The Philosophy Corner

[NeverMore]

Here is how I would look at it. First you have to assume he is the only one nearby with this cure. Then you have to wonder how well to do this druggest is. Obviously he is already criminal/evil. If he is already taking more then his fair share from society and has far more then he
needs, then steal away. Since really he is already a thief himself, only his thievery is legal and yours won't be. Going to jail is a small price to pay for saving the life of a loved one.

Can you really assume the druggist is evil or criminal? I mean yes he is unreasonable and greedy but doesn't he have the right to charge what price he deems fit regardless of circumstances such as life and death? Going with the notion that the druggist is a thief, does him being a thief justify Heinz's action of stealing from him? Do two wrongs make a right or does an eye for an eye make the whole world blind?

It's not really a moral issue. It's sort of like defending yourself from someone who is trying to kill you.

I think it's the epitome of a moral issue, in fact I would go so far as to say that every decision you make calls some morality into question. Defending yourself from someone trying to kill you, you have to make the moral decision to hurt someone and decide if you are justified in doing that


All that being said I do agree with a lot of what you are saying

It basically comes down to a cartel or mob of well to do individuals getting into a high possition and then setting the laws to protect them from the greater majority of society. In a perfect world those people could just get together and take and equally distribute what really was taken from them in the first place. The tiny minority of uber wealthy wouldn't be able to do diddly if people could geninely work together. Since it is the people and not they that run everything.

Would you consider yourself a socialist? It sounds like your reading straight out of Marx. Not that socialism is a bad thing, I'm not saying that because I don't know all that much about it yet, but I will make sure to soon.

But I do know some things about liberalism and I'll use some of it's basic points to counter your argument. Please note that I don't agree with some of the principles of capitalism, I'm just playing the devil's advocate for the sake of discussion.

Your saying is that everyone should be equal? But the reality of the world is that there is a natural inequality of talent, industry and reason. This inequality of faculties results in class separation which is entirely natural, how it always has been.. Human nature will always dictate this inequality. We've built our government around this system of inequality, capitalism supports economic inequality. Why should we go against human nature and try to make everyone unnaturally equal? Shouldn't we have a survival of the fittest kind of mentality?

In a sane world people like Bill Gates would have the majority of his wealth taken away from him and evenly distributed to the general population. It is just insane that people are allowed to have so much when others are outright starving. What the hell do they need it for? To burn in case they get cold?

Doesn't Bill Gates have the right to accrue wealth as he pursues happiness? And the fact that he is justified in accruing this wealth overwhelms any consequence of him having that wealth. He earned it and should have the right to use it as he sees fit, why should he not?

We all live such short lives that really it makes no sense to really believe we truely own anything. Really it is just borrowing and everything is owned by society as a whole. Since everything comes from society in the first place. No one can gain anything without the rest of society being there and really when you get far more then your neighbor it's often because you were more exploitive of others.

We do own things. If I walk through the forest and pick up an apple, that apple is mine because I mixed my labor with it when I removed it from it's state of nature and since my labor is mine, the apple is mine. If I work tirelessly to raise a cow, I feed it, I milk it and take care of it entirely by myself, when it comes time to slaughter the cow, why should I share my meat with the rest of society when society didn't do a damn thing?

Really the only moral argument is what is of benifit to society and what is not. That which if not of benifit is immoral and that which is isn't immoral. The problem though is who decides which is which.

What if that society is "bad"? Was what benefited Nazi Germany moral because it benefited their society? On that logic, no one could go against the society or else we could instantly say they are immoral, which completely stifles any positive changes to the society and completely abolishes our right to make our own moral decisions, we would simply refer to the society to see if it is moral or not, our own opinions wouldn't matter.

I hope you argue with me about the principles of liberalism, I really do hate them so much they are so cruel and selfish...

Life is like a box of ****. No matter which one you open, it's still ****.

Yep basically just yep,lol

 

[NeverMore]

Do you think God exists?
Do you think God doesn't exist?
Do you think there is no way of knowing?

