What is right?

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: What is right?

Post by bahman »

RCSaunders wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 6:46 pm
bahman wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 3:01 pm Killing animals is evil ...
Then the world is filled with "evil" animals that do almost nothing but kill animals.

There is nothing evil about killing any animal for any reason unless the animal happens to be some human being's property.

Just out of curiosity, what is, "evil," about killing animals? In many cases it's a virtue to kill animals. To kill any animal that is a threat to a human being's person or property (rabid animals, vicious animals, destructive animals, infection-spreading animals, poisonous animals) is good. Many people think killing animals that are in peril of starvation or disease is better than letting them suffer. You do not have to explain your position to me, of course, or anyone else. I'm not testing you. I'm just honestly curious if you care to explain.
Living is either good or evil. Pick up. If living is good then killing is evil. If living is evil then killing is good.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: What is right?

Post by RCSaunders »

bahman wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 11:29 am
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 6:46 pm
bahman wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 3:01 pm Killing animals is evil ...
Then the world is filled with "evil" animals that do almost nothing but kill animals.

There is nothing evil about killing any animal for any reason unless the animal happens to be some human being's property.

Just out of curiosity, what is, "evil," about killing animals? In many cases it's a virtue to kill animals. To kill any animal that is a threat to a human being's person or property (rabid animals, vicious animals, destructive animals, infection-spreading animals, poisonous animals) is good. Many people think killing animals that are in peril of starvation or disease is better than letting them suffer. You do not have to explain your position to me, of course, or anyone else. I'm not testing you. I'm just honestly curious if you care to explain.
Living is either good or evil. Pick up. If living is good then killing is evil. If living is evil then killing is good.
That's silly. That's like saying fire is either good or evil. If fire is good it is evil to put one out.

Nothing is just good or bad. Good is a value term and all values only have meaning in relationship to some end, purpose, goal, or objective. All things, including life, are only good if they are good to someone for something,
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: What is right?

Post by RCSaunders »

Age wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 10:30 am
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 1:56 am
Age wrote: Sat Sep 11, 2021 11:45 pm

You obviously were NOT reading and comprehending some of the actual words that I used and wrote.

Now, my answer to your question here is no. Were you assuming I was saying otherwise?
No, I was pointing out the absurd contradiction in what you wrote.
You were ASSUMING some thing, which was OBVIOUSLY Wrong.
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 1:56 am You cannot be both opposed to killing animals and opposed to killing animals that only exist to kill other animals.
This has absolutely NOTHING AT ALL in regards to what I was saying. So, ANY "contradiction" you are seeing and are talking about is only an ASSUMPTION you have made.

1. I NEVER even opposed to killing animals. So, this is the first mistake AND first Wrong ASSUMPTION, of yours.

2. Any ASSUMPTION about being opposed to killing animals that only exist to kill other animals, is ANOTHER mistake AND Wrong ASSUMPTION, of yours.

3. Talking about killing animals that ONLY exist, to kill other animals, is NOTHING I ever talked about NOR even referred to.

Once again I suggest you CLARIFY, BEFORE you ASSUME. That way you will not be SO WRONG, SO OFTEN.
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 1:56 am
Age wrote: Sat Sep 11, 2021 11:45 pm

So, to you, which animals is it all right to kill, and/or eat, and which ones is it wrong to kill, and/or eat?
It doesn't matter at all what animals one kills to eat, so long as the animal is not poisonous, like a blow-fish, or someone else's property.
So, killing and eating adult humans is NOT WRONG to you.

No wonder you still do not yet know what is right, in Life.
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 1:56 am The only animals one will not kill are those which belong to another other human being, like cattle, sheep, chickens, ducks, work animals, or pets. Individuals of course can kill their own animals and do not have to explain their reasons to anyone else.
This exists only in "rcsaunder's world", which is NOT what "others" consider is right, correct?
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 1:56 am
Age wrote: Sat Sep 11, 2021 11:45 pm ... Oh, and by the way, if you keep up with this assuming BEFORE clarifying, then you will continue on NEVER knowing what thee actual answer is, to the question.
You are the only one asking questions and obviously do not have clue.
LOL If you say so. But this is just further PROOF that you are NOT reading and comprehending the actual words that I write.


