|
Pretty self explanatory but I was just wondering how other goons thought about the idea. Basically, I agree with this cus no matter how good or bad a person is, I don't think that should be reason to praise them as a special snowflake or kill them for what one thinks is the "greater good." There really is no "right" or "wrong" way to be a human being in the greater scheme of things.
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2016 01:30
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 15:53 |
|
|
sitchensis posted:Yep. Well I mean more like, the world itself is absurd because there are no real "rules" for life itself. There's no greater power that says that's it's ok to do this but not ok to do that. Most of what people say is right or wrong is based on something that is based off of the rules of the society they live in. Not to say it's always a bad or a good thing. Example: in most societies, it's illegal to kill people (duh), and I agree with that idea cus I don't see a reason to purposely kill someone, but there might be someone out there who thinks otherwise. They're most likely hosed in the head, but there's technically nothing stopping them from thinking that to begin with. Granted there's stuff like the law that would discourage someone from doing so, but there are no "laws" on life itself.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2016 01:45
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:On the contrary, existence is a false idea. Not to say "lol ur rong xddd" but how so? What's your belief/reasoning behind that? Just curious.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2016 01:55
|
|
|
Oh dear me posted:When you say they are good, you are praising them. Are you in fact saying that there is zero difference between good and bad things? I meant to say there's such thing as praising them too much.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2016 20:27
|
|
|
botany posted:None of this is self-explanatory and I'd actually like you to explain what you mean by these terms. "Existence precedes essence" means that the fact that something or someone exists alone is what gives it value, and not what the thing or person "is." I'm not sure if that makes sense, but I'd highly suggest looking it up for a clearer view on it.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2016 16:33
|
|
|
botany posted:So your thesis is that human live has inherent value outside of the specific form that human life takes. Is that about right? The obvious follow-ups would be: A. In the greater scheme of things, I don't think there's a real reason for life to continue existing, but at the same time, there's no reason for it to cease to exist. Rather than finding some greater meaning to life as a whole, it makes more sense to find the meaning in one's individual life. Example: if someone wants to become an artist, their life's purpose is to become an artist. It could certainly change along the way, but either way, their own individual life has meaning, even if it doesn't mean anything to the rest of the universe/in the greater scheme of things. B. I'd have to say the latter. I've always believed that there's a difference between a human being and a person. If one sees an individual as a person, they see them in the context of society. They take into consideration what the person is, what their personality is like, their likes/dislikes, lifestyle, etc. If one sees an individual as a human, however, they're seen in the context of the species they belong to. They're seen as a living being, an animal, if you will, without the other stuff (personality, likes/dislikes, etc.) being considered. That being said, I do think there are bad "people," but there's no such thing as a bad "human." In fact, I believe that all humans are inherently neutral. Just because someone's a good/bad person doesn't mean they're a good/bad human being, because they weren't born to be good or bad. They just became good or bad because of their upbringing, environment and personal ideologies (among other things of course). If there were such a thing as a "bad" human, that would suggest the idea that the human in question deserves to die and essentially wiped off the face of the Earth. However, I don't think killing even the worst of people is the best way to deal with the issues they cause, because violence doesn't really solve anything, at the risk of sounding somewhat pretentious. I do think that murderers/rapists/etc. deserved to be punished (with the punishment varying depending on the offense, obviously), but I don't think that they should be killed. There's no reason to do so because they're just human beings.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2016 17:50
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 15:53 |
|
|
Phyzzle posted:So, you appear to be suggesting that legality should exist in a separate sphere from 'biological' matters, like life and death. Would you say that rules & morality apply to living persons, so you're against the death penalty for the same reason that you're against whipping the ocean for causing drownings? I'm definitely against the death penalty, seeing that it doesn't really get rid of crime of any type, and that it doesn't "scare" other criminals from committing crimes (which seems to be a primary purpose of the death penalty). It's just a retarded idea inherently. So ergo, this is probably obvious but yes I do think rules and morality apply to the living, seeing that the dead can't do much anyway  Somewhat off topic, but I remember in middle school years ago I was doing homework in study hall, when the teacher in the room gave me and some of the kids in there a "Time for Kids" (it's literally a kids' version of Time) that had an article about Billy the Kid being pardoned for what he did (if I remember correctly). Seeing that he was dead for hundreds of loving years and I had homework that was much more important to do, it was probably the biggest waste of time in my life.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2016 21:56
|
|