Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2018 13:35:54 GMT
Things like evolving thorns or evolving to be poisonous. In terms of non-sentient organisms, they do not suffer if these evolved mechanisms of protection fail. You're not getting this. Part of your argument (or perhaps the whole of your argument) for the supposed ubiquity of suffering in sentient creatures is that suffering is necessary (I'm not sure if you're actually saying it's necessary of if you're just claiming that it's contingently the case) for "evolutionary success"-- in other words, for the continued survival of that species, via adaptations, in the face of competition, environmental stressors, etc. But that's clearly not the case. And you agree that it's clearly not the case. Because the vast majority of organisms have no suffering at all. Clearly suffering is not necessary for evolutionary success. Evolutionary success obtains just fine with no need whatsoever for suffering. So your argument is apparently that once sentience develops, there's a need for suffering for evolutionary success. But that's not clear at all. In fact, it's a non sequitur from a logical standpoint, and from an empirical standpoint, you have no evidence of it (as you've done no research project to support it from an empirical standpoint). Logically, it's possible for the mechanisms by which evolution "works" for non-sentient creatures to continue working for sentient creatures, where sentience has no bearing on it whatsoever. Again we know that sentience is not at all required for it to work. So it's logically possible for evolution to produce creatures that, say, are only capable of being happy all the time, no matter what, and for them to have evolutionary success via just the same sorts of mechanisms via which the vast majority of non sentient creatures have evolutionary success. Logically, no particular mental state is necessary, even when sentience obtains. This is a fortiori the case because logically, sentience is not at all necessary period. So no particular sentient state is going to be necessary. There's no reason to believe that particular sentient states aren't completely irrelevant to evolution. What trees need to do to ensure success is different from what animals must do to ensure success. A tree remains rooted into the ground and can have all of its needs satisfied without the requirement to 'strive' for anything. The tree's environmental competitors are also lacking in sentience, so there is no advantage to this adaptation in the plant world. In terms of large animals however, sentience gives the animal enhanced ability to avoid threats and to devise strategies for preying on other animals. The suffering that a sentient animal experiences when it it hurt serves as a function to help it avoid threats. Therefore any large animal without sentience would be at an evolutionary disadvantage, since the animals that are capable of suffering are more able to avoid threats. If no animals had sentience, then it's conceivable that sentience (and therefore suffering) would not be necessary for evolutionary success. You can't compare what's advantageous for plants to what is advantageous for animals.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2018 13:40:28 GMT
(@graham ) as well) Reproductive fertility has no other practical use other than entering someone else into a dangerous lottery that they can't consent to. Therefore since they could only use that ability to commit a moral trespass against someone else, then it would be akin to saying that if I want your money, you're committing a violation against me by refusing to provide me with your bank details. Your misconstruing the facts doesn't really alter them. Reproductive rights are correctly regarded as a critical component of bodily autonomy, and you are not going to be permitted to take them away from people by any means whatsoever. That's really the end of the discussion. I don't deny that reproductive rights are currently considered to be a component of bodily autonomy, but my argument presents good reasons why it shouldn't be. People should have rights over their own body in as far as they aren't endangering or needlessly posing a harm to someone else. By dragging someone else into existence to accompany you on your forced march, you are endangering that other person and your action is the root source of all the harm that they will experience. And I personally will never have the ability to take away anyone's reproductive rights; but it's possible that those with the power will be able to do this without the consent and/or knowledge of the general population.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2018 13:43:20 GMT
Of course I want a valueless universe Yes. And as such, you've put your argument into a bad place. We've been through this. Your fantasy in which everyone secretly wants to commit suicide simply reveals your own desire for attention. Meanwhile the actual reality of life is that most people are not suffering for most of the time. The default state is one of contentment. 1. How's that? Do elaborate, old chap. 2. I haven't espoused any such fantasy, and I only desire attention to the extent that anyone posting on an Internet message forum does. The default state of someone not doing anything to ensure their survival and fight off harm is one of being hungry, deprived, too cold/too hot, diseased and miserable. In order to gain contentment, you have to first combat all of those enemies to which, as a biological organism, you are vulnerable.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Feb 4, 2018 13:56:42 GMT