And let us not forget that it was you who said and wrote you would enjoy any serious answer to the question.

You OBVIOUSLY have NO correct answer AT ALL to the question. Which means that you do not have a clue.
Well, don't worry about it. I surely won't.
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: What is right?

Post by Age »

RCSaunders wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 3:04 pm
Age wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 10:30 am
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 1:56 am
No, I was pointing out the absurd contradiction in what you wrote.
You were ASSUMING some thing, which was OBVIOUSLY Wrong.
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 1:56 am You cannot be both opposed to killing animals and opposed to killing animals that only exist to kill other animals.
This has absolutely NOTHING AT ALL in regards to what I was saying. So, ANY "contradiction" you are seeing and are talking about is only an ASSUMPTION you have made.

1. I NEVER even opposed to killing animals. So, this is the first mistake AND first Wrong ASSUMPTION, of yours.

2. Any ASSUMPTION about being opposed to killing animals that only exist to kill other animals, is ANOTHER mistake AND Wrong ASSUMPTION, of yours.

3. Talking about killing animals that ONLY exist, to kill other animals, is NOTHING I ever talked about NOR even referred to.

Once again I suggest you CLARIFY, BEFORE you ASSUME. That way you will not be SO WRONG, SO OFTEN.
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 1:56 am
It doesn't matter at all what animals one kills to eat, so long as the animal is not poisonous, like a blow-fish, or someone else's property.
So, killing and eating adult humans is NOT WRONG to you.

No wonder you still do not yet know what is right, in Life.
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 1:56 am The only animals one will not kill are those which belong to another other human being, like cattle, sheep, chickens, ducks, work animals, or pets. Individuals of course can kill their own animals and do not have to explain their reasons to anyone else.
This exists only in "rcsaunder's world", which is NOT what "others" consider is right, correct?
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 1:56 am
You are the only one asking questions and obviously do not have clue.
LOL If you say so. But this is just further PROOF that you are NOT reading and comprehending the actual words that I write.


And let us not forget that it was you who said and wrote you would enjoy any serious answer to the question.

You OBVIOUSLY have NO correct answer AT ALL to the question. Which means that you do not have a clue.
Well, don't worry about it. I surely won't.
I am certainly not worrying about it.

I just provided you with a serious answer, which you said you would enjoy. That is all.
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: What is right?

Post by Age »

bahman wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 11:29 am
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 6:46 pm
bahman wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 3:01 pm Killing animals is evil ...
Then the world is filled with "evil" animals that do almost nothing but kill animals.

There is nothing evil about killing any animal for any reason unless the animal happens to be some human being's property.

Just out of curiosity, what is, "evil," about killing animals? In many cases it's a virtue to kill animals. To kill any animal that is a threat to a human being's person or property (rabid animals, vicious animals, destructive animals, infection-spreading animals, poisonous animals) is good. Many people think killing animals that are in peril of starvation or disease is better than letting them suffer. You do not have to explain your position to me, of course, or anyone else. I'm not testing you. I'm just honestly curious if you care to explain.
Living is either good or evil. Pick up. If living is good then killing is evil. If living is evil then killing is good.
Is there NO time in Life where living can sometimes be good AND sometime bad/evil?
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: What is right?

Post by Age »

RCSaunders wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 1:51 pm
bahman wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 11:29 am
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 6:46 pm
Then the world is filled with "evil" animals that do almost nothing but kill animals.

There is nothing evil about killing any animal for any reason unless the animal happens to be some human being's property.

Just out of curiosity, what is, "evil," about killing animals? In many cases it's a virtue to kill animals. To kill any animal that is a threat to a human being's person or property (rabid animals, vicious animals, destructive animals, infection-spreading animals, poisonous animals) is good. Many people think killing animals that are in peril of starvation or disease is better than letting them suffer. You do not have to explain your position to me, of course, or anyone else. I'm not testing you. I'm just honestly curious if you care to explain.
Living is either good or evil. Pick up. If living is good then killing is evil. If living is evil then killing is good.
That's silly. That's like saying fire is either good or evil. If fire is good it is evil to put one out.

