|
by Senor Barborito 07/23/2003, 8:51am PDT |
|
 |
|
 |
|
Entropy Stew wrote:
Senor Barborito wrote:
These two probably deserved a lot of what they got, but whatever. Personally I don't care one way or another outside of some vague sense of pity that two a few sentient beings were given a premature cessation. It's suboptimal, but then a lot of things in existence are.
--SB
You say that killing is wrong, yet surely you must acknowledge that there are times when death is unavoidable - Batman can't save both Robin and the girl, etc. Who, then, would you save? Uday or Mother Theresa? Uday AND Qusay or Mother Theresa?
-/ES/-
Coming from a purely rational perspective the only thing one can be 100% certain of is that one possess one's own conscious mind, the self. All our sensory input may be deception. If one is to believe the sensory input one receives as secondary, circumstantial evidence (we don't have any choice but to accept it for the time being - we have to believe it as we don't have anything else to work with) then there are other conscious minds like self wandering about this planet. Thus the certain knowledge of self-existence and the strong belief in the existence of other conscious minds.
Secondly, all of these conscious minds, including self, are - apparently - due for complete and utter annihilation in a relatively short period of time. Since self possesses nothing else other than sentience, and none of these other conscious minds truly possess anything else, than we have nothing to lose other than our selves and nothing to gain save perhaps the possibility of perpetual preservation.
Thus, from a purely rational perspective, there is nothing more precious than a conscious mind. Were we all rational, a universal pact of non-aggression would be agreed upon in which each participant agreed to preserve the existences of the others to whatever extent possible, except under the threat of self-termination (as nobody can be 100% certain other sentient minds exist, but such certainty does exist for the existence of one's self). Furthermore, the sensory input known as 'pain' or 'suffering' would not be inflicted upon another when it could reasonably be avoided - some leeway is appropriate and necessary here. Finally, all of us existing as we apparently are under the universal sentence of natural expiration, would all agree to put forth maximal effort to subvert and defeat the phenomenon of natural expiration. This is the ideal.
The latter, and only the latter by the way, is the only reason I have ever, would ever, or will ever advocate a socialist socio-economic model of any kind. I honestly don't particularly care how we get there - it just seems that everbody working together as hard as possible gets us all there as quickly as possible. If capitalism can provably get us there faster - or if it would take too long between now and a reasonable estimation of when such a technology can be achieved to make any switchover - than to Hell with it, it's not that important. All that matters is getting as many possible willing sentient beings out of the realm of mortality as quickly as possible.
Working from there, all minds are equally valuable - lay aside your emotions for a moment and think rationally. Assuming rehabilitation to rationality were possible, would it be better to have two minds or one? The answer, of course, is two, regardless of personality they are both conscious minds and therefore - assuming chemical imbalances in their brains are corrected - capable of rational thinking. You might as well ask a good capitalist whether he wants one dollar or two. But let's say we can only pick Uday Hussein or Mother Theresa to save in some life-or-death situation. Who then do we pick to go on existing? Since we're going to lose a mind in either case, it would seem rational to pick a still-living Mother Theresa over Uday for two reasons:
a) she is far more likely to be successfully rehabilitated to rational thought than Uday.
b) secondly her actions have served the cause of rational thought by furthering its ends, even if her means are not at all rational - rewarding her would, in a societal sense, provide incentive to others to at the very least pursue the ends of rationalism.
If you want it as a priority list, here goes:
Priority 1) Preserve self (one is certain one exists)
Priority 2) Preserve the highest number of minds possible (it is highly probable, based on current sensory input, that other minds exist)
Priority 3) When faced with certain death to equal numbers of minds, choose the ones most likely to be successfully rehabilitated to rational thinking
Priority 4) As a natural consequence of priorities 1) and 2) develop a means of perpetual self-preservation and make it openly available to each and every suspected sentient being without exception.