You're not getting this. Part of your argument (or perhaps the whole of your argument) for the supposed ubiquity of suffering in sentient creatures is that suffering is necessary (I'm not sure if you're actually saying it's necessary of if you're just claiming that it's contingently the case) for "evolutionary success"-- in other words, for the continued survival of that species, via adaptations, in the face of competition, environmental stressors, etc. But that's clearly not the case. And you agree that it's clearly not the case. Because the vast majority of organisms have no suffering at all. Clearly suffering is not necessary for evolutionary success. Evolutionary success obtains just fine with no need whatsoever for suffering. So your argument is apparently that once sentience develops, there's a need for suffering for evolutionary success. But that's not clear at all. In fact, it's a non sequitur from a logical standpoint, and from an empirical standpoint, you have no evidence of it (as you've done no research project to support it from an empirical standpoint). Logically, it's possible for the mechanisms by which evolution "works" for non-sentient creatures to continue working for sentient creatures, where sentience has no bearing on it whatsoever. Again we know that sentience is not at all required for it to work. So it's logically possible for evolution to produce creatures that, say, are only capable of being happy all the time, no matter what, and for them to have evolutionary success via just the same sorts of mechanisms via which the vast majority of non sentient creatures have evolutionary success. Logically, no particular mental state is necessary, even when sentience obtains. This is a fortiori the case because logically, sentience is not at all necessary period. So no particular sentient state is going to be necessary. There's no reason to believe that particular sentient states aren't completely irrelevant to evolution. What trees need to do to ensure success is different from what animals must do to ensure success. A tree remains rooted into the ground and can have all of its needs satisfied without the requirement to 'strive' for anything. The tree's environmental competitors are also lacking in sentience, so there is no advantage to this adaptation in the plant world. In terms of large animals however, sentience gives the animal enhanced ability to avoid threats and to devise strategies for preying on other animals. The suffering that a sentient animal experiences when it it hurt serves as a function to help it avoid threats. Therefore any large animal without sentience would be at an evolutionary disadvantage, since the animals that are capable of suffering are more able to avoid threats. If no animals had sentience, then it's conceivable that sentience (and therefore suffering) would not be necessary for evolutionary success. You can't compare what's advantageous for plants to what is advantageous for animals. In the above argument you're assuming that sentience is correlated with evolutionary success in some way. You're not arguing for it being correlated to evolutionary success. You're assuming that it is, and then under that assumption, you're explaining how it's correlated (and at that, you're simply giving an account of what "makes sense to you 'common-sensically'"). But logically, it's not at all necessary for success, and I'm not sure that you understand the concept of that. In fact, I'm pretty sure you do not understand the concept of that. Basically, you're making an empirical argument about a contingent state of affairs. That requires an empirical research program for support. Also, the vast majority of animals are not sentient.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2018 14:02:35 GMT
What trees need to do to ensure success is different from what animals must do to ensure success. A tree remains rooted into the ground and can have all of its needs satisfied without the requirement to 'strive' for anything. The tree's environmental competitors are also lacking in sentience, so there is no advantage to this adaptation in the plant world. In terms of large animals however, sentience gives the animal enhanced ability to avoid threats and to devise strategies for preying on other animals. The suffering that a sentient animal experiences when it it hurt serves as a function to help it avoid threats. Therefore any large animal without sentience would be at an evolutionary disadvantage, since the animals that are capable of suffering are more able to avoid threats. If no animals had sentience, then it's conceivable that sentience (and therefore suffering) would not be necessary for evolutionary success. You can't compare what's advantageous for plants to what is advantageous for animals. In the above argument you're assuming that sentience is correlated with evolutionary success in some way. You're not arguing for it being correlated to evolutionary success. You're assuming that it is, and then under that assumption, you're explaining how it's correlated. But logically, it's not at all necessary for success, and I'm not sure that you understand the concept of that. Basically, you're making an empirical argument about a contingent state of affairs. That requires an empirical research program for support. Also, the vast majority of animals are not sentient. Sentience confers a competitive advantage over competitor species. A pine tree isn't a competitor of a bear, and couldn't do anything useful with sentience even if it had it. An ant (which I'm assuming doesn't have sentience) also isn't a competitor of species of large animals that do have sentience.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Feb 4, 2018 14:07:59 GMT
