Total Posts:31|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Hedonism

Lexicaholic
Posts: 526
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2010 9:01:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
So recently I've been thinking about (ethical) hedonism ... which, I realize, is not particularly hedonistic of me. Never-the-less, it seems like people who set their own pleasure ahead of all other considerations are at least generally happier than other people who hold more complicated value systems. So my question is this: what does everyone think of (ethical) hedonism and how would you react to someone who held his or her own pleasure as the only good?
http://mastersofcreationrpg.com... - My new site and long-developed project. Should be fun.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2010 9:18:41 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Do you mean like immediate and personal 'pleasure' or do you mean happiness/contentment generally.

Because someone might find happiness/contentment in doing the 'right' thing but I don't know that they'd relish the feeling as 'pleasure' suggests.

If its just that base and immediate 'pleasure' your talking about I wouldn't say that's really an 'Ethical' system your talking about, but rather a lack thereof.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Lexicaholic
Posts: 526
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2010 9:34:13 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/16/2010 9:18:41 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
Do you mean like immediate and personal 'pleasure' or do you mean happiness/contentment generally.

Because someone might find happiness/contentment in doing the 'right' thing but I don't know that they'd relish the feeling as 'pleasure' suggests.

If its just that base and immediate 'pleasure' your talking about I wouldn't say that's really an 'Ethical' system your talking about, but rather a lack thereof.

Base pleasure but not necessarily immediate pleasure ... basically acting in a way that fulfills your immediate needs and that provide you with the opportunity for more pleasure down the road. It might be said to be a lack of ethics in the sense that I'm using it, yes ... though if it is, I would still like to know what people would think of it.
http://mastersofcreationrpg.com... - My new site and long-developed project. Should be fun.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2010 10:12:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/16/2010 9:34:13 PM, Lexicaholic wrote:
At 1/16/2010 9:18:41 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
Do you mean like immediate and personal 'pleasure' or do you mean happiness/contentment generally.

Because someone might find happiness/contentment in doing the 'right' thing but I don't know that they'd relish the feeling as 'pleasure' suggests.

If its just that base and immediate 'pleasure' your talking about I wouldn't say that's really an 'Ethical' system your talking about, but rather a lack thereof.

Base pleasure but not necessarily immediate pleasure ... basically acting in a way that fulfills your immediate needs and that provide you with the opportunity for more pleasure down the road. It might be said to be a lack of ethics in the sense that I'm using it, yes ... though if it is, I would still like to know what people would think of it.

I probably wouldn't blame someone who had no sense of ethics, as I think that's usually not an active choice, but it would make me quite a bit more likely to try to assign to them the death penalty if they showed themselves to have a violent side.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2010 10:14:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
For what's to stop them from doing it again??

And I don't think such things can change (like with rehabilitation), I think there's most likely a specific time frame in which such things are to be developed, similar to language.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Lexicaholic
Posts: 526
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2010 10:14:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/16/2010 10:12:43 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 1/16/2010 9:34:13 PM, Lexicaholic wrote:
At 1/16/2010 9:18:41 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
Do you mean like immediate and personal 'pleasure' or do you mean happiness/contentment generally.

Because someone might find happiness/contentment in doing the 'right' thing but I don't know that they'd relish the feeling as 'pleasure' suggests.

If its just that base and immediate 'pleasure' your talking about I wouldn't say that's really an 'Ethical' system your talking about, but rather a lack thereof.

Base pleasure but not necessarily immediate pleasure ... basically acting in a way that fulfills your immediate needs and that provide you with the opportunity for more pleasure down the road. It might be said to be a lack of ethics in the sense that I'm using it, yes ... though if it is, I would still like to know what people would think of it.

I probably wouldn't blame someone who had no sense of ethics, as I think that's usually not an active choice, but it would make me quite a bit more likely to try to assign to them the death penalty if they showed themselves to have a violent side.

Hmmm ... perhaps, but would say anything? Would you try and guide them away from it or accept that they were who they were?
http://mastersofcreationrpg.com... - My new site and long-developed project. Should be fun.
Lexicaholic
Posts: 526
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2010 10:15:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/16/2010 10:14:39 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
For what's to stop them from doing it again??

And I don't think such things can change (like with rehabilitation), I think there's most likely a specific time frame in which such things are to be developed, similar to language.