Nothing is just good or bad. Good is a value term and all values only have meaning in relationship to some end, purpose, goal, or objective. All things, including life, are only good if they are good to someone for something,
And this is WHY 'not abusing' is good, and, 'abusing' is bad/evil.
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: What is right?

Post by Age »

RCSaunders wrote: Sat Sep 11, 2021 6:42 pm
Vitruvius wrote: Sat Sep 11, 2021 1:37 pm
Vitruvius wrote: Fri Sep 10, 2021 5:20 am Fundamentally however, we remain subject to the overall principle, that we must be right to reality to survive.
RCSaunders wrote: Fri Sep 10, 2021 2:31 pmIf that means what we understand about reality must be right and we have to live in conformance to that understanding, that is absolutely correct. Almost every human problem can be put down to failing or refusing to discover the nature of reality or living in defiance of that nature.
I can confirm the existence of a mechanism in the relation between the organism and reality, but what it means should have been the work of civilisations and centuries to discover and define. Instead, the Church established an antithetical relation to science, and philosophy has papered over the cracks, such that now - what should rationally be only right and natural is potentially quite dangerous. In Enemies of an Open Society, Karl Popper warns recognising science as truth would require 'making all our representations conform' to science as truth; science would be dictatorial, and that's something I specifically defend against ...
I totally agree up to here. After this you've mixed the necessity of individual autonomy with some collective goals, which are contradictory:
Vitruvius wrote: Sat Sep 11, 2021 1:37 pm ... by suggesting science as the authoritative basis for cooperation in a global good; developing magma energy to power carbon sequestration, desalination, irrigation, recycling etc. In this way we can harness the functional truth value of science insofar as is necessary to survival, without seeking to re-organise society with reference to scientific principles. Approached globally, from the supply side, based on limitless clean energy, doing what's necessary to sustainability, we can harness the functional truth value of science and retain our irrational ideological identities and positions, and so 'get there from here.'
You've simply replaced, "science," as the basis for authority with some notion of, "global good," as the basis for authority. Who defines what is the, "global good?"
The 'global population', of course.
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Sep 11, 2021 6:42 pm Who is, "we," and what do you intend to do with those who do not agree and choose not to cooperate to fulfill your personal vision of what is right for the world?
If ANY one thinks that their own person view of what is right for the world is right, but it could not be in agreement with ALL, then OBVIOUSLY they are just Wrong.

How much SIMPLER could this get?
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Sep 11, 2021 6:42 pm I totally disagree with what you think is the correct way to run the world. For example: carbon sequestration, recycling, limitless clean energy, and sustainability are all crackpot ideas hatched by environmental totalitarians which if implemented would produce massive worldwide starvation, poverty, and social upheaval.
LOL Talk about a "crackpot" idea or view.

Do you really think that continual carbon releasing, not recycling, creating polluting energy, and the continual depleting of natural resources is the correct way to "run the world"?

If yes, then okay.

But if no, then what do you think is the correct way to "run the world"?
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Sep 11, 2021 6:42 pm Why would you want that?
Here we have ANOTHER EXAMPLE of deflection and dishonesty.

Oh, and be the way, even if your conclusion was correct, which it obviously certainly is NOT, some people would prefer to live, with worldwide starvation, poverty, and social upheaval, than not be able to live at all. That is, what you "totally disagree" with, is what is actually slowing down the rate at which human beings will become extinct.
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: What is right?

Post by Age »