Sentience confers a competitive advantage over competitor species. That's not clear at all. You're just assuming that it's the case. As I said above, logically, sentience might be completely irrelevant evolutionarily. (And actually, I'd say that based on empirical evidence, it seems likely that sentience is irrelevant evolutionarily, since the vast majority of living things, including the vast majority of animals, are not sentient.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2018 15:07:38 GMT
Yes. And as such, you've put your argument into a bad place. We've been through this. Your fantasy in which everyone secretly wants to commit suicide simply reveals your own desire for attention. Meanwhile the actual reality of life is that most people are not suffering for most of the time. The default state is one of contentment. 1. How's that? Do elaborate, old chap. The whole definition of value is that it's that which is desirable. Your idiot plan is one designed to make the universe worse. Yes, you have. You did it in the post I responded to. Not quite, no. Nonsense. I am not doing anything to ensure my survival or fight off harm right now. I am neither hungry, deprived, cold, hot, diseased or miserable. I think I'm done with you. You've done nothing but bullshit and lie throughout this topic. Your arguments are demonstrably nonsense, and this has been proved time and again. And since there's literally zero prospect of your argument ever carrying the day, there's little point in continuing to discuss it. You've lost, in every possible way. Do continue to enjoy your fake "suffering", though, if it makes you happy.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 4, 2018 15:13:16 GMT
tpfkar I'm asking for you to give some kind of dimensions for this 'harm' which is alleged to be inflicted by respecting the wishes of people who have asked to be helped to die. If you can't tell me any dimensions of the harm from the perspective of the person allegedly being harmed, then it's conceptual 'harm' that exists only in the mind of other people. Someone isn't harmed just because you have a concept in your head of them being harmed, they have to actually feel harmed. Right, the pure looney tunes of you sneaking up behind people and putting bullets into their brainpans not "harming" them. You're a walking talking absurdum pre-reductio'd. File your def with the rest with Arlon. On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2018 15:49:21 GMT
Sentience confers a competitive advantage over competitor species. That's not clear at all. You're just assuming that it's the case. As I said above, logically, sentience might be completely irrelevant evolutionarily. (And actually, I'd say that based on empirical evidence, it seems likely that sentience is irrelevant evolutionarily, since the vast majority of living things, including the vast majority of animals, are not sentient.) In any case, if an animal with sentience comes across environmental stressors, that is going to be accompanied by unpleasant experience.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 4, 2018 15:50:22 GMT
tpfkar The default state of someone not doing anything to ensure their survival and fight off harm is one of being hungry, deprived, too cold/too hot, diseased and miserable. In order to gain contentment, you have to first combat all of those enemies to which, as a biological organism, you are vulnerable. And a grand good system it is, which allows more and more situations that trigger such desired signaling of harm are minimized and eliminated. Allows for great times now and greater still as we continuously net-improve. Harvard Professor Steven Pinker on Why We Refuse to See the Bright Side, Even Though We Should
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2018 15:57:02 GMT
1. How's that? Do elaborate, old chap. The whole definition of value is that it's that which is desirable. Your idiot plan is one designed to make the universe worse. Yes, you have. You did it in the post I responded to. Not quite, no. Nonsense. I am not doing anything to ensure my survival or fight off harm right now. I am neither hungry, deprived, cold, hot, diseased or miserable. I think I'm done with you. You've done nothing but bullshit and lie throughout this topic. Your arguments are demonstrably nonsense, and this has been proved time and again. And since there's literally zero prospect of your argument ever carrying the day, there's little point in continuing to discuss it. You've lost, in every possible way. Do continue to enjoy your fake "suffering", though, if it makes you happy. 1. Positive value is desirable, but 'value' can also be negative. +1 and -1 are both values. 2. No 3. Anybody who posts on an interactive message board to get responses wants some attention. 