Yet Another "Axiom" Question

[KenProspero]

[ QUOTE ]
no, it's the 'cultural obligation' that makes you unhappy (guilty) when you choose not to help.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I don't think guilt covers it. Humans have an extraordinary ability to rationalize their actions. In the example I gave, I think many who would help the Aunt would truly be happier if they left her to the Charity Ward, and probably know this when they make the decision to help.

[David Sklansky]

I did mean all or nothing. The political question as to whether the procedure should be implemented simply because a majority would vote for it was not the issue I was addressing. I was concerned only with what each person's own personal opinion was. Assuming everyone else deferred to them.

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
I think many who would help the Aunt would truly be happier if they left her to the Charity Ward, and probably know this when they make the decision to help.

[/ QUOTE ]

so it's still not clear why the definition of the word is the real source of disagreement?

[David Sklansky]

"I got that, I'm against it even if its in a bazillion generations. Its only okay if everyone who currently exists okays it. Then there will be no future generations for it to be imposed on."

It still seems like you didn't understand the question. Even if everyone who currently exists okays it, it will be imposed on the next 20 generations or so.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
"I got that, I'm against it even if its in a bazillion generations. Its only okay if everyone who currently exists okays it. Then there will be no future generations for it to be imposed on."

It still seems like you didn't understand the question. Even if everyone who currently exists okays it, it will be imposed on the next 20 generations or so.

[/ QUOTE ]
Everyone who exists has to okay it for themselves . There will be no future generations.

Misunderstanding each other this much aint easy.

chez

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"I got that, I'm against it even if its in a bazillion generations. Its only okay if everyone who currently exists okays it. Then there will be no future generations for it to be imposed on."

It still seems like you didn't understand the question. Even if everyone who currently exists okays it, it will be imposed on the next 20 generations or so.

[/ QUOTE ]
Everyone who exists has to okay it for themselves . There will be no future generations.

Misunderstanding each other this much aint easy.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

There will be generations until 500 years from now. Then in 600 years there will be no more mankind - no more generations.

[RJT]

I hate to be redundant, but I really love this question.

From a purely theoretical point of view the answer should be simple and it seems like it should be “Sure, why not.” Yet, no one (few?) has answered that way. (Well, chez first said - “if its what everyone wants then sure go for it“, then he seems confused about the rules. I‘ll let him get on the same page before we go further.)

I hate to always bring religion into the framework, but here, how can one not be influenced by how one views life? The question seems like a litmus test for atheism to me. And I don’t see many posters passing. (Bad analogy I know.)

Answering the question from my own religious perspective - I don’t like the bargain. I’d pass. It is clearly not the path that I think My God has in mind.

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
It is clearly not the path that I think My God has in mind.

[/ QUOTE ]

seems like sklansky wanted people to ignore this aspect.

[RJT]

I know that is why I first answered it in the theoretical. But, I had to include the last part because he and chezlaw and a few others know I am Catholic. (From SMP forum.) So I thought it would seem odd if I didn't address it briefly.

[David Sklansky]

"seems like sklansky wanted people to ignore this aspect."

No I didn't. I just wanted those who invoke religion to vote no to answer twice.