Total Posts:90|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

What cost to save the species?

Yvette
Posts: 859
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2010 6:44:18 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Let's say, theoretically, that it's a fact that, because of certain things, the human race is headed towards certain extinction unless those certain things change. And not just the human race, but all life on the planet. Would you consider it acceptable to do away with morals for the time being and force humans to change those "certain things" using any means necessary? Overriding freedoms, rights, etc, so that future generations of all living things on the planet can go on? If this was the only way?
In the middle of moving to Washington. 8D

"If God does not exist, then chocolate causing cancer is only true for the society that has evidence for that." --GodSands
Yvette
Posts: 859
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2010 6:47:34 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/8/2010 6:45:55 PM, Mirza wrote:
In other words, freedom for a while or existence of life?

Yes.
In the middle of moving to Washington. 8D

"If God does not exist, then chocolate causing cancer is only true for the society that has evidence for that." --GodSands
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2010 6:51:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/8/2010 6:44:18 PM, Yvette wrote:
Let's say, theoretically, that it's a fact that, because of certain things, the human race is headed towards certain extinction unless those certain things change. And not just the human race, but all life on the planet. Would you consider it acceptable to do away with morals for the time being and force humans to change those "certain things" using any means necessary? Overriding freedoms, rights, etc, so that future generations of all living things on the planet can go on? If this was the only way?

Contradictory. :P You are stating the right thing to do may be to do away with a way of doing things. It's a system of morality, you just may not like to call it that.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2010 7:05:19 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/8/2010 6:56:08 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I'll take that one. Pretty simple. Freedom = lack of restraint on/interference with your ability to act.
Except when others are harmed?
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2010 7:06:44 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/8/2010 7:05:19 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 8/8/2010 6:56:08 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I'll take that one. Pretty simple. Freedom = lack of restraint on/interference with your ability to act.
Except when others are harmed?

Others are only harmed when physical coercion is used, which is contradictory to the notion of freedom.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2010 7:07:54 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/8/2010 7:06:44 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 8/8/2010 7:05:19 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 8/8/2010 6:56:08 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I'll take that one. Pretty simple. Freedom = lack of restraint on/interference with your ability to act.
Except when others are harmed?

Others are only harmed when physical coercion is used, which is contradictory to the notion of freedom.

Would an objectivist society even have a police force?
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2010 7:08:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/8/2010 7:06:44 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Others are only harmed when physical coercion is used, which is contradictory to the notion of freedom.
Good. To sum it up, freedom = do whatever you wish without harming others.

Do we agree?
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2010 7:08:54 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/8/2010 7:07:54 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 8/8/2010 7:06:44 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 8/8/2010 7:05:19 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 8/8/2010 6:56:08 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I'll take that one. Pretty simple. Freedom = lack of restraint on/interference with your ability to act.
Except when others are harmed?

Others are only harmed when physical coercion is used, which is contradictory to the notion of freedom.

Would an objectivist society even have a police force?

Uh... Yeah. Objectivism isn't anarchistic at all.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2010 7:12:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/8/2010 7:10:02 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Sure.
OK.

So, I as a human being am allowed to do whatever I wish to myself, e.g. kill myself, but not use a bomb around other people which will also kill them.

Now, if a woman is alone in a deserted place and gives birth to a child, she has all rights to leave the child and move on with her life, because the child is totally independent as a human being.

Do we agree?
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2010 7:15:33 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/8/2010 7:12:09 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 8/8/2010 7:10:02 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Sure.
OK.

So, I as a human being am allowed to do whatever I wish to myself, e.g. kill myself, but not use a bomb around other people which will also kill them.

Yep. Your body is your own. The bodies of others, however, are not.

Now, if a woman is alone in a deserted place and gives birth to a child, she has all rights to leave the child and move on with her life, because the child is totally independent as a human being.

I wouldn't say that the child is at all independent; however, the fact that the child is needy doesn't place any kind of ethical burden on the mother. I wouldn't advise leaving the child in the desert, but it's not morally blameworthy if she does so.

Do we agree?

Sure.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2010 7:20:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/8/2010 7:15:33 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Yep. Your body is your own. The bodies of others, however, are not.
Moving on...

