you took of my own, carefully overlook the wording.

"It would be the same house GIVEN THE VARIABLES attributed to the Changing human body."

To understand that, you than have to go back to yet even the more previous response.

It was an analogy. It basicaly went like this:

X=a+b
Y=a+b

Therefore X=a+b=Y...therefore X=Y.

If you are attributing that model, it was the same house. However I described both that model, and had stated earlier that a house and human are not the same.

You are either trying to win favor, by hiding this from others, or simply chose to overlook that. If you cannot remember what I had written previously, go back to what I had written before as I have implied. (For example, right now).

When you do, take all the information, and make sure to attribute the elaboration, to the models they reference.

If you do not, you will not acquire the whole arguments presented, and will continue to overlook elements.



Which to that quote, and a few others, I see above. I had already answered this. And I said "GIVEN my above assumption." I had already described multiple possible models in my previous writtings. The point of having multiple models, was to show that in all cases...it did not matter. The absolutes were still present in them.



That would not be an adequate replacement. If you want to argue well "its still a replacement". It is more addition to an argument that is not necessary.

For example, if your child died, and you had another child...the new child would not be an adequate replacement. Replacement in the whole nature of the word maybe...but thats pointless to the argument of positive or negative outcome.

Losing the first child is negative. Only by having the first child remain alive, can those negative attributes never come into existence.



We have access to them. However, we do not know them all...there is a difference. Therefore we can define sanity, if we base it on universal law...however, to attain the True Definition we must know all the variables.



I am only concerned with the absolutes one could call benefit. Have you not realized this. Whether or not there are subjective elements one could name benefit, means nothing. As those elements would not matter. And so we would disregard them and not talk about them.

The absolute "benefits" are the only thing that matters. Subjective ones do not.

For example...you may want something. However, if someone prevented you from having it for a logical reason(assuming its one of those absolutes we are talking about)...than Tough S*** for you.

Likewise, if it happens to me. I may try to acquire it. I may try to go behind their back. I may try to steal it(Im not saying I would steal...im just saying its a possible Choice), I may try any number of things.

However if I do not acquire it. Tough S*** for me. There was an absolute reason I should not have it. It is a good thing therefore, that I do not. I may not realize it until later...or at all during my life, but the absolute logic behind it, would be the reason.



We do not know what the true answers necessarily are...however we CAN know. There is no CANNOT know. You can define and know everything. However, no one in our present time has that capacity.



I don't mean to cut up that paragraph to only this statement, but you should realize how foolish that sounds. Everything is data. And there are absolutes that govern the rest of the universe. It is how it is, and always will be.



Reread the paragraph. IF they do not CARE about it, or NEED it...there is NO F***ing desire. Desire requires that you care or need it in some way. Since that person in question had neither, than they given the condition, they should not be stopping the outsider from taking the item, and preventing its destruction.



Wow...Here are a few.

1+1 = X.

X cannot equal 3 therefore.

If you plug in 3 for X, than 1+1=3 is wrong. There it is. EASY.

One step....you plug in a number. Its easy to prove its wrong.

Proving it right requires you to do steps. Luckily in this case it is only one step.

1+1 = X -> 1+1 = 2, Therefore 2 = X.

In that model, we know actualy have the absolute model for 1+1=X...and can easily show which numbers arent wrong.

The more variables you throw in...the harder it is to find the unknown variables. However, when you understanding the workings of the method you can find the absolute answers and models.

If you have X=Y...a case with two unknowns, you do a process to find right and wrong as well.

We could make an analogy that the current cases argued...are the same as now. However, There would be MANY MANY more variables involved. But this is simplicities sake.

X= Y...we could say X=2...and Y =5....if we plug those numbers in. 2=5 is what we get.

2 cannot equal 5. 2 is 2 and only 2. 5 is 5 and only 5. 5 is not 4,3,2 or 1. or any other number for that matter.

As a result, we can say that the values we attributed were wrong.

We can say that OBJECTIVELY...not subjectively.



I want go reading into it...but I'm assuming it will try to explain about methods similar to seppuku?

I will still repeat my comment of it being the most idiotic and irrational reason for suicide ever. And as you saw, I did describe about such things. However, have said that they are for reasons that are more complex than simply integrity, but used integrity as the means to make claims for their pain and suffering, somewhere.