RCSaunders wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 1:39 am
Vitruvius wrote: Sat Sep 11, 2021 10:42 pm
Vitruvius wrote: Fri Sep 10, 2021 5:20 am Fundamentally however, we remain subject to the overall principle, that we must be right to reality to survive.
RCSaunders wrote: Fri Sep 10, 2021 2:31 pmIf that means what we understand about reality must be right and we have to live in conformance to that understanding, that is absolutely correct. Almost every human problem can be put down to failing or refusing to discover the nature of reality or living in defiance of that nature.
Vitruvius wrote: Fri Sep 10, 2021 5:20 amI can confirm the existence of a mechanism in the relation between the organism and reality, but what it means should have been the work of civilisations and centuries to discover and define. Instead, the Church established an antithetical relation to science, and philosophy has papered over the cracks, such that now - what should rationally be only right and natural is potentially quite dangerous. In Enemies of an Open Society, Karl Popper warns recognising science as truth would require 'making all our representations conform' to science as truth; science would be dictatorial, and that's something I specifically defend against ...
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Sep 11, 2021 6:42 pmI totally agree up to here. After this you've mixed the necessity of individual autonomy with some collective goals, which are contradictory:
No. I've described the concept of 'right' I've employed to justify developing magma energy to combat climate change. Climate change is a global threat, and requires collective action to address it. In this context, I believe 'it's right because it's true' is justified. I do not think it justified as a basis to address "every human problem" - and I'm trying to explain why.
Vitruvius wrote: Sat Sep 11, 2021 1:37 pm ... by suggesting science as the authoritative basis for cooperation in a global good; developing magma energy to power carbon sequestration, desalination, irrigation, recycling etc. In this way we can harness the functional truth value of science insofar as is necessary to survival, without seeking to re-organise society with reference to scientific principles. Approached globally, from the supply side, based on limitless clean energy, doing what's necessary to sustainability, we can harness the functional truth value of science and retain our irrational ideological identities and positions, and so 'get there from here.'
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Sep 11, 2021 6:42 pmYou've simply replaced, "science," as the basis for authority with some notion of, "global good," as the basis for authority. Who defines what is the, "global good?" Who is, "we," and what do you intend to do with those who do not agree and choose not to cooperate to fulfill your personal vision of what is right for the world? I totally disagree with what you think is the correct way to run the world. For example: carbon sequestration, recycling, limitless clean energy, and sustainability are all crackpot ideas hatched by environmental totalitarians which if implemented would produce massive worldwide starvation, poverty, and social upheaval. Why would you want that?
In Oct/Nov the UK is hosting COP 26, and it's bodies like that make decisions. It's my fondest hope that before then, I can raise the question of transcending limits to resources - by harnessing limitless clean energy from magma, because I believe it's scientifically and technologically possible, and that more energy - not less, is necessary to a sustainable future. Wind and solar cannot provide more energy. But magma energy can meet and exceed global energy demand; and massively more energy is the way to go. Backing down in face of the climate challenge - a policy strategy of have less and pay more, tax this and stop that will send us into a spiral of entropic decline, and we will surely fail to secure the future. Only if we have limitless amounts of clean energy to spend, can we balance prosperity and sustainability. If I can raise that idea, I'll have done my duty - and they are the legitimate authorities, the powers that be, does it matter who "they" are? Or does it matter what's true?
The only thing you have described is some environmentalist ideological view of how things are supposed to be and have called that right. No one is born into this world to save humanity or world society.
To even ASSUME that ANY one was born like that is absolute nonsense, but then to ASSUME that ANY one even thinks this way is even more absurd and nonsensical.

WHY do you ASSUME such things "rcsaunders"?
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 1:39 am Nonsense like, "climate change is a global threat," is an attempt to scare the gullible into supporting some social/political agenda. Climate always changes, and human beings adapt.
Is this what you use to 'try to' "justify" your Wrong, greedy and selfish behaviors?

Although your last sentence is obviously irrefutably True, why you are saying this is yet to be fully understood. Is it an attempt to scare the gullible into supporting some social/political agenda, like, for example, "capitalism"? Are you 'trying to' say, "keep polluting the environment by continually using and depleting our one and only home's limited supply of natural resources in order to keep supporting your greedy and selfish ways, which keeps creating and producing more money, which keeps the social and political agenda of "capitalism" alive and well?

If no, then WHY are stating the things you are here?
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 1:39 am I'm sorry if you would rather stamp your foot and complain that you don't like climate to change. It's going to change, no matter what anyone does.
Are you REALLY this uninformed?

NO ONE, and I mean NO ONE, is even suggesting, let alone saying, that 'the climate' could stop changing.

What they are meaning is that if 'you', human beings, CHANGED the way you are living, in the days when this is being written, from the greedy, money hungry, selfish way that 'you' are ALL living now, then the climate will NOT CHANGE, as much as it is, in the direction it is going.

The incorrectly worded phrase, 'climate change', means and refers to the 'change' that 'you', human beings, are doing to the 'climate'.