I wouldn't say that the child is at all independent; however, the fact that the child is needy doesn't place any kind of ethical burden on the mother. I wouldn't advise leaving the child in the desert, but it's not morally blameworthy if she does so.
Already here do you contradict yourself (more so your ideology that contradicts itself). Basically, a woman decides to give birth to someone, knowing that it will be harmed if she does not help him/her, yet she is allowed to go away and harm the child. This is a pure contradiction, a normal thing for these concepts of freedom.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2010 7:30:50 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/8/2010 7:20:03 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 8/8/2010 7:15:33 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Yep. Your body is your own. The bodies of others, however, are not.
Moving on...

I wouldn't say that the child is at all independent; however, the fact that the child is needy doesn't place any kind of ethical burden on the mother. I wouldn't advise leaving the child in the desert, but it's not morally blameworthy if she does so.

Already here do you contradict yourself (more so your ideology that contradicts itself). Basically, a woman decides to give birth to someone, knowing that it will be harmed if she does not help him/her, yet she is allowed to go away and harm the child. This is a pure contradiction, a normal thing for these concepts of freedom.

You're equivocating on the word "harm" to mean anything with any kind of negative repercussions on another person. If I leave my place of employment, I'm sure that my employer's profits will be negatively effected; this, however, does not mean that I am harming him. Keep in mind that all human relationships must necessarily be voluntary. Employer-employee, boyfriend-girlfriend, parent-child.

When I speak of harm, I mean one thing, and one thing only - the initiation of force against another person. If the mother explicitly smashed her child's head against a rock, that would be harm. If she simply leaves the child to its fate, no harm has been committed against the child, any more than an employee leaving his employer or a girlfriend breaking up with her boyfriend.

Unless you want to institute a system of slavery in which everyone is a servant to everyone, with every man sacrificing himself so that no one else is "harmed" by the lack of sacrificing, don't even think of telling me that I contradict myself.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2010 7:32:48 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/8/2010 7:21:36 PM, Mirza wrote:
Also, would mental harm count under your ideology as criminal harm to others?

Nope; otherwise, it would be a criminal offense to break-up with a boyfriend. If you tie someone to a chair and scream about how worthless they are, it's not the screaming you punish a man for - it's the use of force which was necessary for the screaming to be possible.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2010 7:37:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/8/2010 7:30:50 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 8/8/2010 7:20:03 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 8/8/2010 7:15:33 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Yep. Your body is your own. The bodies of others, however, are not.
Moving on...

I wouldn't say that the child is at all independent; however, the fact that the child is needy doesn't place any kind of ethical burden on the mother. I wouldn't advise leaving the child in the desert, but it's not morally blameworthy if she does so.

Already here do you contradict yourself (more so your ideology that contradicts itself). Basically, a woman decides to give birth to someone, knowing that it will be harmed if she does not help him/her, yet she is allowed to go away and harm the child. This is a pure contradiction, a normal thing for these concepts of freedom.

You're equivocating on the word "harm" to mean anything with any kind of negative repercussions on another person. If I leave my place of employment, I'm sure that my employer's profits will be negatively effected; this, however, does not mean that I am harming him. Keep in mind that all human relationships must necessarily be voluntary. Employer-employee, boyfriend-girlfriend, parent-child.

When I speak of harm, I mean one thing, and one thing only - the initiation of force against another person. If the mother explicitly smashed her child's head against a rock, that would be harm. If she simply leaves the child to its fate, no harm has been committed against the child, any more than an employee leaving his employer or a girlfriend breaking up with her boyfriend.
This is an invalid comparison. Let us see why.

Employer-employee

Both can make a deal that if the work is done badly, the employee is to be fired. So, although firing can be harmful, the employee was aware of it before he got employed. It was his own choice to take the job and risk being harmed.

Boyfriend-girlfriend

Same as above. If they disagree with each other too much etc., knowing beforehand that this will lead to splitting, then they have chosen to risk being harmed.

Parent (mother)-child

Now, this is a wholly different case. First and foremost, only the mother knows how the child will survive and what will not harm it, but the child does not. Secondly, the child has absolutely no choice whatsoever do refuse to being born. He has no choice but to do what his mother chooses for him, and if she chooses to give him birth, she has done so by knowing that the child is fully dependent on her, and that it became so solely on her own decision, meaning that she has taken responsibility for any harm to the child caused by her. So, she leaving the child to die is direct harm to it.