Lol, I see that you already answered my question. Okay, thanks. That's what I wanted to hear.
http://mastersofcreationrpg.com... - My new site and long-developed project. Should be fun.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2010 10:22:06 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/16/2010 10:15:40 PM, Lexicaholic wrote:

Lol, I see that you already answered my question. Okay, thanks. That's what I wanted to hear.

What do you think?

I see from that other thread you don't much like genital mutilation for repeat dou**ebag rapists.

That's kind of the thing I'd endorse in order to giv'em one more chance to show that they really don't have to be put to death.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Lexicaholic
Posts: 526
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2010 10:29:02 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/16/2010 10:22:06 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 1/16/2010 10:15:40 PM, Lexicaholic wrote:

Lol, I see that you already answered my question. Okay, thanks. That's what I wanted to hear.

What do you think?

I see from that other thread you don't much like genital mutilation for repeat dou**ebag rapists.

That's kind of the thing I'd endorse in order to giv'em one more chance to show that they really don't have to be put to death.

I think that, if we don't promote something other then materialism, then the only valid morality becomes one of personal pleasure pursuits. This doesn't really have anything to do with what I think should be done to rapists. I could enjoy subjecting rapists to genital mutilation much as I could enjoy getting a hundred women pregnant ... but I understand the consequences of those actions and how dire they would really be and so I wouldn't. At least, not right now ... recently I've been examining the level of enjoyment others seem to take from life and the level of enjoyment I seem to take from it and wondering if the disparity may not have something to do with the fact that I don't act on impulse often enough. So I've been letting loose a bit ... and I am starting to find it surprisingly enjoyable.
http://mastersofcreationrpg.com... - My new site and long-developed project. Should be fun.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2010 10:31:53 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/16/2010 10:29:02 PM, Lexicaholic wrote:
I could enjoy subjecting rapists to genital mutilation

Yikes!

I don't think I could, no matter how much I thought it had to be done.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2010 10:35:20 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/16/2010 10:29:02 PM, Lexicaholic wrote:

I think that, if we don't promote something other then materialism

I don't think I know anyone who really 'promotes' materialism.

I know people who are more or less materialistic, but noone who really promotes it.

Plus even most of those people who are quite materialistic still care about other things.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Lexicaholic
Posts: 526
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2010 10:36:59 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/16/2010 10:31:53 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 1/16/2010 10:29:02 PM, Lexicaholic wrote:
I could enjoy subjecting rapists to genital mutilation

Yikes!

I don't think I could, no matter how much I thought it had to be done.

See, I could, actually. For a short while at least. My conscience would get the better of me later, but at the time I was doing it I could focus on my work. I was raised a Catholic, and part of that mentality is that sinners go to hell ... implicit in which is an appeal to the desire to see amoral a-holes suffer for their misdeeds.

But, you see, I don't want to do it ... because it is freaking genital mutilation. As I see it, the wrongness of the act is so apparent that no amount of pleasure to be derived from it could lead me to do it.
http://mastersofcreationrpg.com... - My new site and long-developed project. Should be fun.
Lexicaholic
Posts: 526
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2010 10:38:12 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/16/2010 10:35:20 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 1/16/2010 10:29:02 PM, Lexicaholic wrote:

I think that, if we don't promote something other then materialism

I don't think I know anyone who really 'promotes' materialism.

I know people who are more or less materialistic, but noone who really promotes it.

Plus even most of those people who are quite materialistic still care about other things.

Acting on the impulse and expressing it as an important social value is all the promotion one needs. Not a lot of people actively seek to promote racism, but in using racial slurs and holding racist opinions they promote it all the same.
http://mastersofcreationrpg.com... - My new site and long-developed project. Should be fun.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2010 10:45:27 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/16/2010 10:36:59 PM, Lexicaholic wrote:
At 1/16/2010 10:31:53 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 1/16/2010 10:29:02 PM, Lexicaholic wrote:
I could enjoy subjecting rapists to genital mutilation

Yikes!

I don't think I could, no matter how much I thought it had to be done.

See, I could, actually. For a short while at least. My conscience would get the better of me later, but at the time I was doing it I could focus on my work. I was raised a Catholic,
hey me too, but I don't want to play the devil, he was the bad guy. I see myself more as Dirty Harry when he Grinds his boot on the Dou**bags leg which he just shot to try to get information that could save an innocent.

and part of that mentality is that sinners go to hell ... implicit in which is an appeal to the desire to see amoral a-holes suffer for their misdeeds.

