Pacifism?

[quatona]

Since you do not deal in moral rights or wrongs, I would be enthralled to hear your take on Adam Lanza and the Sandy Hook Massacre.

Ok. What is it you want to know?

It is quite evident that Adam Lanza was willing to pay the price, so tell me, are we warranted in saying that what this young man did was wrong?

Firstly, I do not necessarily agree with the assumption that he was willing to pay the price - I am more inclined to think that he wasn´t aware of the price.
As for your question: Why is it that when I tell you I don´t deal in rights and wrongs your next question is asking me about rights and wrongs?
Of course you are free to call something "wrong". However, this is violent language, and it will not help you having your needs fulfilled. You´ll pay a price for it.

Ted Bundy received great pleasure from violently abducting women and killing them. And since he usually killed them without much delay, they died quickly. Now correct me if I am wrong, but you maintain that when we die that we just cease to exist, is this correct?

Well, that would be simplifying my take on it quite a bit (of course, every bit of us will continue to exist - just not as "us"), but I guess for purposes of your questions this paraphrasing is good enough.

If so, then if Ted killed a young prostitute who had no family and was all alone in the world, no one to cry for her or mourn her loss when she died, what would your view be of what he did?

Nobody is alone in the world, to begin with. We are more connected than we like to think.
But, ok, let´s look at it hypothetically: If the lady would have been absolutely "alone in the world", the only persons who could possibly pay a price for Ted´s actions are he himself and the people that he´s connected with. And they will.

 

[Max S Cherry]

Hi again, Max,

Hello Quatona, it is good to hear from you again.

Of course existence is a prerequisite for existence´s quality.
If there´s nobody existing they can´t have quality to their existence.
However, this doesn´t require me to consider existence (life) a quality in itself. I might just decide to make the best of it now that I (or someone else) exist(s).

I can understand that and even appreciate it, too.

I have no idea what leads you to this conclusion. It is alien to me.

To me, it seems that the thing which enables you to enjoy all other things, that being your existence or your life, has a value itself.

Just like, say, I might be pretty indifferent about playing chess, but once I (have to) play it, I´ll adopt chess-related values/strategies. Doesn´t necessarily mean I value chess.

I like your analogy. If I understand correctly, chess is your life. The "doesn't necessarily" in your statement makes me have to agree with you.

Yes, if you feel you can compare non-existence to existence (as sort of comparing to states) I understand why you would look at it this way.
For me, however, non-existence isn´t a state. It´s just nothing. It´s not better or worse than anything. It´s just nothing.

If non-existence is nothing, does that not make existence something? If they are opposites, are they not both states? This is confusing to me. However, I do understand non-existence being no better or worse since you would have no means to appreciate either.

Sure my values are my values. These my values will die when I die. I am not separating my self from my values.
Existence is the frame of reference within which my values make sense to me. It would be fallacious to carry those values outside this frame of reference, like when comparing life to non-life.

I love where you went with this. As a Christian, I cannot agree, but as an agnostic, I can certainly appreciate this.

I´m not dealing in moral rights or wrongs (see my sig-line).
To borrow the words of Marshal Rosenberg (paraphrased from memory):
If you by all means want to resort to violence, you are free to do it. Just be aware that everybody involved will pay a high price for it.

Fair enough.

I disapprove of violence because it makes the life of everyone involved more miserable.

Very good answer.

I wouldn´t recommend violence under any circumstances.

I might would recommend a small level of violence in some instances if it were required to save lives, but on the whole, I agree with you.

Thanks for asking. Feel free to ask additional questions.

And I thank you for answering. You have been a pleasure to talk with, and I look forward to speaking with you again.

 

[Elioenai26]

Ok. What is it you want to know?



Firstly, I do not necessarily agree with the assumption that he was willing to pay the price - I am more inclined to think that he wasn´t aware of the price.
As for your question: Why is it that when I tell you I don´t deal in rights and wrongs your next question is asking me about rights and wrongs?
Of course you are free to call something "wrong". However, this is violent language, and it will not help you having your needs fulfilled. You´ll pay a price for it.