Addendum 1) When making judgements regarding priority 3, consider who will be most helpful for priority 4
Addendum 2) While pursuing goals 1-5, minimize painful input for others where possible within reason.
Addendum 3) Addendum 2 does not equate to letting hedonism of any kind interrupt your pursuit of the above priorities, especially four.
Addendum 4) Do not let anything but pure reason guide your actions - when confused, start with with the above base and reason forward from there.
Addendum 5) Should an argument that unravels part of this ethical system later be found, start from the beginning, work forward until the portion the argument proves wrong - then embrace the truth of the argument and reason forward from there.
You want the foundation for my little ethical system? There it is. This is what little core belief survives every blast of the nuclear furnace that is my internal state. No matter how many times the rug of everything I think or know or feel or am is pulled out from under me by forces I am only now beginning to control with the help of proper medication - the above remains and endures. I have encountered no argument which can defeat it, held no beliefs that do not eventually fall to it.
Where do I personally fall down? Addendums three and four. The violations of three are primarily a byproduct of the hyperaddictive nature inherent to nearly every bipolar person, but I'm learning to overcome it. The violations to four are because my medication regimen is not flawless - I say many things in my moments of weakness that I regret or later disagree with or I know to be wrong at a later point in time. Except the above. It has been and likely will remain my ethical foundation - my island of core beliefs in a hellish Limbo.
--SB |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
Detla Force Scoreboard by SBDMT 03/19/2003, 8:24pm PST 
Re: Detla Force Scoreboard by SBDMT 03/20/2003, 12:11am PST
POW Rescue, +5 point bonus. by SBDMT 04/01/2003, 7:36pm PST
Link? -nt- by Entropy Stew 04/01/2003, 7:59pm PST
Best thing I can find by SBDMT 04/01/2003, 8:40pm PST
Re: Best thing I can find by E. L. Koba 04/01/2003, 10:51pm PST
Re: Best thing I can find by veronica 04/01/2003, 10:54pm PST
Not even close by Senor Barborito 07/23/2003, 4:50am PDT
Just being an ass by E. L. Koba 07/23/2003, 6:34pm PDT
Sorry, kneejerk liberalism (read: "Jesus they're not ANIMALS" reaction), my bad. NT by Senor Barborito 07/23/2003, 8:56pm PDT
I CAN CONTROL YOUR MIND!!!!!! by laudablepuss 07/24/2003, 1:13pm PDT
Possible kill/capture of Saddam's sons. Score pending. NT by SBDMT 07/22/2003, 12:02pm PDT
CONFIRMED! W00t! NT by SBDMT 07/22/2003, 3:52pm PDT
It was the 101st though, not Delta. NT by E. L. Koba 07/22/2003, 5:41pm PDT
Re: It was the 101st though, not Delta. by Bob Violence 07/22/2003, 5:56pm PDT
MILITARY TASK FORCE, starring Chuck Norris by Fussbett 07/22/2003, 6:02pm PDT
Re: MILITARY TASK FORCE, starring Chuck Norris by E. L. Koba 07/22/2003, 6:33pm PDT
Re: MILITARY TASK FORCE, starring Chuck Norris by laudablepuss 07/22/2003, 6:43pm PDT
Task Force 20 good enough for you? by SBDMT 07/22/2003, 6:47pm PDT
