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

Vitruvius
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: What is right?

Post by Vitruvius »

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 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.'
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: What is right?

Post by RCSaunders »

Age wrote: Sat Sep 11, 2021 11:31 am
RCSaunders wrote: Fri Sep 10, 2021 2:26 pm
Walker wrote: Fri Sep 10, 2021 11:00 am
Shiny shiny! Me like shiny! :lol:

(Just kidding. I enjoy your enthusiasm.)

Hold up your Left hand, closed fist, and look at the knuckles.
Point forefinger to the sky.
Stick thumb out straight.
The digits are shaped like L, for Left.
Right is the other hand.
The right hand is the mirror opposite of the left hand.
Bi-lateral symmetry, yin and yang, duality.
Crazy bad actors need the adults to straighten things out every once in awhile, at least until the particular civilization can't bounce back from the cycle, and dies (Rome, Athens, and perhaps Western.)
I admit the response was intentionally satirical. It's because one cannot take anything bahman writes seriously. When I tried to explain that table salt is a compound of the two element sodium and chlorine, his response was: "Chlorine is another gas unrelated to this discussion. Chloride is not salt." That kind of insistent ignorance is almost breathtaking.

The question of what, "right," means is important. I could have said, "the opposite of wrong," of course, which would have been true. Since for every, "right," answer to any question, there are an infinite number of possible wrong answers, and mankind is bent on discovering them all and believing them, I would enjoy any serious answer to the question.
What is right'is just 'that', what EVERY one could agree with.

Like, for example, if there is no need to kill an animal, then it is wrong to kill animals. The vast majority of human beings, from the days when this is being written, do not need to kill animals. Therefore, very simply, 'what is right', in Life, is to not kill animals.
So antibiotics ought to be banned, because they kill bacteria, which happen to be animals? Of course animals have to be killed. It's dangerous to eat raw meat.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: What is right?

Post by bahman »

Age wrote: Sat Sep 11, 2021 11:34 am
bahman wrote: Sat Sep 11, 2021 10:26 am
Vitruvius wrote: Fri Sep 10, 2021 5:20 am Right stems from the necessarily valid relation between the surviving organism and causal reality. For the simplest organisms this is purely physiological rightness to reality; i.e. chemical compatibility, import energy/export waste. Then, organisms capable of behaviours must behave in a way conducive to survival., Surviving animals must necessarily be physiologically and behaviourally right to reality, or die out. Then human beings developed intellectual intelligence - and "right" took on myriad new dimensions. Fundamentally however, we remain subject to the overall principle, that we must be right to reality to survive.
What if survival requires killing other beings, like animals or humans, which is evil?
But survival, for human beings, does NOT require killing of other beings.
It does. The human was hunter first. They then became farmers.
Age wrote: Sat Sep 11, 2021 11:34 am But, then again, this all depends on how you define the word 'beings'.
I already defined that.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: What is right?

Post by RCSaunders »

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?" 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?
Vitruvius
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: What is right?

Post by Vitruvius »

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?
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: What is right?

Post by Age »

RCSaunders wrote: Sat Sep 11, 2021 2:28 pm
Age wrote: Sat Sep 11, 2021 11:31 am
RCSaunders wrote: Fri Sep 10, 2021 2:26 pm
I admit the response was intentionally satirical. It's because one cannot take anything bahman writes seriously. When I tried to explain that table salt is a compound of the two element sodium and chlorine, his response was: "Chlorine is another gas unrelated to this discussion. Chloride is not salt." That kind of insistent ignorance is almost breathtaking.

The question of what, "right," means is important. I could have said, "the opposite of wrong," of course, which would have been true. Since for every, "right," answer to any question, there are an infinite number of possible wrong answers, and mankind is bent on discovering them all and believing them, I would enjoy any serious answer to the question.
What is right'is just 'that', what EVERY one could agree with.

Like, for example, if there is no need to kill an animal, then it is wrong to kill animals. The vast majority of human beings, from the days when this is being written, do not need to kill animals. Therefore, very simply, 'what is right', in Life, is to not kill animals.
So antibiotics ought to be banned, because they kill bacteria, which happen to be animals?
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?
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Sep 11, 2021 2:28 pm Of course animals have to be killed. It's dangerous to eat raw meat.
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?

If, and when, you start answering my clarifying questions Honestly, then you will begin to not just find out and know what is right in Life, but you will also be on track to finding out and knowing WHY you are doing wrong, which is about them most important thing in Life in regards to living a proper and correct life.

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.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: What is right?

Post by RCSaunders »

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. 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. 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. Personally I'm very disappointed that all promised, "global warming," has not happened and it's been promised now for over 30 years.

There are no, "legitimate," authorities and all those who claim to be are mostly petty tyrants who just want to control others. Now if you believe that's right, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. 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. 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.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: What is right?

