I agree that without compassion and care for others, this world would self destruct quicker than it already is.

I believe every human should have the best chance to live possible.

I give money to charity to appease my conscience but also in the hope that it will save someone who in turn will do something to save many more people from starvation or HIV.

I also agree that suffering is worse than death in lots of cases.

I know that people refuse to move to more sustainable areas.

I understand that education against the spread of HIV is desperately needed but even in areas it is provided, people are ignoring it.

In short, I understand and agree with a lot of what you are both saying. Which makes me in the middle.

___________________
Be the best person you can be. Always.

Meat. It does my body good.

___________________
- rabbit.joker [funny¿rabbit] | www.rabbitjoker.com |www.ddtt.org

Dark Dirty Tech Tribal. | Hands in air (trance) and feet on the floor (house).

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard BTW, Utilitarianism is a universal theory thus it can (and if you subscribe to it) should apply to everything.

I know what utilitarianism is.

My point is that the problem with the theory is that it cannot measure "harm" and "good" objectively. If there are so many opportunities for debate within the scope of the theory, how could it possibly be applied universally?

While you could apply it to everyTHING, you must also be able to apply it to everyONE. and not everyone or even most people could universally agree on what constitutes harm and what constitutes good.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard While I am a fan of John Stuart Mill my thinking in this regard is more in line with Nitzsche... "let all that is falling also be pushed!" See, the problem we have with people starving in certain areas is due to the fact that those people insist on living in an area that cannot support them. The easy and only effective solution is to let nature take it's course. If an environment cannot support a population that population must either move to a more appropriate location or stay and be reduced to a size that the environment can support. Natural selection will take care of the necessary population reduction, however, if we really want to end the suffering then we'd be well served to help mother nature along. I hesitate to propose such a thing because it is rather unsavory to most peoples' morality but it is nontheless the most compassionate solution. Regardless, giving them enough asssistance to keep them alive but not improve their lot in life simply does not work nor is it a humanitarian solution. BTW, Utilitarianism is a universal theory thus it can (and if you subscribe to it) should apply to everything.

How does man made conditions, such as corrupt govt starving their citizens fit into 'natural selection'?

If we fail to at least feel bad for suffering of other humans, what hope does humanity have of survival?

___________________
Latest mix: Yohan - Full Spectrum (Fall 14 promo)
Like my stuff? Join my FB group here!

quote:

Originally posted by chinamon not true. i say "ugh" but i am a tranny.

quote:

Originally posted by kotsy lol colour me retarded

quote:

Originally posted by Skipper While you could apply it to everyTHING, you must also be able to apply it to everyONE. and not everyone or even most people could universally agree on what constitutes harm and what constitutes good.

While this is true it is ultimately intended as a means to govern one's own actions/decisions. If applied to a organizational or state apperatus one would need to decide what is best for the state/organization (presumably in line with what brings the greatest benefit to the greatest number of members thereof) prior to applying utilitarian decision making. Regardless, my argument is rooted in compassion for humanity rather then untilitarianism.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM you're just a shit version of Moral Hazard. At least he knows what he's talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN lol, i love it when moral feels the need to lay the smack down

quote:

Originally posted by EvilTree How does man made conditions, such as corrupt govt starving their citizens fit into 'natural selection'?

Corrupt governments in the third world exacerbate the problems they are not the proximate cause thereof. If not for aid these governments would also fall. The truth is people insist on living where the environment cannot support them thus they starve and their starvation is a natural population control.

quote:

If we fail to at least feel bad for suffering of other humans, what hope does humanity have of survival?

If you truely felt bad you would want to end their suffering, not prolong it. Let's call a spade a spade, you don't feel bad because they are starving... you feel guilty because they are starving and you threw out enough left over food in the past month to feed a family of 4.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM you're just a shit version of Moral Hazard. At least he knows what he's talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN lol, i love it when moral feels the need to lay the smack down

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard While this is true it is ultimately intended as a means to govern one's own actions/decisions. If applied to a organizational or state apperatus one would need to decide what is best for the state/organization (presumably in line with what brings the greatest benefit to the greatest number of members thereof) prior to applying utilitarian decision making. Regardless, my argument is rooted in compassion for humanity rather then untilitarianism.

Wow. That's some cynical comment.

You're advocating killing off ppl who did nothing, except be victims for unfortunate circumstances and you call that 'compassion for humanity'?

So, who decides who should live and who should die? The ppl who just happen to live in places where they can support themselves?

Planet earth is not at the stage where drastic... culling of population is not necessary.

___________________
Latest mix: Yohan - Full Spectrum (Fall 14 promo)
Like my stuff? Join my FB group here!

quote:

Originally posted by chinamon not true. i say "ugh" but i am a tranny.

quote:

Originally posted by kotsy lol colour me retarded

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Corrupt governments in the third world exacerbate the problems they are not the proximate cause thereof. If not for aid these governments would also fall. The truth is people insist on living where the environment cannot support them thus they starve and their starvation is a natural population control.

Insist on living?
So how would these ppl find the resources to move to other places where they can find food?

quote:

If you truely felt bad you would want to end their suffering, not prolong it. Let's call a spade a spade, you don't feel bad because they are starving... you feel guilty because they are starving and you threw out enough left over food in the past month to feed a family of 4.

Thanks for telling me how I should feel.

I don't feel guilty. I am pissed off because earth has sufficient means to feed all its ppl, but stupid govts insist on petting politicking to let the ppl suffer.

___________________
Latest mix: Yohan - Full Spectrum (Fall 14 promo)
Like my stuff? Join my FB group here!

quote:

Originally posted by chinamon not true. i say "ugh" but i am a tranny.

quote:

Originally posted by kotsy lol colour me retarded

quote:

Originally posted by EvilTree You're advocating killing off ppl who did nothing, except be victims for unfortunate circumstances and you call that 'compassion for humanity'?

No, I'm advocating letting those who are already dieing to die. I call that compassion because it ends their suffering and prevents further generations from having to endure the same suffering. Really, it may be hard for people as blessed as we are to understand but not all life is worth living and often death is a better option.

quote:

So, who decides who should live and who should die? The ppl who just happen to live in places where they can support themselves?

Those who choose to live in places that cannot support human populations have already choosen death and those that also choose to procreate have condemed their children to the same fait.

quote:

Planet earth is not at the stage where drastic... culling of population is not necessary.

You're right, the planet does not need a cull but certain areas do and the planet itself is trying to thin the heard in order to maintain equalibrium.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM you're just a shit version of Moral Hazard. At least he knows what he's talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN lol, i love it when moral feels the need to lay the smack down

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Regardless, my argument is rooted in compassion for humanity rather then untilitarianism.

Your assumption is that death is better than suffering, which is problematic because it isn't true in all cases, even when people are suffering from the same thing.

The idea that people should be basically sentenced to death because of the circumstances they were born into is just not humanitarian, no matter which way you slice it. That kind of logic might have been welcome in nazi germany but not in this day and age.

quote:

Originally posted by EvilTree I don't feel guilty. I am pissed off because earth has sufficient means to feed all its ppl, but stupid govts insist on petting politicking to let the ppl suffer.

and how are you trying to help these people?

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM you're just a shit version of Moral Hazard. At least he knows what he's talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN lol, i love it when moral feels the need to lay the smack down