If you want to dispute that ALL or ANY human behavior does not effect the climate someway, then do that. But what you are 'trying to' argue against could NEVER be successfully argued against.
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 1:39 am Personally I'm very disappointed that all promised, "global warming," has not happened and it's been promised now for over 30 years.
How do you KNOW that 'global warming' has not happened? And, who "promised" what, exactly?

If ANY wants to prove, or disprove, that the temperature has been getting warmer, globally, then all ANY one has to do is just obtain the temperature records from around the globe, from when they were started.

Let us LOOK AT them, and THEN DISCUSS.
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 1:39 am There are no, "legitimate," authorities and all those who claim to be are mostly petty tyrants who just want to control others.
If any one LOOKS AT your writings here "rcsaunders", one can clearly see that 'you' are 'trying to' be "the authority" by TELLING us WHAT IS TRUE.

What can be seen is that 'you', subconsciously, are claiming to be "the authority" here, which makes 'you' mostly a 'petty tyrant, just wanting to control us'.
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 1:39 am Now if you believe that's right, you are certainly entitled to your opinion.
If I am not mistaken it is 'you', "rcsaunders", who claims there are no 'rights'. Either way, people are certainly NOT "entitled" to their opinion anyway. Contrary to popular belief, people are CERTAINLY NOT entitled to some of their opinions.
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 1:39 am Mine is that no human being is born with an unearned obligation to anyone else and no one has, "duty," to do anything they didn't willingly sign-up for. One's only responsibility in life is to use their own mind to learn all the can, to think as well as the can, to work and produce as much of value as they can and to be the best human being they can possibly be, and to live a fully rewarding and enjoyable life.
Well 'you', "rcsaunders", are CERTAINLY NOT fulfilling your ONLY "responsibility in life".
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 1:39 am
Such individuals are the only one's in this world who are of any value to themselves, or anyone else, because they are the only one's living in conformance with the requirements of the nature of reality.
LOL "the nature of reality".

This certainly sounds like one actually BELIEVES that they are 'the authority' here, and are 'trying to' TELL "others" how to live their lives.

A lot of 'petty tyranny' and 'controlling', from 'you', appears to be going on here.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: What is right?

Post by RCSaunders »

Age wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 11:19 pm 1. I NEVER even opposed to killing animals. ...
Really!? So, when you said:

Therefore, very simply, 'what is right', in Life, is to not kill animals.

You mean you are not opposed to not doing what is right?

And when you say:

But survival, for human beings, does NOT require killing of other beings.

You mean human being ought to allow rabid and vicious animals to attack them when threatened, and allow destructive animals to destroy their homes, food, farms, and clothing, and allow infectious animals like insects that cause yellow fever, malaria, and plague to spread death everywhere, because human survival does not require killing other animals?

If I misunderstood, I apologize, but it sure sounds like you are, "opposed to killing animals," from what you wrote.
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: What is right?

Post by Age »

RCSaunders wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:42 pm
Age wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 10:30 am ...

3. Talking about killing animals that ONLY exist, to kill other animals, is NOTHING I ever talked about NOR even referred to.
Exactly. That is my point. You just ignored the fact there are animals that only exist, to kill other animals and went on as though it were irrelevant. But it is relevant.
So, I was NOT talking about some 'thing' NOR even referenced some 'thing', YET you want to make the claim that you were "pointing out the absurd contradiction in what I wrote".

Talk about a CONTRADICTION.

If I NEVER wrote some 'thing', then there could NEVER be a contradiction, in what I wrote.

I was, OBVIOUSLY, only talking about human beings killing animals. As can be PROVEN by what I ACTUALLY wrote.
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:42 pm
Age wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 10:30 am
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 1:56 am It doesn't matter at all what animals one kills to eat, so long as the animal is not poisonous, like a blow-fish, or someone else's property.
So, killing and eating adult humans is NOT WRONG to you.
I'm sorry if you think of yourself as just another irrational animal.
WHY do you ASSUME so many Wrong things, like this is?
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:42 pm I do not.
The way you write sometimes is very ambiguous.

So, who do not think of here as "just another irrational animal"? Me or you?