I heard they were too close to a TOW missile explosion and got dead. NT by laudablepuss 07/23/2003, 3:00am PDT
Man all the TOW missles in the hangar must be totally smashed tonight. NT by Senor Barborito 07/23/2003, 4:30am PDT
Exploding with joy, even. NT by Senor Barborito 07/23/2003, 4:30am PDT
Re: CONFIRMED! W00t! by chimp 07/23/2003, 12:47am PDT
Hur? by Chairman Mao 07/23/2003, 12:54am PDT
Re: Hur? by chimp 07/23/2003, 1:15am PDT
Time, CA. 1988 on the end of the Iran-Iraq war. by Chairman Mao 07/23/2003, 1:54am PDT
stupid but valid reference by Moab 07/23/2003, 2:25am PDT
Never underestimate nationalism and propaganda by Senor Barborito 07/23/2003, 1:04am PDT
Never underestimate the power of moral relativism to make threads crap by Preachy Postmodernist Bullshitter 07/23/2003, 1:28am PDT
God help me by Entropy Stew 07/23/2003, 6:44am PDT
You fool! You've doomed us all! by Senor Barborito 07/23/2003, 8:51am PDT
One minor edit by Senor Barborito 07/23/2003, 10:26am PDT
Re: You fool! You've doomed us all! by GRENDEL 07/23/2003, 11:04am PDT
On what basis would you assign value? NT by Senor Barborito 07/23/2003, 11:08am PDT
RATIONALLY, I CAN'T. by GRENDEL 07/23/2003, 11:26am PDT
Bravo! by Senor Barborito 07/23/2003, 11:42am PDT
Re: You fool! You've doomed us all! by foogla 07/23/2003, 3:36pm PDT
You adorable nut, you! You're horribly wrong, as usual. by laudablepuss 07/23/2003, 5:26pm PDT
You REALLY need to read just a little philosophy. by Senor Barborito 07/23/2003, 7:51pm PDT
Of course I've read Descartes, freakshow. by laudablepuss 07/23/2003, 8:07pm PDT
No, that isn't the question by Senor Barborito 07/23/2003, 8:12pm PDT
Re: No, that isn't the question by laudablepuss 07/24/2003, 1:54am PDT
I like how you think. Don't understand your patience, but whatever. NT by Lizard_King 07/23/2003, 8:06pm PDT
It's 'addenda,' you translating green blob. NT by Rene Descartes 07/23/2003, 6:36pm PDT
Oh no, don't burn me at stake, Jesuit ass-sniffer! by Senor Barborito 07/23/2003, 7:53pm PDT
I see it as the loss of two potential Friendsters. NT by conflictNo 07/23/2003, 1:09am PDT
No shit. They always give the LOSERS of wars with America a bad rap. NT by Adolf "Godwin" Hitler 07/23/2003, 1:24am PDT
wait, what does that mean? NT by Your fellow faggot 07/23/2003, 1:28am PDT
Perhaps, and I'm going out on a limb here... by Lizard_King 07/23/2003, 2:22am PDT
The only truly crazy person mentioned thus far IS Noam Chomsky by Senor Barborito 07/23/2003, 4:29am PDT
Also hilarious: my spelling of affliction in the above post. NT by Senor Barborito 07/23/2003, 9:43am PDT
Re: The only truly crazy person mentioned thus far IS Noam Chomsky by Lizard_King 07/23/2003, 1:10pm PDT
Are you serious? NT by foogla 07/23/2003, 3:43pm PDT
Unclear, perhaps. But serious, you bet. NT by Lizard_King 07/23/2003, 8:22pm PDT
Re: The only truly crazy person mentioned thus far IS Noam Chomsky by Bill Dungsroman 07/23/2003, 11:56pm PDT
Re: The only truly crazy person mentioned thus far IS Noam Chomsky by Lizard_King 07/24/2003, 10:25am PDT
Ignore fucked up quote post above, see post below. NT by Lizard_King 07/24/2003, 10:27am PDT
Re: The only truly crazy person mentioned thus far IS Noam Chomsky by Lizard_King 07/24/2003, 10:27am PDT