Post by RCSaunders »

Age wrote: Sat Sep 11, 2021 11:45 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Sep 11, 2021 2:28 pm
Age wrote: Sat Sep 11, 2021 11:31 am

What is right'is just 'that', what EVERY one could agree with.

Like, for example, if there is no need to kill an animal, then it is wrong to kill animals. The vast majority of human beings, from the days when this is being written, do not need to kill animals. Therefore, very simply, 'what is right', in Life, is to not kill animals.
So antibiotics ought to be banned, because they kill bacteria, which happen to be animals?
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 cannot be both opposed to killing animals and opposed to killing animals that only exist to kill other animals.
Age wrote: Sat Sep 11, 2021 11:45 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Sep 11, 2021 2:28 pm Of course animals have to be killed. It's dangerous to eat raw meat.
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. 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.
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.
Vitruvius
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: What is right?

Post by Vitruvius »

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:
Vitruvius wrote: Sat Sep 11, 2021 1:37 pmNo. 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?
Vitruvius wrote: Sat Sep 11, 2021 10:42 pmIn 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?
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 1:39 am 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. 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. 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. Personally I'm very disappointed that all promised, "global warming," has not happened and it's been promised now for over 30 years.

There are no, "legitimate," authorities and all those who claim to be are mostly petty tyrants who just want to control others. Now if you believe that's right, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. 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. 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.
Well, I guess this is your thread, so I don't get to force you to assume climate change is real here. So, tell me - are the vast majority of world scientists wrong, or crooked? You do seem to be suggesting a crooked conspiracy - to "scare gullible people" and I'm just wondering how that works. How do they coordinate the lies they are going to tell the world? Is it not more likely that you are failing to make the requisite distinction between the science and the politics?

Because I agree, the environmentalist narrative is highly politicised. In my view, the left have dominated environmental thinking, and focused the science through the lens of anti-capitalist politics, and if it were that you were objecting to - I agree, because a far better approach to sustainability is to sustain capitalism with limitless clean energy, however, I think you are flushing the science baby with the political bathwater.

I think we've had this discussion before, and it was at this point you referred me to your long list of things you don't believe - because I accused you of being politically motivated. Please don't do that again. If you make right wing climate change denier talking points, then you represent that view, and that's a view I can speak to. You say: "Climate always changes, and human beings adapt" - which is nominally, not untrue, but 99% of all species that have ever existed adapted to climate change by becoming extinct; then literal ages passed while new organisms evolved. That's not a useful perspective.

You ignore the cause, pace and scale of the current changes we are seeing, to say nothing of the unique vulnerability of civilisation - to the massive, and ongoing economic implications of climate change. Our situation is unique; no historical precedent serves because of the civilisations we have built. We are not in a state of nature anymore, and we are not dumb animals who must walk blindly into our evolutionary fate. We must be right to the reality of the environment to survive. You said it yourself:

"If 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."

(But not climate change!?!)

So, I guess my question is, if not by the overwhelming consensus of world scientists, how are we to discover and live in accord with the true nature of reality? How are we to adapt, if not in relation to our best understanding of reality? Insofar as you adhere to right wing climate change denial, are you not just an epistemic free rider - enjoying the benefits of science that suits, while refusing to be responsible to science that doesn't? Because my argument is that accepting science as a rationale for action to combat climate change; and developing magma energy, can sustain freedom and prosperity!
Last edited by Vitruvius on Sun Sep 12, 2021 1:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: What is right?

Post by Age »

bahman wrote: Sat Sep 11, 2021 2:46 pm
Age wrote: Sat Sep 11, 2021 11:34 am
bahman wrote: Sat Sep 11, 2021 10:26 am
What if survival requires killing other beings, like animals or humans, which is evil?
But survival, for human beings, does NOT require killing of other beings.
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
Age wrote: Sat Sep 11, 2021 11:34 am But, then again, this all depends on how you define the word 'beings'.
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?
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: What is right?

Post by Age »

RCSaunders wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 1:56 am
Age wrote: Sat Sep 11, 2021 11:45 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Sep 11, 2021 2:28 pm
So antibiotics ought to be banned, because they kill bacteria, which happen to be animals?
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
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Sep 11, 2021 2:28 pm Of course animals have to be killed. It's dangerous to eat raw meat.
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.
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 ...

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.
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. I do not. 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.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: What is right?

Post by bahman »

Age wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 9:51 am
bahman wrote: Sat Sep 11, 2021 2:46 pm
Age wrote: Sat Sep 11, 2021 11:34 am

But survival, for human beings, does NOT require killing of other beings.
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
Age wrote: Sat Sep 11, 2021 11:34 am But, then again, this all depends on how you define the word 'beings'.
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.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: What is right?

Post by RCSaunders »

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.

There is nothing evil about killing any animal for any reason unless the animal happens to be some human being's property.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: What is right?

Post by RCSaunders »

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.
Post Reply