Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2017 1:18:01 GMT
Nobody should be forced to contend with the risk of non-trivial suffering just because other people think that the world is "good enough" or can be made "good enough". "First, do no harm" is not the psychopath's creed.
One cannot be resigned to a certain outcome if one has no way of knowing what that outcome is.
Therefore whatever I do is part of the chain of causality which helps to determine the final outcome. Fatalism is not consistent with determinism, or with reasoned thought. And determinism doesn't mean that nothing can ever change, it means that things are always changing. Therefore just as dropping a plate onto a hard surface will cause that plate to shatter into many fragments, having a discussion can be and is productive in helping to change ideas. When I drop the plate, I don't know how many fragments are going to be produced by the drop of the plate, and I don't know what the outcome of having a discussion is going to be. But cause and effect prevails in both cases. I'm not doing anything to try to prevent a cause from effecting, or frantically swimming upstream against the tide of causality; I am part of that causal chain.
Morally I would be fine with post-birth abortions, but I realise that this would probably be too radical to ever be implemented.
scienceblogs.com/cortex/2006/12/26/scott-adams-on-free-will/
dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2007/03/asses_and_free_.html
Also, this new article came up on VICE which has an interview with a neuroscientist on free will:
www.vice.com/en_uk/article/mbqwjx/you-have-no-free-will
Nope, necessarily, by orders of magnitude, as they are responding to their crushing guilt or loss or whatever with great urgency, and not concentrating on making themselves not care about it. As for the mentally incompetent, it's just horrifically immoral to send them to their doom when they are in the grips of a mental illness. To assist a mental illness to bring about the death of a person is categorically immoral and in fact reprehensible. If you're too bored, stop being so narcissistic and trying to vitiate the whole system based on your personal fecklessness and narcissism.
Yes, and if they had a cooling off period where they knew that (state facilitated) suicide was very much an option but were given assistance to explore other alternatives (which they otherwise would be too scared to explore due to fear of being effectively criminalised and losing their freedom for an indefinite period of time), then this would help a lot of people though these short term crises. And it is horrifically lacking in empathy to insist that you know better than someone else whether or not their suffering is worth enduring. It's also incomprehensibly absurd to carve out an exception to the usual rule that it is legal to assist someone in acting lawfully.
Booby hatch stuff. Both "Nobody should be forced to contend with the risk of non-trivial suffering" and what you think is and is not harm.
Life always contains harm. Only if life can be guaranteed harm-free should someone even consider the possibility of making new life.
One can be sane to the fact that no matter what they do or not do will make no difference against their God Fate.
Yes, but nobody is God and nobody knows what the outcome of their actions will be. Only in knowing the future can one be resigned to what happens in the future.
More booby hatch stuff. Whatever you "know" (harderharharr) or don't know, no action or inaction can change the course that was set up at the outset. The "ideas" molecules are already on their irreversible path. Your urgency and actions are patently deranged in the face of such "knowledge".
This is true, but I don't know where the ideas molecules will end up. I used to be very staunchly in favour of procreation (even posting the lyrics for 'I've never been to me' to 'prove' that having children was indispensible for a fulfilling and meaningful life: www.metrolyrics.com/ive-never-been-to-me-lyrics-charlene.html), but exposure to new information changed my life. If I drop a plate, then that plate goes from being a functional plate to numerous broken fragments of ceramic on the floor. With ostensibly no magic involved, the plate transitions from being one useful object occupying one state to many different useless objects occupying a range of different states. But I would not write an angry letter to the manufacturer demanding to know why they bothered to manufacture that plate if it was just going to get broken anyway.