Re: The only truly crazy person mentioned thus far IS Noam Chomsky by Bill Dungsroman 07/24/2003, 12:10pm PDT
Re: The only truly crazy person mentioned thus far IS Noam Chomsky by foogla 07/24/2003, 12:33pm PDT
[NO SARCASM]Good point, foogla[/NO SARCASM] NT by Bill Dungsroman 07/24/2003, 1:16pm PDT
Re: The only truly crazy person mentioned thus far IS Noam Chomsky by laudablepuss 07/24/2003, 5:29pm PDT
Re: The only truly crazy person mentioned thus far IS Noam Chomsky by E. L. Koba 07/24/2003, 5:36pm PDT
Re: The only truly crazy person mentioned thus far IS Noam Chomsky by creativepig 07/24/2003, 6:49pm PDT
Re: The only truly crazy person mentioned thus far IS Noam Chomsky by E. L. Koba 07/24/2003, 7:26pm PDT
Re: The only truly crazy person mentioned thus far IS Noam Chomsky by Lizard_King 07/24/2003, 9:52pm PDT
Last I checked Iraqi civilian casualties from bombing was 5,000+, FYI NT by Senor Barborito 07/24/2003, 2:49pm PDT
That's the Iraqi figure, IIRC. NT by Chairman Mao 07/24/2003, 3:24pm PDT
Says who? Also, compare to avg. of Shiites paved into roads after GW1. by Lizard_King 07/24/2003, 9:25pm PDT
Re: The only truly crazy person mentioned thus far IS Noam Chomsky by Lizard_King 07/24/2003, 9:45pm PDT
Re: The only truly crazy person mentioned thus far IS Noam Chomsky by Bill Dungsroman 07/25/2003, 6:04pm PDT
Re: The only truly crazy person mentioned thus far IS Noam Chomsky by Lizard_King 07/27/2003, 10:56pm PDT
Pop! by I need clarification 07/24/2003, 1:59pm PDT
ES agrees with INC; world ends; film at 11 NT by Entropy Stew 07/24/2003, 2:25pm PDT
Everyone except Lizard_King agrees with INC on this one. NT by Chairman Mao 07/24/2003, 2:27pm PDT
I don't agree either. by laudablepuss 07/24/2003, 5:23pm PDT
Re: I don't agree either. by E. L. Koba 07/24/2003, 5:39pm PDT
Works for me. NT by laudablepuss 07/24/2003, 5:40pm PDT
Re: I don't agree either. by Steve Sailer 07/24/2003, 8:30pm PDT
Everyone is always biting my shit man NT by E. L. Koba 07/25/2003, 1:15am PDT
Well, that's what I meant. by Chairman Mao 07/24/2003, 5:42pm PDT
Strangely I agree with both of you, also, note for laudable by Senor Barborito 07/24/2003, 6:00pm PDT
Re: Strangely I agree with both of you, also, note for laudable by laudablepuss 07/24/2003, 6:22pm PDT
Dunno, can you wait three days or so? That's my best ETA. NT by Senor Barborito 07/24/2003, 6:59pm PDT
Is this your manifesto? Are you holed up in a shack somewhere? NT by laudablepuss 07/24/2003, 7:28pm PDT
Let's just say there's a machete involved. NT by Senor Barborito 07/24/2003, 8:11pm PDT
Re: Well, that's what I meant. by Lizard_King 07/24/2003, 10:18pm PDT
Re: Well, that's what I meant. by laudablepuss 07/25/2003, 12:18am PDT
Of course you don't. by I need clarification 07/24/2003, 8:20pm PDT
Re: Of course you don't. by Lizard_King 07/24/2003, 9:57pm PDT
You're on auto-pilot. Again. by I need clarification 07/24/2003, 10:38pm PDT
My mistake. by Lizard_King 07/24/2003, 11:14pm PDT
Yeah. Still disagree. by laudablepuss 07/25/2003, 12:11am PDT
You burned me. :( by I need clarification 07/25/2003, 12:46am PDT
My God you're retarded. by laudablepuss 07/25/2003, 12:50pm PDT
Re: My God you're retarded. by I need clarification 07/25/2003, 1:48pm PDT
