Total Posts:40|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Self-Sacrifie is immoral

suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2013 12:14:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Human sacrifice is immoral (at least for most of the moral standard), you your self is also a human, therefore self-sacrifice should be no less moral than scarifies other person for whosoever benefit.

In some situation sacrifice may be necessary however, sacrifice people close to you for someone you don't know is not right. For example, sacrifice your mother for the country, whom you hardly know, and is not even an individual person is wrong, at least to me. You have stay with your body and your consciousness from the moment you were born, thus your own self should be the person you are closest with. Sacrifices your self, is sacrifices your own self for the sake of any body else interest is therefore as bad as or worst sacrifices your own family. It is especially the worst if done for the sake of country or nation, as country or nation is not a real body but an imagination create by man. So die for the nation is identical to die for Sun God of Aztech.

Selfishness on the other hand, is a virtue. The same way as why you yourself is one of the dearest family you have, feeding it interest, even at the other expense (especially the one you had never make friend with or stranger) is quite right. Economic is a zero sum game anyway, you will probably feeding on someone else interest without realising to some degree. Feeding yourself through trade is no less virtuous than feeding your dear rest family or friend through trade.

The logic may be somewhat twisted but do tell what you think :D
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2013 12:20:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/1/2013 12:17:31 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Sounds like someone's been reading some Rand.

Never heard the name honestly :D
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2013 12:21:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/1/2013 12:20:29 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 5/1/2013 12:17:31 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Sounds like someone's been reading some Rand.

Never heard the name honestly :D

Mhhmmmmm
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2013 12:29:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
It's true, I can't even tell which Rand you are talking about when search it on the wiki. This idea is my original.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2013 2:02:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/1/2013 12:14:07 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
Human sacrifice is immoral (at least for most of the moral standard), you your self is also a human, therefore self-sacrifice should be no less moral than scarifies other person for whosoever benefit.

In some situation sacrifice may be necessary however, sacrifice people close to you for someone you don't know is not right. For example, sacrifice your mother for the country, whom you hardly know, and is not even an individual person is wrong, at least to me. You have stay with your body and your consciousness from the moment you were born, thus your own self should be the person you are closest with. Sacrifices your self, is sacrifices your own self for the sake of any body else interest is therefore as bad as or worst sacrifices your own family. It is especially the worst if done for the sake of country or nation, as country or nation is not a real body but an imagination create by man. So die for the nation is identical to die for Sun God of Aztech.

Selfishness on the other hand, is a virtue. The same way as why you yourself is one of the dearest family you have, feeding it interest, even at the other expense (especially the one you had never make friend with or stranger) is quite right. Economic is a zero sum game anyway, you will probably feeding on someone else interest without realising to some degree. Feeding yourself through trade is no less virtuous than feeding your dear rest family or friend through trade.

The logic may be somewhat twisted but do tell what you think :D

A mother can feed herself or her children. Is she immoral for feeding the children?

A soldiers spends months fighting with his comrades. They are in a foxpit when suddenly a grenade lands next to you. You can either jump on the grenade and save your comrades or throw it into the foxpit and kill them all.

Would you be immoral for jumping on the grenade?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2013 8:26:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/1/2013 2:02:23 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 5/1/2013 12:14:07 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
Human sacrifice is immoral (at least for most of the moral standard), you your self is also a human, therefore self-sacrifice should be no less moral than scarifies other person for whosoever benefit.

In some situation sacrifice may be necessary however, sacrifice people close to you for someone you don't know is not right. For example, sacrifice your mother for the country, whom you hardly know, and is not even an individual person is wrong, at least to me. You have stay with your body and your consciousness from the moment you were born, thus your own self should be the person you are closest with. Sacrifices your self, is sacrifices your own self for the sake of any body else interest is therefore as bad as or worst sacrifices your own family. It is especially the worst if done for the sake of country or nation, as country or nation is not a real body but an imagination create by man. So die for the nation is identical to die for Sun God of Aztech.

Selfishness on the other hand, is a virtue. The same way as why you yourself is one of the dearest family you have, feeding it interest, even at the other expense (especially the one you had never make friend with or stranger) is quite right. Economic is a zero sum game anyway, you will probably feeding on someone else interest without realising to some degree. Feeding yourself through trade is no less virtuous than feeding your dear rest family or friend through trade.

The logic may be somewhat twisted but do tell what you think :D

A mother can feed herself or her children. Is she immoral for feeding the children?