Unless you want to institute a system of slavery in which everyone is a servant to everyone, with every man sacrificing himself so that no one else is "harmed" by the lack of sacrificing, don't even think of telling me that I contradict myself.
No system is fully free of harm, but yours is totally contradictory.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2010 7:37:55 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/8/2010 7:32:48 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Nope; otherwise, it would be a criminal offense to break-up with a boyfriend. If you tie someone to a chair and scream about how worthless they are, it's not the screaming you punish a man for - it's the use of force which was necessary for the screaming to be possible.
Did you know that mental harm can cause direct physical harm?
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2010 7:40:17 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/8/2010 7:32:48 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Nope; otherwise, it would be a criminal offense to break-up with a boyfriend. If you tie someone to a chair and scream about how worthless they are, it's not the screaming you punish a man for - it's the use of force which was necessary for the screaming to be possible.
Also, that is still harm through consensus.

I am off for now.
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2010 7:45:42 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/8/2010 7:37:15 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 8/8/2010 7:30:50 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 8/8/2010 7:20:03 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 8/8/2010 7:15:33 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Yep. Your body is your own. The bodies of others, however, are not.
Moving on...

I wouldn't say that the child is at all independent; however, the fact that the child is needy doesn't place any kind of ethical burden on the mother. I wouldn't advise leaving the child in the desert, but it's not morally blameworthy if she does so.

Already here do you contradict yourself (more so your ideology that contradicts itself). Basically, a woman decides to give birth to someone, knowing that it will be harmed if she does not help him/her, yet she is allowed to go away and harm the child. This is a pure contradiction, a normal thing for these concepts of freedom.

You're equivocating on the word "harm" to mean anything with any kind of negative repercussions on another person. If I leave my place of employment, I'm sure that my employer's profits will be negatively effected; this, however, does not mean that I am harming him. Keep in mind that all human relationships must necessarily be voluntary. Employer-employee, boyfriend-girlfriend, parent-child.

When I speak of harm, I mean one thing, and one thing only - the initiation of force against another person. If the mother explicitly smashed her child's head against a rock, that would be harm. If she simply leaves the child to its fate, no harm has been committed against the child, any more than an employee leaving his employer or a girlfriend breaking up with her boyfriend.
This is an invalid comparison. Let us see why.

Employer-employee

Both can make a deal that if the work is done badly, the employee is to be fired. So, although firing can be harmful, the employee was aware of it before he got employed. It was his own choice to take the job and risk being harmed.

Boyfriend-girlfriend

Same as above. If they disagree with each other too much etc., knowing beforehand that this will lead to splitting, then they have chosen to risk being harmed.

Parent (mother)-child

Now, this is a wholly different case. First and foremost, only the mother knows how the child will survive and what will not harm it, but the child does not. Secondly, the child has absolutely no choice whatsoever do refuse to being born. He has no choice but to do what his mother chooses for him, and if she chooses to give him birth, she has done so by knowing that the child is fully dependent on her, and that it became so solely on her own decision, meaning that she has taken responsibility for any harm to the child caused by her. So, she leaving the child to die is direct harm to it.

Unless you want to institute a system of slavery in which everyone is a servant to everyone, with every man sacrificing himself so that no one else is "harmed" by the lack of sacrificing, don't even think of telling me that I contradict myself.
No system is fully free of harm, but yours is totally contradictory.

I have to agree with Cody_Franklin. Although leaving your child in a desert is morally reprehensible, the mother is not harming it. And when I say that, I mean that the mother has not hurt the child physically herself. What will almost certainly hurt the child is starvation. However, in most modern societies, abandoning your child is illegal since it's making the mother responsible for any harm that occurred once abandoning the child.

But in China, since they have a one child policy, it is common to find babies that have been abandoned. What we see as shocking, is commonplace there. They don't see it as harming the child. They actually believe that the child would harm the family (heavy fines for extra children).
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2010 7:48:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/8/2010 7:37:15 PM, Mirza wrote:

You're equivocating on the word "harm" to mean anything with any kind of negative repercussions on another person. If I leave my place of employment, I'm sure that my employer's profits will be negatively effected; this, however, does not mean that I am harming him. Keep in mind that all human relationships must necessarily be voluntary. Employer-employee, boyfriend-girlfriend, parent-child.