4. Aaand...here comes the churlish crowing again about having 'won' the discussion. Is this how you close out a conversation in real life as well? If you sit in one place for 5 hours, then you're likely to be hungry and thirsty and will need to do something to ward off your deprivation and the attendant feelings of discontent. You'll probably need the toilet as well. If you happened to be someone on a low income, then you might have trouble with keeping warm and dry, and you would likely have to go to a job that you despised for 40 hours a week just to (barely) obtain the basic necessities in life. The default state is the 'do nothing' state; not the one that presupposes that the individual has secure employment (that they don't hate), which pays enough to shelter and feed them, that their social needs are met, and that they're fortunate enough to have avoided becoming seriously ill or disabled.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 4, 2018 15:57:46 GMT
tpfkar What trees need to do to ensure success is different from what animals must do to ensure success. A tree remains rooted into the ground and can have all of its needs satisfied without the requirement to 'strive' for anything. The tree's environmental competitors are also lacking in sentience, so there is no advantage to this adaptation in the plant world. In terms of large animals however, sentience gives the animal enhanced ability to avoid threats and to devise strategies for preying on other animals. The suffering that a sentient animal experiences when it it hurt serves as a function to help it avoid threats. Therefore any large animal without sentience would be at an evolutionary disadvantage, since the animals that are capable of suffering are more able to avoid threats. If no animals had sentience, then it's conceivable that sentience (and therefore suffering) would not be necessary for evolutionary success. You can't compare what's advantageous for plants to what is advantageous for animals. Having signals for what will cause creatures to avoid actual harm is a great feature, not a problem. Along with the great enjoyment of contentment and pleasure, when, as we do continuously net-improve, more and more sources of negative signals are removed or minimized. What that leaves is outliers who by relative deficit of actual negative signals cry agony at any signal at all other than ecstasy. On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2018 15:59:22 GMT
tpfkar I'm asking for you to give some kind of dimensions for this 'harm' which is alleged to be inflicted by respecting the wishes of people who have asked to be helped to die. If you can't tell me any dimensions of the harm from the perspective of the person allegedly being harmed, then it's conceptual 'harm' that exists only in the mind of other people. Someone isn't harmed just because you have a concept in your head of them being harmed, they have to actually feel harmed. Right, the pure looney tunes of you sneaking up behind people and putting bullets into their brainpans not "harming" them. You're a walking talking absurdum pre-reductio'd. File your def with the rest with Arlon. On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"A person is only harmed if they feel harmed. Harm is not an abstract concept, as you are trying to pose it. If I killed someone for no reason, then the people who cared about and/or depended upon that person would feel justifiably aggrieved and harmed. Whereas if it was someone who had requested assisted suicide, anyone would be selfish, greedy, deluded or religious to want to deny them that right.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 4, 2018 16:03:27 GMT
tpfkar 4. Aaand...here comes the churlish crowing again about having 'won' the discussion. Is this how you close out a conversation in real life as well? If you sit in one place for 5 hours, then you're likely to be hungry and thirsty and will need to do something to ward off your deprivation and the attendant feelings of discontent. You'll probably need the toilet as well. If you happened to be someone on a low income, then you might have trouble with keeping warm and dry, and you would likely have to go to a job that you despised for 40 hours a week just to (barely) obtain the basic necessities in life. The default state is the 'do nothing' state; not the one that presupposes that the individual has secure employment (that they don't hate), which pays enough to shelter and feed them, that their social needs are met, and that they're fortunate enough to have avoided becoming seriously ill or disabled. That's your frequent shtick, although you tend to follow up with begging the board for help and howling about being oppressed or harrassed. Having clear signals to act in your interest is a great part of this system that is so good. And we keep net-improving things for everybody, not entertain puerile psychopath dreams of jackbootism and mass murder in which the world is plunged back to pre-civilization or even pre-sentience with the greatly magnified actual suffering that brings. Re: having babies w/o first getting their express permission to be born: "If it's OK not to seek someone's consent because they cannot refuse consent, then it's OK to rape a woman who is passed out drunk and who cannot be revived to request permission."