A soldiers spends months fighting with his comrades. They are in a foxpit when suddenly a grenade lands next to you. You can either jump on the grenade and save your comrades or throw it into the foxpit and kill them all.

Would you be immoral for jumping on the grenade?

If those comrades represent a value to you greater than yourself, then it would not be immoral, because it would not be a sacrifice.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2013 8:30:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/1/2013 8:26:04 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/1/2013 2:02:23 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 5/1/2013 12:14:07 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
Human sacrifice is immoral (at least for most of the moral standard), you your self is also a human, therefore self-sacrifice should be no less moral than scarifies other person for whosoever benefit.

In some situation sacrifice may be necessary however, sacrifice people close to you for someone you don't know is not right. For example, sacrifice your mother for the country, whom you hardly know, and is not even an individual person is wrong, at least to me. You have stay with your body and your consciousness from the moment you were born, thus your own self should be the person you are closest with. Sacrifices your self, is sacrifices your own self for the sake of any body else interest is therefore as bad as or worst sacrifices your own family. It is especially the worst if done for the sake of country or nation, as country or nation is not a real body but an imagination create by man. So die for the nation is identical to die for Sun God of Aztech.

Selfishness on the other hand, is a virtue. The same way as why you yourself is one of the dearest family you have, feeding it interest, even at the other expense (especially the one you had never make friend with or stranger) is quite right. Economic is a zero sum game anyway, you will probably feeding on someone else interest without realising to some degree. Feeding yourself through trade is no less virtuous than feeding your dear rest family or friend through trade.

The logic may be somewhat twisted but do tell what you think :D

A mother can feed herself or her children. Is she immoral for feeding the children?

A soldiers spends months fighting with his comrades. They are in a foxpit when suddenly a grenade lands next to you. You can either jump on the grenade and save your comrades or throw it into the foxpit and kill them all.

Would you be immoral for jumping on the grenade?

If those comrades represent a value to you greater than yourself, then it would not be immoral, because it would not be a sacrifice.

What if a dog represents more value to me than a thousand people about to be executed? Is it immoral to choose to have the dog killed?
emospongebob527
Posts: 790
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2013 8:35:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/1/2013 12:17:31 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Sounds like someone's been reading some Rand.

(CESNAARPO) Coalition of Epistemological Subjectivists and Nihilists Against Ayn Rand's Philosophy of Objectivism.....
"not to toot my own horn (it aint need no tooin if u know what im saying), but my writings on "viciousness: the one true viture (fancy spelling for virtue)" and my poem "A poem I wrote about DDO" put me in a class of my damn own. im just an UNRECONGIZED geniuse" -bananafana
emospongebob527
Posts: 790
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2013 9:24:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
This is a prime example of ethical egotism.
"not to toot my own horn (it aint need no tooin if u know what im saying), but my writings on "viciousness: the one true viture (fancy spelling for virtue)" and my poem "A poem I wrote about DDO" put me in a class of my damn own. im just an UNRECONGIZED geniuse" -bananafana
emospongebob527
Posts: 790
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2013 9:26:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/1/2013 2:02:23 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 5/1/2013 12:14:07 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
Human sacrifice is immoral (at least for most of the moral standard), you your self is also a human, therefore self-sacrifice should be no less moral than scarifies other person for whosoever benefit.

In some situation sacrifice may be necessary however, sacrifice people close to you for someone you don't know is not right. For example, sacrifice your mother for the country, whom you hardly know, and is not even an individual person is wrong, at least to me. You have stay with your body and your consciousness from the moment you were born, thus your own self should be the person you are closest with. Sacrifices your self, is sacrifices your own self for the sake of any body else interest is therefore as bad as or worst sacrifices your own family. It is especially the worst if done for the sake of country or nation, as country or nation is not a real body but an imagination create by man. So die for the nation is identical to die for Sun God of Aztech.

Selfishness on the other hand, is a virtue. The same way as why you yourself is one of the dearest family you have, feeding it interest, even at the other expense (especially the one you had never make friend with or stranger) is quite right. Economic is a zero sum game anyway, you will probably feeding on someone else interest without realising to some degree. Feeding yourself through trade is no less virtuous than feeding your dear rest family or friend through trade.

The logic may be somewhat twisted but do tell what you think :D

A mother can feed herself or her children. Is she immoral for feeding the children?