Re: I don't agree either. by The Happiness Engine 07/26/2003, 3:50am PDT
What do you expect of the majority on a purple internet forum? NT by Lizard_King 07/24/2003, 10:19pm PDT
NO NO RECALL DAVIS -nt by Arbit 07/24/2003, 8:06pm PDT
Re: Pop! by Lizard_King 07/24/2003, 10:08pm PDT
Holy shit, it's the human pretzel. I bet it can suck it's own dick, too! by I need clarification 07/24/2003, 11:37pm PDT
Re: Holy shit, it's the human pretzel. I bet it can suck it's own dick, too! by Lizard_King 07/27/2003, 10:03pm PDT
Fucking shit. I sincerely wish I'd been wrong. by I need clarification 07/27/2003, 3:41am PDT
It's shit that would have happened anyway. by Lizard_King 07/27/2003, 10:06pm PDT
Thanks, Neo. I and everyone else stuck in the Matrix appreciate you very much. by I need clarification 07/27/2003, 10:29pm PDT
What? by Lizard_King 07/28/2003, 10:28am PDT
Re: Fucking shit. I sincerely wish I'd been wrong. by laudablepuss 07/28/2003, 11:01am PDT
Re: CONFIRMED! W00t! by E. L. Koba 07/23/2003, 1:47am PDT
Re: CONFIRMED! W00t! by Moab 07/23/2003, 1:56am PDT
Does it really? by Lizard_King 07/23/2003, 2:26am PDT
Dead people! Take a picture, maw! by Bill Dungsroman 07/23/2003, 10:49am PDT
Re: Dead people! Take a picture, maw! by Fullofkittens 07/23/2003, 11:49am PDT
Any news on that footnote? I'm still waiting... by I need clarification 07/23/2003, 2:08pm PDT
Oh yeah! Sorry. by Fullofkittens 07/23/2003, 2:54pm PDT
Just getting into character. NT by Moab 07/23/2003, 12:36pm PDT
You deserve better then an NT post. by Moab 07/23/2003, 1:14pm PDT
Re: You deserve better then an NT post. by Bill Dungsroman 07/23/2003, 11:24pm PDT
Re: Dead people! Take a picture, maw! by Lizard_King 07/23/2003, 1:14pm PDT
To the extent that this applies to me, I'll answer for me by Senor Barborito 07/23/2003, 1:52pm PDT
Remember this the next time the clock reads 9:11. by conflictNo 07/23/2003, 2:47pm PDT
Good point by Senor Barborito 07/23/2003, 8:58pm PDT
Re: To the extent that this applies to me, I'll answer for me by Lizard_King 07/23/2003, 8:20pm PDT
Re: Dead people! Take a picture, maw! by Bill Dungsroman 07/23/2003, 11:50pm PDT
Can we be honest? by SBDMT 07/23/2003, 3:10pm PDT
Fuck you by FABIO 07/23/2003, 4:25pm PDT
I agree. Remember poor Dan and Dave! *sob* NT by laudablepuss 07/23/2003, 5:28pm PDT
Re: Fuck you - What? Torture? Also, I'm confused. NT by McMoo the anti-drug cow 07/24/2003, 11:42am PDT
Re: Fuck you - What? Torture? Also, I'm confused. by FABIO 07/24/2003, 9:39pm PDT
Re: Fuck you - What? Torture? Also, I'm confused. by Bill Dungsroman 07/25/2003, 6:12pm PDT
Re: Fuck you - What? Torture? Also, I'm confused. by Ice Cream Jonsey 07/25/2003, 6:28pm PDT
The man had his own personal torture chamber by Entropy Stew 07/25/2003, 7:45pm PDT
The people sheltering them are possibly $30 million richer. by SBDMT 07/25/2003, 8:16pm PDT
They'll probably have to spend it all on bodyguards once their identidy gets out NT by FABIO 07/28/2003, 9:58am PDT
His identity did get it. He's their cousin or something.... by Lizard_King 07/28/2003, 10:30am PDT
Let's pretend for a moment that you're serious... by SBDMT 07/23/2003, 2:28am PDT
|
|