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Feb 4, 2018 16:12:33 GMT
That's not clear at all. You're just assuming that it's the case. As I said above, logically, sentience might be completely irrelevant evolutionarily. (And actually, I'd say that based on empirical evidence, it seems likely that sentience is irrelevant evolutionarily, since the vast majority of living things, including the vast majority of animals, are not sentient.) In any case, if an animal with sentience comes across environmental stressors, that is going to be accompanied by unpleasant experience. That's not necessarily true, and it's especially not necessarily true that one would find the situation (not to mention experience in general) negative on balance.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 4, 2018 16:17:28 GMT
A person is only harmed if they feel harmed. Harm is not an abstract concept, as you are trying to pose it. If I killed someone for no reason, then the people who cared about and/or depended upon that person would feel justifiably aggrieved and harmed. Whereas if it was someone who had requested assisted suicide, anyone would be selfish, greedy, deluded or religious to want to deny them that right. Right, that's the thought of the deranged who "believes" that if he sneaks up behind someone and assassinates them instantly that he hasn't harmed them. And rejects birth as "imposition" on a child while simultaneously espousing forced violation of women's reproductive sovereignty, and of course prats on about "nonviolent" mass murder. And who advocates that similar-minded psychopaths should be able to share a meal of a cognitively encumbered's testicles and them gut them because the poor mentally ill person assented. And who seeks Perfection based on an Objective of a forced-upon-all afterlife. Moreover, it may be possible to spray a chemical in the world's air, or add something to the water supply that would prevent women from becoming pregnant. It wouldn't be necessary to ban sex. Alternatively, we could develop an AI that would peacefully and swiftly wipe out all sentient organisms on Earth, perhaps by releasing some kind of toxin into the air.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 4, 2018 20:50:59 GMT
They strive to stay alive because if they don't do those things, they will be harmed. Other species of animal probably have no sense in which they think that life is a wonderful thing and every life is sacred; it's only humans that give meaning to the struggle because we have the awareness of our own mortality. Sentient animals have evolved this carrot and stick mechanism which is adaptive for helping the species to thrive. Animals that just have the lowest level of sentient awareness aren't eating and sheltering themselves from the cold because they have intellectually weighed up life's benefits and debits and come to the conclusion that life is a wonderful thing and must be prolonged so that they can experience all the myriad wonders and miracles on offer (even the vast majority of humans don't do this, going by all evidence). No, they eat and shelter themselves from the cold and protect themselves from being endangered by other animals because they will experience great suffering and harm if they don't, and because of basic instincts that have been evolved. See here, for example, you're seeing striving as necessary, but clearly it's not. The vast majority of living things do not strive at all, yet many of those ving things experience evolutionary success as defined above. Evolution works via means that do not at all require striving. I think we possibly agree overall, butt you seem to be misconstruing what I mean by striving. I understand that it's more accurate to think of natural selection as a process rather than as a guiding hand. Natural selection is the simple result of variation, differential reproduction, and heredity — it is mindless and mechanistic. It has no goals; it's not striving to produce "progress" or a balanced ecosystem. This is why "need," "try," and "want" are not very accurate words when it comes to explaining evolution. The population or individual does not "want" or "try" to evolve, and natural selection cannot try to supply what an organism "needs." Natural selection just selects among whatever variations exist in the population. The result is evolution. I meant it more in a sense that Mic might understand, in that organisms ( whether sentient or not) positively live their lives unaffected by a fear of harm. They may be defensive, careful, have developed strategies to prevent what he terms 'harm' though he strangely has never really defined the term adequately butt it is a positive force for survival and not the negative fearful defensive one that he portrays. He has this unnatural fixation with suffering torture and death to the degree where he feels death and annihilation is the only moral course. Evolutionarily that is bullshit IMHO.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2018 6:03:07 GMT