When I speak of harm, I mean one thing, and one thing only - the initiation of force against another person. If the mother explicitly smashed her child's head against a rock, that would be harm. If she simply leaves the child to its fate, no harm has been committed against the child, any more than an employee leaving his employer or a girlfriend breaking up with her boyfriend.

This is an invalid comparison. Let us see why.

Employer-employee

Both can make a deal that if the work is done badly, the employee is to be fired. So, although firing can be harmful, the employee was aware of it before he got employed. It was his own choice to take the job and risk being harmed.

First of all, I was talking explicitly about the employee choosing to leave the employer, just as the mother chooses to leave her child.

Secondly, losing his job isn't a direct physical harm. "Harm" isn't the same thing as "any and all negative repercussions".

Boyfriend-girlfriend

Same as above. If they disagree with each other too much etc., knowing beforehand that this will lead to splitting, then they have chosen to risk being harmed.

It isn't a harm.

Parent (mother)-child

Now, this is a wholly different case. First and foremost, only the mother knows how the child will survive and what will not harm it, but the child does not.

Okay? The child's dependence isn't a moral chain on the mother.

Secondly, the child has absolutely no choice whatsoever do refuse to being born. He has no choice but to do what his mother chooses for him, and if she chooses to give him birth, she has done so by knowing that the child is fully dependent on her, and that it became so solely on her own decision, meaning that she has taken responsibility for any harm to the child caused by her.

Non sequitur. Allowing the child to be born =/= explicit agreement to assume full responsibility for its fate. It may not be good parenting, but unless she deliberately inflicts physical harm on the child, she's not doing any wrong. Leaving the child alone isn't an initiation of force, and doesn't break any contractual agreements, despite what your religion might have to say about it.

So, she leaving the child to die is direct harm to it.

No it isn't. Unless she personally lays a hand on that child (hitting it, throwing it, smashing it on a rock, stepping on it, kicking it, gouging its eyes out, etc.) then she is not directly harming it.

Unless you want to institute a system of slavery in which everyone is a servant to everyone, with every man sacrificing himself so that no one else is "harmed" by the lack of sacrificing, don't even think of telling me that I contradict myself.

No system is fully free of harm, but yours is totally contradictory.

You didn't answer my argument. Do you or do you not want a system whereby every man is a slave to anyone who might be dependent on him?
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2010 7:49:11 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/8/2010 7:37:55 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 8/8/2010 7:32:48 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Nope; otherwise, it would be a criminal offense to break-up with a boyfriend. If you tie someone to a chair and scream about how worthless they are, it's not the screaming you punish a man for - it's the use of force which was necessary for the screaming to be possible.
Did you know that mental harm can cause direct physical harm?

As in driving the person to suicide? Sure.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2010 7:50:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/8/2010 7:49:11 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 8/8/2010 7:37:55 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 8/8/2010 7:32:48 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Nope; otherwise, it would be a criminal offense to break-up with a boyfriend. If you tie someone to a chair and scream about how worthless they are, it's not the screaming you punish a man for - it's the use of force which was necessary for the screaming to be possible.
Did you know that mental harm can cause direct physical harm?

As in driving the person to suicide? Sure.

Well is that ok in your mind?
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2010 7:50:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/8/2010 7:40:17 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 8/8/2010 7:32:48 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Nope; otherwise, it would be a criminal offense to break-up with a boyfriend. If you tie someone to a chair and scream about how worthless they are, it's not the screaming you punish a man for - it's the use of force which was necessary for the screaming to be possible.
Also, that is still harm through consensus.

There's nothing consensual about being tied to a chair.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2010 7:52:00 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/8/2010 7:50:15 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 8/8/2010 7:49:11 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 8/8/2010 7:37:55 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 8/8/2010 7:32:48 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Nope; otherwise, it would be a criminal offense to break-up with a boyfriend. If you tie someone to a chair and scream about how worthless they are, it's not the screaming you punish a man for - it's the use of force which was necessary for the screaming to be possible.
Did you know that mental harm can cause direct physical harm?

As in driving the person to suicide? Sure.

Well is that ok in your mind?

Individual's choice. As long as I don't physically force the guy into a noose, I'm ethically blameless.