When making statements about animals in general with regard to such things as eating and the absurd idea of, "animal rights," it is only non-human animals that are being referred to. In any case, you know I wrote that what is, "someone else's property," is excluded from what one may eat, and certainly one's own self is their property. Your argument is disingenuous.
Age wrote: Sat Sep 11, 2021 11:45 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 1:56 am The only animals one will not kill are those which belong to another other human being, like cattle, sheep, chickens, ducks, work animals, or pets. Individuals of course can kill their own animals and do not have to explain their reasons to anyone else.
This exists only in "rcsaunder's world", which is NOT what "others" consider is right, correct?{/quote]
Why would I care what idiot, "others," believe? I do not agree with most of the absurd notions others hold. I don't care what you want to believe. Eat nothing but carrots if you like. I won't tell you what you should or should not eat, but I doubt you will extend the same courtesy to others.
Last edited by Age on Tue Sep 14, 2021 1:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: What is right?

Post by RCSaunders »

Age wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 11:39 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Sep 11, 2021 6:42 pm
Vitruvius wrote: Sat Sep 11, 2021 1:37 pm



I can confirm the existence of a mechanism in the relation between the organism and reality, but what it means should have been the work of civilisations and centuries to discover and define. Instead, the Church established an antithetical relation to science, and philosophy has papered over the cracks, such that now - what should rationally be only right and natural is potentially quite dangerous. In Enemies of an Open Society, Karl Popper warns recognising science as truth would require 'making all our representations conform' to science as truth; science would be dictatorial, and that's something I specifically defend against ...
I totally agree up to here. After this you've mixed the necessity of individual autonomy with some collective goals, which are contradictory:
Vitruvius wrote: Sat Sep 11, 2021 1:37 pm ... by suggesting science as the authoritative basis for cooperation in a global good; developing magma energy to power carbon sequestration, desalination, irrigation, recycling etc. In this way we can harness the functional truth value of science insofar as is necessary to survival, without seeking to re-organise society with reference to scientific principles. Approached globally, from the supply side, based on limitless clean energy, doing what's necessary to sustainability, we can harness the functional truth value of science and retain our irrational ideological identities and positions, and so 'get there from here.'
You've simply replaced, "science," as the basis for authority with some notion of, "global good," as the basis for authority. Who defines what is the, "global good?"
The 'global population', of course.
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Sep 11, 2021 6:42 pm Who is, "we," and what do you intend to do with those who do not agree and choose not to cooperate to fulfill your personal vision of what is right for the world?
If ANY one thinks that their own person view of what is right for the world is right, but it could not be in agreement with ALL, then OBVIOUSLY they are just Wrong.

How much SIMPLER could this get?
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Sep 11, 2021 6:42 pm I totally disagree with what you think is the correct way to run the world. For example: carbon sequestration, recycling, limitless clean energy, and sustainability are all crackpot ideas hatched by environmental totalitarians which if implemented would produce massive worldwide starvation, poverty, and social upheaval.
LOL Talk about a "crackpot" idea or view.

Do you really think that continual carbon releasing, not recycling, creating polluting energy, and the continual depleting of natural resources is the correct way to "run the world"?

If yes, then okay.

But if no, then what do you think is the correct way to "run the world"?
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Sep 11, 2021 6:42 pm Why would you want that?
Here we have ANOTHER EXAMPLE of deflection and dishonesty.

Oh, and be the way, even if your conclusion was correct, which it obviously certainly is NOT, some people would prefer to live, with worldwide starvation, poverty, and social upheaval, than not be able to live at all. That is, what you "totally disagree" with, is what is actually slowing down the rate at which human beings will become extinct.
It's nobody's world to run. The kind of megalomania that makes one believe they or someone must run the world is the cause of the worst horrors of history. It's sick! They are the one's that produce all the wars, oppression, poverty, starvation, and social horrors.

Quite frankly, the sooner those human beings who refuse to learn, think, and work, because they understand that one's life must be earned by one's own effort, and those political ideologists who cater to them become extinct the better.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: What is right?

Post by RCSaunders »

Age wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 1:39 am
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:42 pm
Age wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 10:30 am ...

3. Talking about killing animals that ONLY exist, to kill other animals, is NOTHING I ever talked about NOR even referred to.
Exactly. That is my point. You just ignored the fact there are animals that only exist, to kill other animals and went on as though it were irrelevant. But it is relevant.
So, I was NOT talking about some 'thing' NOR even referenced some 'thing', YET you want to make the claim that you were "pointing out the absurd contradiction in what you wrote".