In any case, if an animal with sentience comes across environmental stressors, that is going to be accompanied by unpleasant experience. That's not necessarily true, and it's especially not necessarily true that one would find the situation (not to mention experience in general) negative on balance. It's known that sentient animals do feel distress when they're harmed. Animals probably don't think about the value of life and whether it's positive or negative, but they also don't have religion built around the assertion that life is meaningful and valuable in a positive way.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2018 6:14:06 GMT
A person is only harmed if they feel harmed. Harm is not an abstract concept, as you are trying to pose it. If I killed someone for no reason, then the people who cared about and/or depended upon that person would feel justifiably aggrieved and harmed. Whereas if it was someone who had requested assisted suicide, anyone would be selfish, greedy, deluded or religious to want to deny them that right. Right, that's the thought of the deranged who "believes" that if he sneaks up behind someone and assassinates them instantly that he hasn't harmed them. And rejects birth as "imposition" on a child while simultaneously espousing forced violation of women's reproductive sovereignty, and of course prats on about "nonviolent" mass murder. And who advocates that similar-minded psychopaths should be able to share a meal of a cognitively encumbered's testicles and them gut them because the poor mentally ill person assented. And who seeks Perfection based on an Objective of a forced-upon-all afterlife. Moreover, it may be possible to spray a chemical in the world's air, or add something to the water supply that would prevent women from becoming pregnant. It wouldn't be necessary to ban sex. Alternatively, we could develop an AI that would peacefully and swiftly wipe out all sentient organisms on Earth, perhaps by releasing some kind of toxin into the air.Harm is not an abstract concept. Something that cannot feel harmed cannot be harmed. My suggestion with respect to non-invasively sterlising women (or even men) to prevent the conception of children is just a 'don't be a selfish, imposing arsehole' law. Paedophiles have a strong sexual desire to molest children, but you wouldn't take issue with having laws to limit their sexual freedom. Well this is the same. People shouldn't have an entitlement in law to harm others and risk their wellbeing to gratify their own desires. The cannibal issue is different from assisted suicide, in that the cannibalised likely did feel pain during the encounter. That case is somewhat morally problematic, though I tend on the side of upholding an individual's right to choose what happens to their body. If the cannibal had Nembutal, and had administered this to the person who was to be cannibalised (with that person's request) and waited for death prior to cutting up the body, thereby ensuring that there was no pain, then the case would be entirely morally unproblematic and it wouldn't matter to what use the testicles were put, post mortem. The individual would have been transitioning peacefully from a harmed state that they wanted to escape, to a state in which they can never be harmed. I don't share your conviction that our species is divine, and it can never be wrong to consensually assist someone to escape a harmed state and permanently release them from harm. Harm is not a religious objective concept which exists independently of those who can feel harmed. Also, I have never stated a belief in, nor desire for, an afterlife.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 5, 2018 7:20:12 GMT
Harm is not an abstract concept. Something that cannot feel harmed cannot be harmed. My suggestion with respect to non-invasively sterlising women (or even men) to prevent the conception of children is just a 'don't be a selfish, imposing arsehole' law. Paedophiles have a strong sexual desire to molest children, but you wouldn't take issue with having laws to limit their sexual freedom. Well this is the same. People shouldn't have an entitlement in law to harm others and risk their wellbeing to gratify their own desires. The cannibal issue is different from assisted suicide, in that the cannibalised likely did feel pain during the encounter. That case is somewhat morally problematic, though I tend on the side of upholding an individual's right to choose what happens to their body. If the cannibal had Nembutal, and had administered this to the person who was to be cannibalised (with that person's request) and waited for death prior to cutting up the body, thereby ensuring that there was no pain, then the case would be entirely morally unproblematic and it wouldn't matter to what use the testicles were put, post mortem. The individual would have been transitioning peacefully from a harmed state that they wanted to escape, to a state in which they can never be harmed. I don't share your conviction that our species is divine, and it can never be wrong to consensually assist someone to escape a harmed state and permanently release them from harm. Harm is not a religious objective concept which exists independently of those who can feel harmed. Also, I have never stated a belief in, nor desire for, an afterlife. 'Harm' is in the eye of the beholder.
|
|