A soldiers spends months fighting with his comrades. They are in a foxpit when suddenly a grenade lands next to you. You can either jump on the grenade and save your comrades or throw it into the foxpit and kill them all.

And you can't throw it somewhere else where it can't kill you or your comrades?


Would you be immoral for jumping on the grenade?
"not to toot my own horn (it aint need no tooin if u know what im saying), but my writings on "viciousness: the one true viture (fancy spelling for virtue)" and my poem "A poem I wrote about DDO" put me in a class of my damn own. im just an UNRECONGIZED geniuse" -bananafana
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2013 11:02:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/1/2013 8:26:04 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/1/2013 2:02:23 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 5/1/2013 12:14:07 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
Human sacrifice is immoral (at least for most of the moral standard), you your self is also a human, therefore self-sacrifice should be no less moral than scarifies other person for whosoever benefit.

In some situation sacrifice may be necessary however, sacrifice people close to you for someone you don't know is not right. For example, sacrifice your mother for the country, whom you hardly know, and is not even an individual person is wrong, at least to me. You have stay with your body and your consciousness from the moment you were born, thus your own self should be the person you are closest with. Sacrifices your self, is sacrifices your own self for the sake of any body else interest is therefore as bad as or worst sacrifices your own family. It is especially the worst if done for the sake of country or nation, as country or nation is not a real body but an imagination create by man. So die for the nation is identical to die for Sun God of Aztech.

Selfishness on the other hand, is a virtue. The same way as why you yourself is one of the dearest family you have, feeding it interest, even at the other expense (especially the one you had never make friend with or stranger) is quite right. Economic is a zero sum game anyway, you will probably feeding on someone else interest without realising to some degree. Feeding yourself through trade is no less virtuous than feeding your dear rest family or friend through trade.

The logic may be somewhat twisted but do tell what you think :D

A mother can feed herself or her children. Is she immoral for feeding the children?

A soldiers spends months fighting with his comrades. They are in a foxpit when suddenly a grenade lands next to you. You can either jump on the grenade and save your comrades or throw it into the foxpit and kill them all.

Would you be immoral for jumping on the grenade?

If those comrades represent a value to you greater than yourself, then it would not be immoral, because it would not be a sacrifice.

exactly.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2013 11:04:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/1/2013 9:26:26 PM, emospongebob527 wrote:
At 5/1/2013 2:02:23 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 5/1/2013 12:14:07 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
Human sacrifice is immoral (at least for most of the moral standard), you your self is also a human, therefore self-sacrifice should be no less moral than scarifies other person for whosoever benefit.

In some situation sacrifice may be necessary however, sacrifice people close to you for someone you don't know is not right. For example, sacrifice your mother for the country, whom you hardly know, and is not even an individual person is wrong, at least to me. You have stay with your body and your consciousness from the moment you were born, thus your own self should be the person you are closest with. Sacrifices your self, is sacrifices your own self for the sake of any body else interest is therefore as bad as or worst sacrifices your own family. It is especially the worst if done for the sake of country or nation, as country or nation is not a real body but an imagination create by man. So die for the nation is identical to die for Sun God of Aztech.

Selfishness on the other hand, is a virtue. The same way as why you yourself is one of the dearest family you have, feeding it interest, even at the other expense (especially the one you had never make friend with or stranger) is quite right. Economic is a zero sum game anyway, you will probably feeding on someone else interest without realising to some degree. Feeding yourself through trade is no less virtuous than feeding your dear rest family or friend through trade.

The logic may be somewhat twisted but do tell what you think :D

A mother can feed herself or her children. Is she immoral for feeding the children?

A soldiers spends months fighting with his comrades. They are in a foxpit when suddenly a grenade lands next to you. You can either jump on the grenade and save your comrades or throw it into the foxpit and kill them all.

And you can't throw it somewhere else where it can't kill you or your comrades?


Would you be immoral for jumping on the grenade?

Depending on how far along the fuse is, that's not always an option.

For instance, if the grenade will detonate in one second, throwing it will do no good.
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2013 11:05:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/1/2013 8:30:11 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 5/1/2013 8:26:04 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/1/2013 2:02:23 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 5/1/2013 12:14:07 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
Human sacrifice is immoral (at least for most of the moral standard), you your self is also a human, therefore self-sacrifice should be no less moral than scarifies other person for whosoever benefit.