Talk about a CONTRADICTION.

If I NEVER wrote some 'thing', then there could NEVER be a contradiction, in what I wrote.
OK!
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: What is right?

Post by Age »

bahman wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 3:01 pm
Age wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 9:51 am
bahman wrote: Sat Sep 11, 2021 2:46 pm
It does.
Really?

What 'beings' do you claim need killing for human beings to keep on surviving?
bahman wrote: Sat Sep 11, 2021 2:46 pm The human was hunter first. They then became farmers.
So what?

What has this obvious fact got to do with anything here?
bahman wrote: Sat Sep 11, 2021 2:46 pm
I already defined that.
Did you? When?

And, would it really be that hard to define 'it' again now?

Also, did EVERY one reading this reply read what your definition for 'beings' is before?
Killing animals is evil. We used to kill animals only for food. Therefore, we have done evil.
What?

How could doing what is NEEDED in order to keep living and surviving be 'evil'?

Also noted is I asked you eight clarifying questions, but NOT one of them was answered.
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: What is right?

Post by Age »

RCSaunders wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 6:29 pm
bahman wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 3:01 pm Killing animals is evil ...
The world is filled with evil animals that do almost nothing but kill animals.
How could ANY other animal besides the human being be an "evil animal"?
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 6:29 pm There is nothing evil about killing any animal for any reason unless the animal happens to be some human being's property.
LOL

Depending on what the word 'evil' means to you, ANY human being could, for example, kill absolutely EVERY whale or absolutely EVERY one of any species of animal in the world, as long as it is not a whale or animal that has already been captured, or born, and kept in captivity, and there would be NOTHING 'evil' about this behavior at all to you.

Oh, and by the way, ALL animals, including human beings, are NOT "the property of" human beings.
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 6:29 pmJust out of curiosity, what is, "evil," about killing animals?
What does the word 'evil' mean or refer to, to you "rcsaunders"?
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 6:29 pmIn many cases it's a virtue to kill animals.
This is a GREAT EXAMPLE of one 'trying to' "justify" their Wrong behaviors.
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 6:29 pmTo kill any animal that is a threat to a human being's person or property (rabid animals, vicious animals, destructive animals, infection-spreading animals, poisonous animals) is good.
So, in other words, EVERY animal, correct?

If no, then what animal is NOT an 'infection-spreading animal'?
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 6:29 pmMany people think killing animals that are in peril of starvation or disease is better than letting them suffer.
Do they? So what?

Many people think many things, which I could add here. But detracting and deflecting does not help in philosophical discussions.
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 6:29 pmYou do not have to explain your position to me, of course, or anyone else. I'm not testing you. I'm just honestly curious if you care to explain.
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: What is right?

Post by Age »

RCSaunders wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 1:37 am
Age wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 11:19 pm 1. I NEVER even opposed to killing animals. ...
Really!? So, when you said:

Therefore, very simply, 'what is right', in Life, is to not kill animals.

You mean you are not opposed to not doing what is right?
You REALLY do NOT read what I write, and take the time to gain clarity and understanding.

You are FREE to ASSUME whatever you like, but just be forewarned, you will NOT necessarily be right or even close to being right.
RCSaunders wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 1:37 am And when you say:

But survival, for human beings, does NOT require killing of other beings.

You mean human being ought to allow rabid and vicious animals to attack them when threatened, and allow destructive animals to destroy their homes, food, farms, and clothing, and allow infectious animals like insects that cause yellow fever, malaria, and plague to spread death everywhere, because human survival does not require killing other animals?
LOL NO.

WHY would you even BEGIN to ASSUME such a thing, BEFORE you BEGAN to gain CLARITY, FIRST?
RCSaunders wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 1:37 am If I misunderstood, I apologize, but it sure sounds like you are, "opposed to killing animals," from what you wrote.
You do NOT 'have to' apologize.

But I would like to SEE if you KNOW YET WHY you continue to ASSUME things, BEFORE you just FIND OUT what is True, Right, and Correct, FIRST?
Post Reply