Exactly, because we define life subjectively based upon our own personal morals, ethics, values and opinions. And these concepts differ from person to person, which again is because of the morals, ethics, values and opinions we were raised with, whether by parents or other family members, friends, other advlts such as teachers, societal authority figures such as the police, and so on and so forth.

Which is also the same answer I'd give as to why there is no ultimate meaning of life.

Exactly. If one life is to be balanced against another, an objective standard must be there for any decision made to be just.

I agree on that, but there's one thing. What is just?

If you cut of one of my fingers, is it just of me to cut of one of yours? Or would it rather be fair for you to compensate me by other means? Eye for eye or eye for cash?

I should have made it clearer- it's "just" according to my personal ethical code.

Of course objective morality outside of a societal construct is debatable.

Oh right, sorry for the misunderstanding.

I think that humanity is ultimately cosmic detritus, I don't think there's anything particularly remarkable about mankind. How we govern ourselves is inconsequential to existence as a whole.

I doubt we'll be around much longer- nuclear conflict seems too likely.

Mankind is mundane indeed, individuals are fantastic.

I'd have to agree.

I used to have very romanticised views of humanity. Liberté, égalité, Fraternité, et cetera.

Despite the great thinkers that occur perhaps once a century most of humanity is obscene.

I have immeasurable contempt for airheads and vapid morons, those that sit blithely ignoring gross injustices (by any popular standard) while taking pride in their ignorance.

It's just as well I have no control over the world, because it would have a population of 500,000 when I'd finished sorting the wheat from the chaff.

It depends entirely on what is needed, from whom, and to what degree.

If one man hoards more food than he will ever need, I think it's justified that he be reprimanded, even killed, to feed a thousand starving peasants.

It's not justified, however, to kill one starving man for what little food he has just to make the other starving peasants a bit less miserable.

So if someone were to force you to kill either the said felon or the innocent guy, you literally would not be able to choose?

*nods*

We can ponder all day long about what we would do in situations. However, when that situation truly comes we can be dumbfounded by it and choose differently than choice.

Still love that quote I read stating unlike math, science, and history philosophy is never wrong.


No arguments I have seen this before and remember one quite vividly. It happened here in the US where an individual went out when a storm was brewing and got swept away by it. That person put themselves in danger along with the rescue crew that was sent to help them. As a result the individual was charged/fined $5k + extra for their stupidity.


A person is smart, people are dumb dangerous panicky animals and you know it - Tommy Lee Jones as Agent K


Dealing with people that have committed horrendous acts I am a hypocrite and will say they need to die. However, being philosophical what right do I have as a mere human to pass judgment on them deeming their existence/life unworthy?


*edit*

One story I have thought about previous times is a bit arbitrary and selfish, but proposes the same question.

An alien race suddenly appears before mankind and says the whole planet will be destroyed. However, they will spare us if 1 human is killed by their appendages at which point they speak your name. Question is you are going to die anyways, do you save your fellow humans or try to hide and let things happen anyways?

Don't think I said that. I easily would, but then I'd be using subjective value, wouldn't I?

Oh, and I'd kill the person "forcing" me to shoot one.

If I'm to kill a person I will do it of my own free will.

Oh well thanks for clearing that up, although in my scenario you do not have the choice of killing the person forcing you.

For the record I'd kill the paedo, but if it transpired that the law abiding fellow was infact part of a legal corporation that poisoned vast amounts of foreign land and caused birth defects, deaths etc, and I only had one round, I'd kick the living [censored] out of him then shoot him in the head.

I don't know if I have an exact answer to this question in my opinion, but I will say I have the stark belief that if I'm willing to let somebody else die without giving my own life instead, then I deserve to die, and not them. As in, I'd rather take the bullet then let them die. Eh. Maybe I'm too stupid to think about things like this.

@Modus Corporations have a lot of levels. What if the law abiding fellow was an office peon with no real knowledge of the corporations evil deeds?

Hahahaha +1 on that! You'd solve a bigger problem at least.

Self preservation is my moral code. That which is expedient is just, for me. But when self preservation is of lesser importance, we can have nice things like morals, as there's far less competition.

In a world of abundance your position is noble.

in a world of scarcity it is foolish.

Yeah, a lot of people tend to forget that even if something's legal, it can be horribly unjust.

Me or them in a world of scarcity. Either way, one of us dies and the other gets survival and maybe a few more resources depending on the situation. I'd still choose me.

But then you are letting them pass on their genes, thus degrading the gene pool compared to how it would be if you survived. So in a way, you'd be contributing to the downfall of humanity.

And how are their genes suddenly less "perfect" than mine?

In a way, he would be making the easy choice (for himself). I mean, I'd rather take my chances with the next world than live in a world like that.

well, because if you could gain the upper hand for your own survival and they couldn't, they're of lesser physical or mental ability.

Please could you explain more fully the scenario you envisage?

Personally, I am more horrified to think I could live eternally after death. Especially if I'm forced to share it with people who pass themselves of as religious.

Hmmm, not believing in an afterlife seems very depressing (not necessarily talking about sitting on clouds and playing harps), but it is impossible for me to comprehend ceasing to exist completely.