But, you see, I don't want to do it ... because it is freaking genital mutilation. As I see it, the wrongness of the act is so apparent that no amount of pleasure to be derived from it could lead me to do it.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Lexicaholic
Posts: 526
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2010 10:48:16 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/16/2010 10:45:27 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:

hey me too, but I don't want to play the devil, he was the bad guy. I see myself more as Dirty Harry when he Grinds his boot on the Dou**bags leg which he just shot to try to get information that could save an innocent.

Nothing wrong with that if you know that the individual has the information and he's the type who would respond to the act -- but that's very different from punishment. You're talking about a situation where the action is needed to prevent greater suffering to another, not one where you are inflicting suffering on another to avenge the harm already done.
http://mastersofcreationrpg.com... - My new site and long-developed project. Should be fun.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2010 10:52:42 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/16/2010 10:48:16 PM, Lexicaholic wrote:

Nothing wrong with that if you know that the individual has the information and he's the type who would respond to the act -- but that's very different from punishment. You're talking about a situation where the action is needed to prevent greater suffering to another, not one where you are inflicting suffering on another to avenge the harm already done.

I wasn't talking about Vengeance for anything, I was talking about Death for those who have proved themselves heinously violent and are without any sense of morality. This is because I think it's the only way of preventing them from doing more of such things.

Similarly with the mutilation, this is to see wether or not, without their piece, they can behave themselves, such that I wouldn't have to take'em out.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2010 10:53:37 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
*whether :)
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Lexicaholic
Posts: 526
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2010 10:53:49 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/16/2010 10:52:42 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 1/16/2010 10:48:16 PM, Lexicaholic wrote:

Nothing wrong with that if you know that the individual has the information and he's the type who would respond to the act -- but that's very different from punishment. You're talking about a situation where the action is needed to prevent greater suffering to another, not one where you are inflicting suffering on another to avenge the harm already done.

I wasn't talking about Vengeance for anything, I was talking about Death for those who have proved themselves heinously violent and are without any sense of morality. This is because I think it's the only way of preventing them from doing more of such things.

Similarly with the mutilation, this is to see wether or not, without their piece, they can behave themselves, such that I wouldn't have to take'em out.

If you had your balls ripped off, would you settle down or kill everyone you could before they took you out?
http://mastersofcreationrpg.com... - My new site and long-developed project. Should be fun.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2010 11:01:10 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/16/2010 10:53:49 PM, Lexicaholic wrote:

If you had your balls ripped off, would you settle down or kill everyone you could before they took you out?

Well dogs tend to settle down, but perhaps your right, maybe just killing the violent serial rapists is the better option.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Lexicaholic
Posts: 526
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2010 11:02:52 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/16/2010 11:01:10 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 1/16/2010 10:53:49 PM, Lexicaholic wrote:

If you had your balls ripped off, would you settle down or kill everyone you could before they took you out?

Well dogs tend to settle down, but perhaps your right, maybe just killing the violent serial rapists is the better option.

Given a choice between the two, yes, death is better. Also, even though I'm not a death penalty advocate, violent serial rapists would still receive lifelong confinement and monitoring if I reformed the system, with no possibility of parole.
http://mastersofcreationrpg.com... - My new site and long-developed project. Should be fun.
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2010 11:08:19 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/16/2010 9:01:40 PM, Lexicaholic wrote:
So recently I've been thinking about (ethical) hedonism ... which, I realize, is not particularly hedonistic of me. Never-the-less, it seems like people who set their own pleasure ahead of all other considerations are at least generally happier than other people who hold more complicated value systems. So my question is this: what does everyone think of (ethical) hedonism and how would you react to someone who held his or her own pleasure as the only good?

I'm not a student of ethical systems and know little to nothing about hedonism or any other value system, so I thought it essential I weigh in =D

I'm confused how such a mindset could feasibly maintain itself. If one's sole concern is personal pleasure or satisfaction, wouldn't that often interfere with various laws and rights of others (assuming this individual interacts with others)? Even if it didn't, it's hard to imagine a pleasure-based lifestyle that isn't dependent in some way on some unpleasant activities (e.g. work, various responsibilities, etc.).

If we're discussing hedonists in a more realistic sense, it's easy to see why they'd be enjoying themselves. If you don't experience (or care about/attend to) social pressures concerning things like charity, helpfulness, or fairness, what are the negative consequences of selfishness? Just imagine how much more happiness you'd experience if all the resources you'd normally spend on caring for others or restraining yourself for whatever purpose were spent instead on fulfilling your own wants.

