Yet Another "Axiom" Question - Page 9

RJT · #81 01-11-2007, 09:52 AM

Al68 said:

[ QUOTE ]
To an athiest, the extinction of the human race would be the end of all human souls forever.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought atheists don’t believe humans have souls. Or to be more specific, they don’t know if they do, so they live their lives assuming they don’t.

Chez,

[ QUOTE ]
I said in previous responses to DS that no number of generation is acceptable, not even a bazillion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Come on, chez. No guts, no glory. You sure you aren’t French mascarading as a Brit? Man you atheist are hung-up on your genes.

RJT

To David S:

Your OP really should have been posted in SMP. I am going to notify the moderator.

RJT

chezlaw · #82 01-11-2007, 10:08 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

First of all, if you think I have misinterpreted something (which I of course very well may have done), could you please inform me how or in what way? You saying so doesn't help much.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you think DS is asking if you prefer to do what you prefer to do then you've wrong. I'll leave DS to exlain why if he wants to. Or he could say that that is the exciting question he was posing

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OK. No help from you in describing what is misinterpreted then.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, that was help. We have to try to understand DS's intention here, and it fairly obviously isn't to ask if we prefer to do what we prefer to do.

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Second of all, your example about getting a morphine high is not an example of anything. Why would you ever not choose to hook yourself up to this machine if you thought it would give you the most happiness? You claim that you wouldn't, and I simply don't believe it. In case you don't hook yourself up to this machine, I think it can only be because you actually don't think it will give you the most happiness (i.e. you find some negative value in becoming a drug addict).

The simple fact is that it is given in this question what option people actually prefer, and for some reason you seem to find it difficult to choose this option.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You may not believe it but it proves your logical fallacy wasn't. I believe many people would refuse it for the same reason they wouldn't all rush out and get frontal lobotomies if it was proven that being lobotimised would made them happy.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I really can't understand what it is that you have such huge trouble understanding. Of course people would and should get a lobotomy if they thought it would increase their happiness. If you actually believe that you would be happier with a lobotomy, then what would your argument be for not getting it?

[/ QUOTE ]
Why should they do it? I wouldn't take the fromntal lobotomy even if it would make me happy because I don't want to. Why don't I (or many others) want to I hear you cry? well we can have a very long interesting conversation about that if you like but in the end it doesn't matter why it's just a matter of fact.

[ QUOTE ]
7. Please give one example of one invention from which future generations will benefit greatly. I certainly can't think of any such invention, but I can easily put down almost all our inventions as things from which future generations eventually will loose their possibility of living on earth.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'll just deal with this bit because all we have to do is consider the benefits to our generation from the inventions of previous ones. I benefit greatly from this computer.

chez

RJT · #83 01-11-2007, 10:10 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Are you suggesting that the best way to look after future generations is for all of us to stop doing anything?

[/ QUOTE ]

This gets to the heart of what David is asking as I understand it. It isn’t a trick question as HedCec seems to suggest when he says, “2. In real life we are screaming yes to this question, but in this case we have no guarantee that doing so actually will make us happier.” David’s premise is that we will be happier, period.

So David is asking - do you think looking our for future generations is more important than our own and even our children’s (perhaps grandchildren’s and great-grandchildren) happiness?

As David suggest in the OP, this really is a subjective decision. But, my follow up question to those who answer “no, it is not worth it” is what is your thinking? That answers seems illogical (which is irrelevant, because we assume logic doesn’t matter in this context). So in other words, I ask, how can you suspend logic when answering this question? That is what theists do.

RJT · #84 01-11-2007, 10:22 AM

HC,

[ QUOTE ]
3. So far, almost without exception, the inventions made have some negative long term side effects that eventually will make the earth inhabitable to people.
4. For the last generation of people living on earth, I very much doubt that they will agree with you that all the benefits previous generations gained from the inventions was worth the cost.

[/ QUOTE ]

This gets to where the OP’s question issue leads us after we answer it.

I can’t agree with you that your assumptions are true. They very well might be, but how do you account for the population being at an all time high, if all the inventions (includes medical cures, etc) haven’t helped? Now, whether we have peaked or not (and global warming and those kind of issues) is another story. I just disagree - I think that up to this point we (mankind) have done pretty good for ourselves.

But, this is for the next thread - we are getting ahead of the OP.

RJT

chezlaw · #85 01-11-2007, 10:45 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Are you suggesting that the best way to look after future generations is for all of us to stop doing anything?

[/ QUOTE ]

This gets to the heart of what David is asking as I understand it. It isn’t a trick question as HedCec seems to suggest when he says, “2. In real life we are screaming yes to this question, but in this case we have no guarantee that doing so actually will make us happier.” David’s premise is that we will be happier, period.