I never said desire was irrational. You had made that claim on several occasions.

And I said "As long as we are arguing for the basis of desire alone."

This means that desire can lead to us to do irrational things. However, Desire as a mode is in itself a rational concept.



Evolution and progress. One could say there is no subjective meaning to Impacting the world. Since people die through some means anyway. However, I don't care for subjectivity. Presenting subjectivity, or any theory of subjectivity in a debate, is idiotic in the first place.

People do it all the time. It is best to only apply the objective comments that you could manipulate as variables. Things that go back to science and math.

In fact, even using sources, is mostly a bad idea. It helps make other people BELIEVE...however, it has no bearing on a rational argument. Not unless those sources lack conclusion. Or unless we could honestly say we knew everything responding to that idea, and its perfect model(for example the model of 1+1=X, is a perfected model for its simple idea.) If sources showed only a model, or experiment, and showed the data or results; Than that is fine. Or if you are using it to think about things from a different perspective, to help draw new ideas, and possibly discover variables.



Ownership and choice are not mutually exclusive. We have had a similar debate in another thread.

Also...using the most base definition of freedom is the best and only way to be purely objective. Using any other model besides the most base of definitions, will create a gray model.

Science and math are defined through blacks and whites. They have many gray variables, but their foundations are set in stone.

As a result, using individual, social, environmental..etc concepts to prove anything, if they are themselves not using only black and white foundations, and based upon the most basic foundations and definitions are illogical and pointless.

Doing so would be no better than saying "Im better than you. Your not better than me." etc.

If you want to debate about something, if I choose to bring the debate into something of the objective nature, than do not ignore it.

Given the comments and ideas you have presented, I am assuming that you may have difficulty with complex systems under this construction, . If you think you are capable, but choose not to go there for another reason, than understand that I argue in the black and white because it allows for total objectivity.

If you debate using social models, and more gray material...than fine. However, understand, that when Debating I tend to shun away from that, because it becomes more subjective and pointless.

I use black and white models...because if you prove something wrong in the black and white models...than it doesn't matter in what form you describe things or debate them. It it will be incorrect no matter what.

All models are founded upon the most base model. That is why I will try to attack the foundations first. If I can collapse the foundation, than the whole theory is incorrect. However, if the foundation withstands the attack...than I will start testing the variables present in the theory.

That method of applying the theory again and again and again, is the same model followed in science.

Now, that got a little bit off topic, because that is neither here nor there, in regards to the debate of suicide/euthanasia. However, since you made mention of how I go about my debates, understand why I use the methods I do.



Than you are not using the greater Term utility. You are defining only individuals perception of utility. Something that when compared to All variables, really hardly matters.

Additionally...I find it strange that you would include altruism. Given your other presentations. Also, considering the topic in which it is presented. Suicide will not be altruistic in the end. Committing an act that causes harm to others, would be selfish, not altruistic. Altruism, would be remaining alive for the sake of others.



Change and progress do have inherent meaning if we DEFINE them.

Progress that I am trying to describe, is not the same as the progress so highly trumpeted in our society. I think you would have realized that by now.

In a possibly summarized simplified term, I define Progress as "Positive or Beneficial Advancement in any manner or form given all variables presented."

The full definition Would likely be read much much longer. I highly doubt that your average citizen defines progress in such a way. They tend to loosely throw it about, either to gain support and approval socially...or as a regards to their own perspective.



The universe is everything. All absolutes lie within. It also has laws, that we cannot exceed, and therefore are enforced.

That is not arguing in a religious context. Gravity, electromagnetism, quantum physics, heat, etc. We have models(all of which are currently incomplete) of all these things, and they are bound by absolutes.

Understanding and faith are too entirely seperate things. I do not care whether someone has faith or no faith in anything. They simply must understand.

---------------------------




To slip in quick:(Izaak)



I think you will find everyone's premises have remained constant. People are disagreeing here, so they will latch to those belief they agree with.

The reason you may have difficulty understanding where I am coming from is because I am not here to introduce a working model. I am here to get rid of models that do not work. Basically I am not introducing my opinion on the subject. I have yet to actually Introduce it at all.

I don't plan to introduce my opinion either. The only thing I am trying to do, is disprove a model using purely BLACK and WHITE Objective means, starting from the most basic level...and elaborating upward if necessary.