In some situation sacrifice may be necessary however, sacrifice people close to you for someone you don't know is not right. For example, sacrifice your mother for the country, whom you hardly know, and is not even an individual person is wrong, at least to me. You have stay with your body and your consciousness from the moment you were born, thus your own self should be the person you are closest with. Sacrifices your self, is sacrifices your own self for the sake of any body else interest is therefore as bad as or worst sacrifices your own family. It is especially the worst if done for the sake of country or nation, as country or nation is not a real body but an imagination create by man. So die for the nation is identical to die for Sun God of Aztech.

Selfishness on the other hand, is a virtue. The same way as why you yourself is one of the dearest family you have, feeding it interest, even at the other expense (especially the one you had never make friend with or stranger) is quite right. Economic is a zero sum game anyway, you will probably feeding on someone else interest without realising to some degree. Feeding yourself through trade is no less virtuous than feeding your dear rest family or friend through trade.

The logic may be somewhat twisted but do tell what you think :D

A mother can feed herself or her children. Is she immoral for feeding the children?

A soldiers spends months fighting with his comrades. They are in a foxpit when suddenly a grenade lands next to you. You can either jump on the grenade and save your comrades or throw it into the foxpit and kill them all.

Would you be immoral for jumping on the grenade?

If those comrades represent a value to you greater than yourself, then it would not be immoral, because it would not be a sacrifice.

What if a dog represents more value to me than a thousand people about to be executed? Is it immoral to choose to have the dog killed?

sure is, you love that dog more than those 1000 prisoners anyway right?

Think of it this way British solider in second WW will rather kill a thousand or more Nazi (in combat) than let their regiment dog die.
Sui_Generis
Posts: 493
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2013 9:48:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/1/2013 11:05:22 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 5/1/2013 8:30:11 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 5/1/2013 8:26:04 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/1/2013 2:02:23 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 5/1/2013 12:14:07 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
Human sacrifice is immoral (at least for most of the moral standard), you your self is also a human, therefore self-sacrifice should be no less moral than scarifies other person for whosoever benefit.

In some situation sacrifice may be necessary however, sacrifice people close to you for someone you don't know is not right. For example, sacrifice your mother for the country, whom you hardly know, and is not even an individual person is wrong, at least to me. You have stay with your body and your consciousness from the moment you were born, thus your own self should be the person you are closest with. Sacrifices your self, is sacrifices your own self for the sake of any body else interest is therefore as bad as or worst sacrifices your own family. It is especially the worst if done for the sake of country or nation, as country or nation is not a real body but an imagination create by man. So die for the nation is identical to die for Sun God of Aztech.

Selfishness on the other hand, is a virtue. The same way as why you yourself is one of the dearest family you have, feeding it interest, even at the other expense (especially the one you had never make friend with or stranger) is quite right. Economic is a zero sum game anyway, you will probably feeding on someone else interest without realising to some degree. Feeding yourself through trade is no less virtuous than feeding your dear rest family or friend through trade.

The logic may be somewhat twisted but do tell what you think :D

A mother can feed herself or her children. Is she immoral for feeding the children?

A soldiers spends months fighting with his comrades. They are in a foxpit when suddenly a grenade lands next to you. You can either jump on the grenade and save your comrades or throw it into the foxpit and kill them all.

Would you be immoral for jumping on the grenade?

If those comrades represent a value to you greater than yourself, then it would not be immoral, because it would not be a sacrifice.

What if a dog represents more value to me than a thousand people about to be executed? Is it immoral to choose to have the dog killed?

sure is, you love that dog more than those 1000 prisoners anyway right?

Think of it this way British solider in second WW will rather kill a thousand or more Nazi (in combat) than let their regiment dog die.

But would the British soldier in WWII rather magically convert a thousand or more Nazi soldiers to pacifism than let their regiment dog die?

Also, can't be reading too much Rand if he thinks of economics as zero sum.

Objectivism is incompatible with Christianity, however not wholly irrational for the atheist.
"Mundus vult decipi--the world wants to be deceived. The truth is too complex and frightening; the taste for the truth is an acquired taste that few acquire."
-Martin Buber, I and Thou
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2013 12:13:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Again, I didn't read nor borrow this idea from Rand, I still don't even know who he is, so this idea is wholly my original. If you had any disagreement on any of the point feel free to let me know.