Again, I'm talking about a realistic scenario here, so naturally some limits would still exist on what you can do and what social customs you can ignore. Still, we're talking about significantly more money spent on yourself, time directed toward your own desires, and the lifting of a lot of emotional and psychological burdens. Managing societal expectations can become such an overwhelming part of our thought processes that it's easy to forget what kind of happiness we're constantly sacrificing.

To bring this all back, I'm still not sure how feasible such a system would be. The predominant messages we receive from our culture (and thus ourselves) tells us this is the exact opposite route we should be taking. That doesn't mean a little of this mentality can't slip in here and there, though. I think you mentioned something about spontaneity, which, depending on what you're referring to, could be a good way to enjoy some hedonism without too much inevitable guilt.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2010 11:09:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/16/2010 11:02:52 PM, Lexicaholic wrote:

Given a choice between the two, yes, death is better. Also, even though I'm not a death penalty advocate, violent serial rapists would still receive lifelong confinement and monitoring if I reformed the system, with no possibility of parole.

Oh, I guess the same with those violent murderers in the prisons who make shanks to stab the gaurd/inmate that looked at them funny?
I'd rather not take the risk.

I kind of think of non-moral people as lying somewhat outside the moral bounds, they aren't fully like people :) They're truly inhuman, and ought to be treated as such.
It's not ok to cause violence to them willy nilly, but if there's a good reason to think they would harm one Human, then, they've got to go, Kind of like man-eating tigers.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2010 11:10:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
plus I know I'd rather die than be in supermax prison forever.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Lexicaholic
Posts: 526
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2010 11:12:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/16/2010 11:08:19 PM, Maikuru wrote:
At 1/16/2010 9:01:40 PM, Lexicaholic wrote:
So recently I've been thinking about (ethical) hedonism ... which, I realize, is not particularly hedonistic of me. Never-the-less, it seems like people who set their own pleasure ahead of all other considerations are at least generally happier than other people who hold more complicated value systems. So my question is this: what does everyone think of (ethical) hedonism and how would you react to someone who held his or her own pleasure as the only good?

I'm not a student of ethical systems and know little to nothing about hedonism or any other value system, so I thought it essential I weigh in =D

I'm confused how such a mindset could feasibly maintain itself. If one's sole concern is personal pleasure or satisfaction, wouldn't that often interfere with various laws and rights of others (assuming this individual interacts with others)? Even if it didn't, it's hard to imagine a pleasure-based lifestyle that isn't dependent in some way on some unpleasant activities (e.g. work, various responsibilities, etc.).

If we're discussing hedonists in a more realistic sense, it's easy to see why they'd be enjoying themselves. If you don't experience (or care about/attend to) social pressures concerning things like charity, helpfulness, or fairness, what are the negative consequences of selfishness? Just imagine how much more happiness you'd experience if all the resources you'd normally spend on caring for others or restraining yourself for whatever purpose were spent instead on fulfilling your own wants.

Again, I'm talking about a realistic scenario here, so naturally some limits would still exist on what you can do and what social customs you can ignore. Still, we're talking about significantly more money spent on yourself, time directed toward your own desires, and the lifting of a lot of emotional and psychological burdens. Managing societal expectations can become such an overwhelming part of our thought processes that it's easy to forget what kind of happiness we're constantly sacrificing.

To bring this all back, I'm still not sure how feasible such a system would be. The predominant messages we receive from our culture (and thus ourselves) tells us this is the exact opposite route we should be taking. That doesn't mean a little of this mentality can't slip in here and there, though. I think you mentioned something about spontaneity, which, depending on what you're referring to, could be a good way to enjoy some hedonism without too much inevitable guilt.

Nice reply, Maikuru. Yes, I'm finding spontaneity to be the key, mostly. It's just that I take a very long view of things sometimes ... I'm not always right, I admit, I just take a very long view ... and there's certainly a loss of focus on my immediate happiness as a result. I think in moderation, a little less thought is a good thing. :)
http://mastersofcreationrpg.com... - My new site and long-developed project. Should be fun.
Lexicaholic
Posts: 526
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2010 11:14:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/16/2010 11:09:28 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 1/16/2010 11:02:52 PM, Lexicaholic wrote:

Given a choice between the two, yes, death is better. Also, even though I'm not a death penalty advocate, violent serial rapists would still receive lifelong confinement and monitoring if I reformed the system, with no possibility of parole.