Well, that would be simplifying my take on it quite a bit (of course, every bit of us will continue to exist - just not as "us"), but I guess for purposes of your questions this paraphrasing is good enough.
Nobody is alone in the world, to begin with. We are more connected than we like to think.
But, ok, let´s look at it hypothetically: If the lady would have been absolutely "alone in the world", the only persons who could possibly pay a price for Ted´s actions are he himself and the people that he´s connected with. And they will.

Do you have a significant other, a wife, girlfriend or say a son or daughter, anyone dear to you? If yes then I would like to ask you if they were shot and killed while walking down the street, would you accuse the shooter with wrongdoing?

If you do not have anyone in your life who you love and that is dear to you, then I ask, do you love yourself?, that is, is your life dear to you? If so, then tell me, if someone were to find out that you don't deal in rights and wrongs and thought you were a callous, heard hearted, egotistical, self-centered arrogant degenerate and slapped you in the face and proceeded to pummel you, would you think they had treated you wrongly?

I am asking a rhetorical question of course, because, as you have stated, you dont deal with rights and wrongs....

You repeatedly assert, on one hand: "I don't deal with ideas of right and wrong", a theme gleaned from Rumi and other ancient mystics, and on the other, you no doubt maintain as these same mystics would, that seeking and working for peace is the right thing to do? You are a champion for peace, but yet refuse to call anything wrong or evil!! What then is peace?

Are famine, genocide, warfare, and strife all various evils and wrongs committed by men? If you do not deal in right and wrongdoing, then why are you a champion of such efforts as peaceful actions against such evils and wrongs that you maintain you do not deal in?

 

[quatona]

Do you have a significant other, a wife, girlfriend or say a son or daughter, anyone dear to you? If yes then I would like to ask you if they were shot and killed while walking down the street, would you accuse the shooter with wrongdoing?

If you do not have anyone in your life who you love and that is dear to you, then I ask, do you love yourself?, that is, is your life dear to you? If so, then tell me, if someone were to find out that you don't deal in rights and wrongs and thought you were a callous, heard hearted, egotistical, self-centered arrogant degenerate and slapped you in the face and proceeded to pummel you, would you think they had treated you wrongly?

I am asking a rhetorical question of course, because, as you have stated, you dont deal with rights and wrongs....

Exactly. Rhethorical questions don´t expect an answer. The person asking the question has given his own answer, and is not interested in the actual answer of the person opposite.

You repeatedly assert, on one hand: "I don't deal with ideas of right and wrong", a theme gleaned from Rumi and other ancient mystics, and on the other, you no doubt maintain as these same mystics would, that seeking and working for peace is the right thing to do? You are a champion for peace, but yet refuse to call anything wrong or evil!! What then is peace?

"Peace" - to sum it up shortly - is the absence of violence.

Are famine, genocide, warfare, and strife all various evils and wrongs committed by men?

The way you have loaded your question it can only be answered by someone who deals in categories "evil/wrong". So what can I say?

If you do not deal in right and wrongdoing, then why are you a champion of such efforts as peaceful actions against such evils and wrongs that you maintain you do not deal in?

I dislike violence. It makes the life of everyone involved more miserable. I don´t like that.
If you like it, I have no argument against you.

 

[Davian]

Let me rephrase my question.

Are you going to provide a reference for where you got the idea that organisms are 'more' or 'less' evolved?

How do you account for some people being ethical egoists and some being altruists like yourself?

I don't. In the absence of other falsifiable hypothesis, I would put it down to a combination of neurobiology and environment.

So how would you account for it?

 

[Davian]

...
Evolutionists have their what? Unified theory? Congratulations. They now have a theory. I have some too.
...

I don't know if you are joking, serious, or just trying to bait me, but I think we are done here.

 

[Max S Cherry]

I don't know if you are joking, serious, or just trying to bait me, but I think we are done here.

It is probably best if we call done done. I have no idea why my question caused you such problems, but I apologize. It was, in my opinion, a question and no more.

I look forward to perhaps discussing other matters with you in a different thread at a future date. Have a great holiday season.

 

[Elioenai26]

Are you going to provide a reference for where you got the idea that organisms are 'more' or 'less' evolved?

I don't. In the absence of other falsifiable hypothesis, I would put it down to a combination of neurobiology and environment.

So how would you account for it?

What then of culpability? Is the term meaningless?

 

[Elioenai26]

The way you have loaded your question it can only be answered by someone who deals in categories "evil/wrong". So what can I say?