I still doubted it though if they would sacrifices their regiment dog to make the Nazi friendly but yet again, they probably did not do it if the one being sacrifices is one of their regiment, even less so if they are their friends, girl friends, or family. Point sacrifices someone closer to you for the sake of someone who is more distant is immoral. Thus sacrifices yourself for the sake of anyone but yourself is always immoral.
cybertron1998
Posts: 5,818
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2013 6:02:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
self sacrifice immoral? Bah! but in all seriousness the purpose is circumstantial
Epsilon: There are so many stories where some brave hero decides to give their life to save the day, and because of their sacrifice, the good guys win, the survivors all cheer, and everybody lives happily ever after. But the hero... never gets to see that ending. They'll never know if their sacrifice actually made a difference. They'll never know if the day was really saved. In the end, they just have to have faith.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2013 6:18:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/2/2013 12:13:05 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
Again, I didn't read nor borrow this idea from Rand, I still don't even know who he is, so this idea is wholly my original. If you had any disagreement on any of the point feel free to let me know.



If you're interested in this topic, you should do some research on Rand. She was one of the prominent champions of this dictum.
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2013 7:09:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/2/2013 12:13:05 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
Again, I didn't read nor borrow this idea from Rand, I still don't even know who he is, so this idea is wholly my original. If you had any disagreement on any of the point feel free to let me know.


Read some of her nonfiction. This is a good interview too.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2013 10:59:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/2/2013 7:09:05 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 5/2/2013 12:13:05 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
Again, I didn't read nor borrow this idea from Rand, I still don't even know who he is, so this idea is wholly my original. If you had any disagreement on any of the point feel free to let me know.


Read some of her nonfiction. This is a good interview too.


I absolutely love your signature.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2013 11:01:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/2/2013 10:59:21 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/2/2013 7:09:05 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 5/2/2013 12:13:05 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
Again, I didn't read nor borrow this idea from Rand, I still don't even know who he is, so this idea is wholly my original. If you had any disagreement on any of the point feel free to let me know.


Read some of her nonfiction. This is a good interview too.


I absolutely love your signature.

Nietzsche is fun to read; I get something new out of it each time.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2013 6:04:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Um, no. Human sacrifice is immoral because it does not involve consent. There is nothing wrong with voluntary human sacrifice or self-sacrifice.
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2013 2:40:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/2/2013 6:18:52 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/2/2013 12:13:05 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
Again, I didn't read nor borrow this idea from Rand, I still don't even know who he is, so this idea is wholly my original. If you had any disagreement on any of the point feel free to let me know.



If you're interested in this topic, you should do some research on Rand. She was one of the prominent champions of this dictum.

I would appreciate her last name....
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2013 2:48:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/4/2013 6:04:47 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
Um, no. Human sacrifice is immoral because it does not involve consent. There is nothing wrong with voluntary human sacrifice or self-sacrifice.

Imagine that you are a cannibal, you like to eat the human flesh. Now there is one husband from a very poor family who offer himself to you for a sum of money to be given to his family, by paying for his death (and encourage cannibalism industry) , is that moral.

Assume that slaughtering people for cannibalism is immoral.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2013 5:40:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/5/2013 2:48:04 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 5/4/2013 6:04:47 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
Um, no. Human sacrifice is immoral because it does not involve consent. There is nothing wrong with voluntary human sacrifice or self-sacrifice.

Imagine that you are a cannibal, you like to eat the human flesh. Now there is one husband from a very poor family who offer himself to you for a sum of money to be given to his family, by paying for his death (and encourage cannibalism industry) , is that moral.

Assume that slaughtering people for cannibalism is immoral.

In this scenario, it is not the voluntary offer that makes it immoral but rather the monetary coercion that makes it immoral. If Bill Gates wanted you to eat him for free, that would be fine (although it would be ridiculously disgusting).
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2013 10:50:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/5/2013 5:40:25 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 5/5/2013 2:48:04 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 5/4/2013 6:04:47 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
Um, no. Human sacrifice is immoral because it does not involve consent. There is nothing wrong with voluntary human sacrifice or self-sacrifice.

Imagine that you are a cannibal, you like to eat the human flesh. Now there is one husband from a very poor family who offer himself to you for a sum of money to be given to his family, by paying for his death (and encourage cannibalism industry) , is that moral.

Assume that slaughtering people for cannibalism is immoral.

In this scenario, it is not the voluntary offer that makes it immoral but rather the monetary coercion that makes it immoral. If Bill Gates wanted you to eat him for free, that would be fine (although it would be ridiculously disgusting).

Ah, but no body actually force him to abandon his life though, his poverty is unfortunate but it is still his choice to abandon the hope and offer his life instead of other option such as labour.