--------------------------------------
//////////////////////////
-------------------------


----------


Back to you Awesomely Glorious...I may need to chop up a little bit...Just to keep things direct and understood on what Im replying to.



I try to keep them rather simple, even if the passages are longwinded. Simplicity allows the reader to understand the writings to a better degree. Sometimes keeping things in that format however, makes passages massive as you can see.



I do not remember saying anything about dislike, that is neither here nor there. I actually have no opinion on the matter about your obsession with their values.

However, About trust...well its a little different. I Technically do not trust anybody. I am not even sure the concept of trusting oneself, is a possible argument.

I only trust absolutes and objective values.

From another perspective...sometimes people might look at someone like me, and be positive I were atheist.

I am not atheist...I am not anything in regards to religion. I don't care. It does not aid anything answering the Why.

I am interested in Who, What, Where, When, and how. The "WHY" of any question simply gives you an answer you cannot work with. So It is the least of things I care for.

As a result the only religious view one can attribute to me is : NONE

I don't mean to go a little off topic, or even say that you assumed such a thing about me...or that religious view even mattered in this context. However, I thought since you are attempting to define me, and doing a rather poor job of it, that I might as well elaborate and do it myself so you DO know.



Progress under the definition I gave earlier, would be a synonym for what you could than call good.(which would then also make good rigid, and not subjective thought). And I call things irrational if they ARE irrational. Not whether or not like them. I could very well see that a person has good intentions when they ACT, in various scenarios. I might even say that like the fact they cared enough to act on a pure conviction.

However, if it is irrational, than I will not fit it with thick language and make it seem pretty. I will define it for what it is, and what it is alone.



Just a little repitition. But as I said, the question of Why, really doesnt matter to me. It is the other 5 I am interested in. Why, is useless to manipulate.

Why may bring about the THOUGHT of looking into specific item. However, it is who, what, where, when, and how that defines them.



I use terms literally so there can be no questions. If I used them loosely, there would be problems with interpretation based on the individual. I want everyone reading to receive the same premise.

And the only real philosophy I have presented is that "There are absolutes. Objectivity allows us to understand them, and therefore I will use that as method for Truth."

Anything else I have done has been either elaboration, or a step by step cohesive explanation of logic in response to a proposed model.

I never said what the right things were. Simply what the wrong ones were.



I think my language presentation seems odd and at times missing words...because of:

1. Length of replies. It is tiring to spend this much time on a reply.

2. In many models I am using words in a set in stone method. Sometimes as a result, it will get oddly both verbose and repititive. IN SOME CASES...its like speaking math. Using words as variables.

For example,

Y=X-4

If X=4, Than Y=0.
X is the number of people
Y is the number of people on the ground

In english could be stated(if we only want to state the bottom, and not the whole passage):

If there are 4 people sitting on the chairs, than there is no one sitting on the ground.

...(which different than 3 or 5 people. with 3, one chair is open...with 5, one is on the floor. We can than also understand, that the 4 in this scenario also represents the number of chairs present)



There is no intentional insults being thrown my way toward you. Within the other thread(something we don't need to go into depth here), the most insulting candidate was in fact you. At least I meant to be critical and not to harm. You personally threw harmful insults at me, and then admitted to doing it.

The only political leaning I would agree to, to define me is moderate. However, the problem with this, is it may not necessarily fit the description given today's criteria.

By moderate I mean...is I choose not to have an opinion or allow it to be ever changing, until I have all variables presented to me.(or at least so many as the decision one could gather from it, appears to be the MOST correct).

However, if you would like to know my background. The majority of my family was and still is actually liberal.

However, I would prefer to scrap all political ties and the current political cockfight going around.

So if you want one of the few OPINIONS about me, that I have ever presented in either of these debates:

I would LIKE to see the faction based system, of both the thoughts of (liberal, moderate, conservative .....and any ideas within you could contribute), and (Democrat, independant, Republican, Fascist, etc.), to be done away with entirely.

Than politicians could simply race for their individual merit of ability, intelligence, etc. People would have to choose them for THEM, and not for other reasons.

Notice how I don't mention variables, or try to objectively prove anything. That is an opinion.