What are famine, genocide, and warfare?

I dislike violence. It makes the life of everyone involved more miserable. I don´t like that.
If you like it, I have no argument against you.

Do you have any qualms with Christianity? Any arguments against it or its proponents?

 

[Davian]

What then of culpability? Is the term meaningless?

Not so fast.

How do you account for some people being ethical egoists and some being altruists?

 

[quatona]

What are famine, genocide, and warfare?

I´m not sure I understand the question. Do you want the dictionary definitions?
I´m not a native English speaker, so I am probably not the best person to ask, but I´ll give it a quick shot in my own words:
Famine is when lots of people starve.
Genocide is the systematic eradication of a certain segment of the population.
Warfare is organized violence between nations.

Do you have any qualms with Christianity?

Chistianity as a whole? Other than that I don´t share this belief system, no.

Any arguments against it or its proponents?

Only when they themselves present poor, faulty or fallacious arguments. In which case I will give my objections.

 

[Elioenai26]

I´m not sure I understand the question.

Was it wrong for the Nazi regime to commit genocide on the Jewish Population?

Only when they themselves present poor, faulty or fallacious arguments. In which case I will give my objections.

Examples of faulty and fallacious arguments are?

 

[Elioenai26]

Not so fast.

How do you account for some people being ethical egoists and some being altruists?

The exercise of one's free will to choose to be selfish or selfless.

Now to the question I asked you, what of culpability? Does the term have any meaning to you?

 

[quatona]

Was it wrong for the Nazi regime to commit genocide on the Jewish Population?

What about the statement "I don´t deal in categories of moral rights/wrongs" do you not understand (and by "understand" I don´t mean "agree with", but "understand")?
If you keep asking questions in which you superimpose your own concepts onto my statements (and ignore what I have said repeatedly) you will never actually address my views.

Examples of faulty and fallacious arguments are?

Are you sure your question is still on topic, or is this going to be another attempt to turn this into an apologetics debate?

Please remember that this started with you coming into a conversation I had with Max about my views on pacifism.

 

[Elioenai26]

What about the statement "I don´t deal in categories of moral rights/wrongs" do you not understand (and by "understand" I don´t mean "agree with", but "understand")?
If you keep asking questions in which you superimpose your own concepts onto my statements (and ignore what I have said repeatedly) you will never actually address my views.

Thank you for your response. You are the first person I have ever dialogued with that does not understand what moral rights and wrongs are. I just wanted to confirm that that was indeed your position.

 

[quatona]

Thank you for your response. You are the first person I have ever dialogued with that does not understand what moral rights and wrongs are. I just wanted to confirm that that was indeed your position.

There must be a communication problem. I do understand quite well the various moral concepts of right and wrong that people have. I just don´t subscribe to any of them.
That´s what I stated in the beginning, and I have no idea why it would require all the questions and answers to finally confirm that very statement in reference to which you started this conversation.

 

[Davian]

The exercise of one's free will to choose to be selfish or selfless.

Do you have the free will to do such a thing? How does that work? Do you have any scientific papers to back that up? Links, please.

Now to the question I asked you, what of culpability? Does the term have any meaning to you?

Yes. I see no point in elucidating without you clarifying what you mean by 'free will'.

 

[Elioenai26]

Do you have the free will to do such a thing? How does that work? Do you have any scientific papers to back that up? Links, please.

No I do not have to have scientific papers regarding free will to know that I have the capacity to make choices and decisions in my everyday life. I am 100% responsible or culpable for the choices I make in my life, whether good or bad. Its called being a man and taking responsibility for my actions.

 

[Elioenai26]

There must be a communication problem. I do understand quite well the various moral concepts of right and wrong that people have. I just don´t subscribe to any of them.
That´s what I stated in the beginning, and I have no idea why it would require all the questions and answers to finally confirm that very statement in reference to which you started this conversation.

Thank you for clarifying that for me. May I quote you on that?

 

[quatona]

Thank you for clarifying that for me. May I quote you on that?

Quoting with proper context - yes.
Quoting without proper context - no.
Paraphrasing or interpreting - no.
I have seen what happened when you paraphrased Eudaimonist´s statement recently.
Thanks for asking for permission beforehand.