I still said that is pretty mush his freewill and is of no different than Bill Gate having offer his flesh for his own satisfaction, it is also within his satisfaction that he chose to die rather than endure what the life has to give.

Case such as Jurgen Brandes who volunteer himself to be slaughter and consumed purely for his own pleasure do exist (at least since he is an engineer from Germany, it is safe to assume that he has not done out of economic reason). Still, if cannibalism is assumed to have negative moral value, supporting this immoral action by offering your own self will also result in negative moral.

as 1 x -1 = -1
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2013 6:34:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/1/2013 11:05:22 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 5/1/2013 8:30:11 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 5/1/2013 8:26:04 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/1/2013 2:02:23 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 5/1/2013 12:14:07 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
Human sacrifice is immoral (at least for most of the moral standard), you your self is also a human, therefore self-sacrifice should be no less moral than scarifies other person for whosoever benefit.

In some situation sacrifice may be necessary however, sacrifice people close to you for someone you don't know is not right. For example, sacrifice your mother for the country, whom you hardly know, and is not even an individual person is wrong, at least to me. You have stay with your body and your consciousness from the moment you were born, thus your own self should be the person you are closest with. Sacrifices your self, is sacrifices your own self for the sake of any body else interest is therefore as bad as or worst sacrifices your own family. It is especially the worst if done for the sake of country or nation, as country or nation is not a real body but an imagination create by man. So die for the nation is identical to die for Sun God of Aztech.

Selfishness on the other hand, is a virtue. The same way as why you yourself is one of the dearest family you have, feeding it interest, even at the other expense (especially the one you had never make friend with or stranger) is quite right. Economic is a zero sum game anyway, you will probably feeding on someone else interest without realising to some degree. Feeding yourself through trade is no less virtuous than feeding your dear rest family or friend through trade.

The logic may be somewhat twisted but do tell what you think :D

A mother can feed herself or her children. Is she immoral for feeding the children?

A soldiers spends months fighting with his comrades. They are in a foxpit when suddenly a grenade lands next to you. You can either jump on the grenade and save your comrades or throw it into the foxpit and kill them all.

Would you be immoral for jumping on the grenade?

If those comrades represent a value to you greater than yourself, then it would not be immoral, because it would not be a sacrifice.

What if a dog represents more value to me than a thousand people about to be executed? Is it immoral to choose to have the dog killed?

sure is, you love that dog more than those 1000 prisoners anyway right?

Think of it this way British solider in second WW will rather kill a thousand or more Nazi (in combat) than let their regiment dog die.

Yes, but that empathic bond is contingent on shared experience of extreme conflict while maintaining common or complementary roles/functions.

The same kind of bond that has lead to 21st century soldiers risking their lives to save ROBOTS they have an emotional attachment to. One company actually tried to give a robot a purple heart.

http://www.foxnews.com...

Relative values are extremely pliable depending on the situation. We may have core values that we don't like violating, but under certain circumstances they may be the preferable to non-action.

Under your argument, self-sacrifice's morality is dependent on contingent social events (i.e. the GI risking his life to help a robot because of their shared experience) which influences pre-conscious evaluations of actors (GI's can rarely explain WHY they have this bond with a robot, but they develop it).

This is different from using social events to filter what moral choices are viable using a referenced "value system."
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2013 11:02:02 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/5/2013 2:40:07 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 5/2/2013 6:18:52 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/2/2013 12:13:05 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
Again, I didn't read nor borrow this idea from Rand, I still don't even know who he is, so this idea is wholly my original. If you had any disagreement on any of the point feel free to let me know.



If you're interested in this topic, you should do some research on Rand. She was one of the prominent champions of this dictum.

I would appreciate her last name....

Rand is her last name.
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2013 12:07:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/6/2013 11:02:02 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/5/2013 2:40:07 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 5/2/2013 6:18:52 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/2/2013 12:13:05 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
Again, I didn't read nor borrow this idea from Rand, I still don't even know who he is, so this idea is wholly my original. If you had any disagreement on any of the point feel free to let me know.



If you're interested in this topic, you should do some research on Rand. She was one of the prominent champions of this dictum.

I would appreciate her last name....

Rand is her last name.

What's the first then? Sorry I forgot, in my country we always calling people by first name (last name is used except to distinguish someone with the same first name, and even so it will never be pronounced), I should have ask for her first name instead.