So David is asking - do you think looking our for future generations is more important than our own and even our children’s (perhaps grandchildren’s and great-grandchildren) happiness?

As David suggest in the OP, this really is a subjective decision. But, my follow up question to those who answer “no, it is not worth it” is what is your thinking? That answers seems illogical (which is irrelevant, because we assume logic doesn’t matter in this context). So in other words, I ask, how can you suspend logic when answering this question? That is what theists do.

[/ QUOTE ]
If we're not willing to sterilise strangers in a far off country to make us happy then why should it be different if that far off country is the future. Personally I'm not willing to do either however far away that country is.

There's no suspension of logic going on. Its just about who we are - can I risk again making the joke about not being willing to sterilise others because I'm a selfish so and so.

chez

RJT · #86 01-11-2007, 11:01 AM

Chez,

You hit the nail on the head, I think. Is there a difference between the present and the future relative to how we think about things? You answer that there is no difference. Or rather, the difference is irrelevant. (Your thinking is very similar to theistic thinking, Hey, you've been called worse things.)

I think the difference is this: one (the future) is theoretical the other (people living today) is pragmatic. This gets into the abortion issue – stuff like that.

This really, really needs to be carried to SMP. When I get time later, I will try to post something to get things started there.

RJT

chezlaw · #87 01-11-2007, 11:19 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Chez,

You hit the nail on the head, I think. Is there a difference between the present and the future relative to how we think about things? You answer that there is no difference. Or rather, the difference is irrelevant. (Your thinking is very similar to theistic thinking, Hey, you've been called worse things.)

I think the difference is this: one (the future) is theoretical the other (people living today) is pragmatic. This gets into the abortion issue – stuff like that.

This really, really needs to be carried to SMP. When I get time later, I will try to post something to get things started there.

RJT

[/ QUOTE ]
The only important point about abortion (imo) is captured here. If its the killing of a person then its unacceptable to me, but if its an action on something that may have led to a person existing but now wont then its of no importance whatsoever.

So I have no issue at all with early abortions or contraception, and a big problem with post-natal ones.

chez

RJT · #88 01-11-2007, 11:46 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Chez,

You hit the nail on the head, I think. Is there a difference between the present and the future relative to how we think about things? You answer that there is no difference. Or rather, the difference is irrelevant. (Your thinking is very similar to theistic thinking, Hey, you've been called worse things.)

I think the difference is this: one (the future) is theoretical the other (people living today) is pragmatic. This gets into the abortion issue – stuff like that.

This really, really needs to be carried to SMP. When I get time later, I will try to post something to get things started there.

RJT

[/ QUOTE ]
The only important point about abortion (imo) is captured here. If its the killing of a person then its unacceptable to me, but if its an action on something that may have led to a person existing but now wont then its of no importance whatsoever.

So I have no issue at all with early abortions or contraception, and a big problem with post-natal ones.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Yet, you are so concerned about people 500 years from now (That is pre-pre-pre-pre natal)! Wow, you just floored me, chez.

luckyme · #89 01-11-2007, 11:51 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Should the procedure be done? If yes, how much smaller than 500 would you accept? If no, how much greater than 500 would be OK? Also if you answered no only because you think God would be angry, what would your answer be if he assured you he wouldn't be?

[/ QUOTE ]

No.
No amount of years.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
What about doing it to ourselves if everyone agreed. i.e. zero number of generations?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

This is only an answer to one of the minor issues ( and it may violate the 'no logical debate' restriction), but the "make you happier" isn't a premise that makes any sense for me. For the same reasons that I don't shoot up or get shitfaced drunk. Chez, I trust you understand that it is 'me' typing this, etc, etc. ( I see you touched on this with the lobotomy example).

luckyme

chezlaw · #90 01-11-2007, 11:51 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Chez,

You hit the nail on the head, I think. Is there a difference between the present and the future relative to how we think about things? You answer that there is no difference. Or rather, the difference is irrelevant. (Your thinking is very similar to theistic thinking, Hey, you've been called worse things.)

I think the difference is this: one (the future) is theoretical the other (people living today) is pragmatic. This gets into the abortion issue – stuff like that.

This really, really needs to be carried to SMP. When I get time later, I will try to post something to get things started there.

RJT

[/ QUOTE ]
The only important point about abortion (imo) is captured here. If its the killing of a person then its unacceptable to me, but if its an action on something that may have led to a person existing but now wont then its of no importance whatsoever.

So I have no issue at all with early abortions or contraception, and a big problem with post-natal ones.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Yet, you are so concerned about people 500 years from now (That is pre-pre-pre-pre natal)! Wow, you just floored me, chez.

[/ QUOTE ]
but they are people who will exists as opposed to never existing.

You can't harm something that won't ever have any existence.

chez