Oh, I guess the same with those violent murderers in the prisons who make shanks to stab the gaurd/inmate that looked at them funny?
I'd rather not take the risk.

I kind of think of non-moral people as lying somewhat outside the moral bounds, they aren't fully like people :) They're truly inhuman, and ought to be treated as such.
It's not ok to cause violence to them willy nilly, but if there's a good reason to think they would harm one Human, then, they've got to go, Kind of like man-eating tigers.

Well, I'm also in favor of involuntary personality reprogramming as a treatment measure for such offenders ... I agree with you that there is a point where attempting to be reasonable to them will just result in more loss. I just think there are other things that can be done to them besides killing them or maiming them.
http://mastersofcreationrpg.com... - My new site and long-developed project. Should be fun.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2010 11:17:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/16/2010 11:14:57 PM, Lexicaholic wrote:

Well, I'm also in favor of involuntary personality reprogramming as a treatment measure for such offenders

Huh? So you do think people can be "rehabilitated" to become moral?

Or, You think they can be changed to not be violent?
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Lexicaholic
Posts: 526
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2010 11:20:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/16/2010 11:17:58 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 1/16/2010 11:14:57 PM, Lexicaholic wrote:

Well, I'm also in favor of involuntary personality reprogramming as a treatment measure for such offenders

Huh? So you do think people can be "rehabilitated" to become moral?

Or, You think they can be changed to not be violent?

I think they can be brainwashed or lobotomized to be non-violent ... given enough time and technological development I'm sure we could find a way to do it. Given then death terminates consciousness anyway I fail to see a clear moral distinction between altering a person's memories/personality and death, except that death removes the ability of the subject to perform work.
http://mastersofcreationrpg.com... - My new site and long-developed project. Should be fun.
Lexicaholic
Posts: 526
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2010 11:20:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/16/2010 11:20:03 PM, Lexicaholic wrote:
At 1/16/2010 11:17:58 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 1/16/2010 11:14:57 PM, Lexicaholic wrote:

I think they can be brainwashed or lobotomized to be non-violent ... given enough time and technological development I'm sure we could find a way to do it. Given that death terminates consciousness anyway I fail to see a clear moral distinction between altering a person's memories/personality and death, except that death removes the ability of the subject to perform work.

fixed
http://mastersofcreationrpg.com... - My new site and long-developed project. Should be fun.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2010 11:23:10 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/16/2010 11:20:03 PM, Lexicaholic wrote:
At 1/16/2010 11:17:58 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 1/16/2010 11:14:57 PM, Lexicaholic wrote:

Well, I'm also in favor of involuntary personality reprogramming as a treatment measure for such offenders

Huh? So you do think people can be "rehabilitated" to become moral?

Or, You think they can be changed to not be violent?

I think they can be brainwashed or lobotomized to be non-violent ... given enough time and technological development I'm sure we could find a way to do it. Given then death terminates consciousness anyway I fail to see a clear moral distinction between altering a person's memories/personality and death, except that death removes the ability of the subject to perform work.

Prisons full of Lobotomized slaves huh? Sounds interesting...

Actually, sounds like a horror movie. Though I guess I don't really have much of an argument against it. lol
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Lexicaholic
Posts: 526
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2010 11:26:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/16/2010 11:23:10 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 1/16/2010 11:20:03 PM, Lexicaholic wrote:
At 1/16/2010 11:17:58 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 1/16/2010 11:14:57 PM, Lexicaholic wrote:

Well, I'm also in favor of involuntary personality reprogramming as a treatment measure for such offenders

Huh? So you do think people can be "rehabilitated" to become moral?

Or, You think they can be changed to not be violent?

I think they can be brainwashed or lobotomized to be non-violent ... given enough time and technological development I'm sure we could find a way to do it. Given then death terminates consciousness anyway I fail to see a clear moral distinction between altering a person's memories/personality and death, except that death removes the ability of the subject to perform work.


Prisons full of Lobotomized slaves huh? Sounds interesting...

Actually, sounds like a horror movie. Though I guess I don't really have much of an argument against it. lol

Well, there we go. Consensus! lol XD
http://mastersofcreationrpg.com... - My new site and long-developed project. Should be fun.