I could, given enough time, and assuming I had Most if not all variables presented to me, determine if that would in fact be a good thing. However, I don't want to at the moment or anytime soon. Maybe some day, but not right now.



Actually, I consider the current model of our world, most notably starting with the United states Model, the best model That has been presented as of yet. However, there are still better ways, and refinements must be made.

I don't know the best one, but it is out there. I can only attack or know the wrong ones.

However, in regards to a full society. I would argue, since I use the most basic concepts first and foremost, that a less free society still allows for the same amount of individual choice as other Freer societies, assuming we are not introducing more variables.

For example. Having a physical wall blocking you door sized, on a plain, will not allow for less choice in the end.

Even though you can no longer walk in that direction. The new option of climbing(which was not possible before), is now possible in the new model. So you still maintain the same choice.

However, if you were surrounded on all sides. Such as a prison. You lose Freedom. However, that is given the parameters presented.

Stating that a less free society gives individuals less choice is a logical fallacy.

Only when one assumes and interpret what that means, and all its parameters can one claim if it is or not.

So under only the variables presented. A less free society does not give individuals, less freedom of choice.

If you want to argue different. Present more variables. You will see with more variables, I will elaborate further, and the answer will reflect that.

For example like I did, with the scenario of a prison.



I don't technically fit into any of the current proposed models. The best way you could describe my thought process, is THe absolute Mean(as in average) of the universe.

It differs from the stance of thinkers in moral absolutism(though holds some elements, such as there being absolutes to all, and thus morals), consequentialism, utilitarianism, deontological ethics, and more.

In fact I could probably attribute it in one way or another to all forms of thought present on the board.

As I said before, I would only at best allow others to call me a moderate Independant(since factions are not something I agree to participate in, even if they happen, it is by cause/effect, and not by choice).

However, Moderate indepedant, given the context, would still be attributed incorrectly.

And so I choose to therefore in the end, consider myself nothing more than an Observer. In the entirety of the word.

There is an age old question...would someone want to know every answers or every question?

If I had to choose, it would most certainly and definitely be answers.

However, in truth, if there is leeway, it is both. The questions in this context, are in themselves answers.

As a result, if you knew every answer, you would by default have to know every question.

Otherwise when someone asked you "what is the question, to so-and-so an answer?" You would not know the answer.

And if you were to elaborate, into another realm of question. Such as comparison to a god(if we are assuming the context of there being one).

My answer, is that I would want to be or exceed the boundaries of a God. To do that, I need every answer. Simple as that.



I never said "oh, I didn't mean it like that."

I have said at most "please reread what I have previously said. It is clear you did not understand what was written."

That is not the same thing.

-One is saying the answer is there, and you missed it. (what I said)
-The other is saying any number of things, including "I meant something else, even though I never typed it out." (Izaaks description).

They are two different forms of thought. One is specific(mine), the other is vague(Izaaks)

However, I don't think I need to elaborate further, because you probably are able to understand that easily enough.



-------------------------------------


-------------------------------------


-------------------------------------

I really need to target this, in your comment to Griff:



On MANY occassions. I have said there were absolutes. Griff presented you with very effective passage:

"To be perfectly honest, why give people an individual choice in the matter? If there is really no universal moral skeletal structure within which to make such decisions, then it is all as well to force one decision or another upon someone. The one thing that libertarians never consider about morality is that strong concepts of "liberty" are still a brand of moralizing. It just isn't traditionally acknowledged as such. Libertarians are just as determined as any other politically active group to go about "legislating morality."

To which you had than decided to use logic, of...well the answer to that is no "known".

If you forfeited the case of no "known" and agreed, he would have completely battered in the arguments you had presented in regards to one of your philosophies.

Simply put, the only way to claim his argument of the quote wrong, under the assumption he provided...You had to state that, and imply that there IS a universal Moral structure.

If there is no universal moral structure...than what he says is true. Forcing someone to do something is plausible and acceptable.

However, If there is a universal moral structure(something I have also argued as being true, among other things)....than how come you denied it earlier in regards to what I have said.

You specifically claimed such a thing within one of these two threads to the arguments I had presented.

Thus you are presenting a very inconsistent philosophy, and makes me wonder what your motives are.

Inconsistent with DATA, is one thing. I can easily overlook it. Inconsistent with whole arguments and philosophy is a TOTALLY other thing.