Tell us why, try to make a list of reasons for both sides

And I'm not just talking about the Judeo-Christian God, you can talk about anything you might consider God

Feel free to say anything as long as everyone agrees to NOT get offended and just remember this is just a friendly discussion, treat it as such

 

[NeverMore]

Reasons for God's existence:
1.Unexplainable phenomena that we perceive around us
2.The existence of life in all it's complex and simple forms
3.Matter and energy came from somewhere
4.The extent of consciousness and "being"

Reasons against God's existence:
1.Everything is increasingly explainable scientifically
2.How can God be all powerful, all good and yet evil exists? A contradiction
3.Evolution sufficiently explains the complexity of life humans and human consciousness just a byproduct of this
4.No physical evidence,no tangible proof

That's all I can think of at the moment...Most of them can be shot down though both the for and against side.

For #1: Sure there is unexplainable phenomena, but it doesn't mean it has anything to do with God necessarily and it's only unexplainable now, I mean,at one point lightning was unexplainable

For #3: Why did matter and energy have to have a beginning? Couldn't they have always existed? Time doesn't have to have a beginning it could be infinite. It may be hard to imagine for us because our minds want to find a finite beginning to everything including matter,energy and time

Against #1: If you think we can disprove God because of the extent of our knowledge, that is an extremely arrogant viewpoint to give human reason that much credit. We know so little even though we think we know so much.. To judge existence as a whole on the tiny piece that we can perceive is foolhardy, I think anyways.. And even if the day comes when everything is explainable and we are 100% sure we are correct then it still won't damper the argument that something put it all into place

Against #2: The problem of evil as it's called is a problem for people who believe in a God that is all powerful and all good because if God created everything and he is all good how can there be evil? There are a bunch of different arguments that I read about in philosophy and a lot of them didn't solve the problem they just eliminated one of the characteristics of God (either he isn't all powerful or isn't all good) or denied the existence of evil. Which is a position I used to think but figured it was easy for me to say there are no evils when I'm here living a relatively comfortable. But try telling someone who is dying of Ebola as they are bleeding out of every orifice that what they have isn't good but isn't bad either.. And for those who think that evil is a man made phenomenon caused by free will the problem doesn't go away because God created us and gave us free will, being all powerful means he would have predicted how we would use our free will and he would have been able to prevent evil from occurring.

One of the most interesting solutions to the problem of evil is the Iraenian one. What it says is that God created this world to be a world of soul building not a hedonistic paradise. And I found that to be the most adequate solution I could find. Why didn't God create us perfect in the first place? Well, moral development is required for perfection and the best way for us to develop morally is a world like this..

Against #3: No it doesn't. I'm a biology major and I know that the theory of evolution has a big hole in it that Darwin or Dawkins failed to account for. Dawkins, in The Blind Watchmaker, makes the distinction between single step processes and cumulative step processes and says that the typical creationist argument thinks in terms of single step processes for creation, BAM there was suddenly a molecule of hemoglobin, a zebra etc. and that what they fail to see is that creation was a cumulative step process one generation building upon the changes of the last one, living organisms changing at insurmountably small steps till they are what we see them as today. He goes on to say that the odds of one of the four protein chains in hemoglobin forming naturally with all of the necessary ingredients present in a single step process is like one in a number with 190 zeros after it, the time it would take for just that protein chain to form based on the probability would be longer than the universe has been in existence. He also showed that it would take equally long for a monkey randomly typing on a typewriter to type METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL,just one line of Shakespeare, in a single step process but if after every try the correct letters are kept and the wrong letters replaced in the next try, it only takes about 63 tries for the monkey to get it right, showing that cumulative step processes are entirely feasible given the amount of time life has developed to explain the complexity of life. Fascinating stuff I thought it was really interesting but for a different reason... In his attempt to disprove the existence of God he actually sparked me to believe. Because his distinction of cumulative step processes doesn't account for how the cumulative step process got started, it had to have been a single step process that happened at least once because there was no cumulative step process governing DNA, natural selection didn't come into play yet, there was no cumulative step process for the formation of DNA, it constructed itself and according to Dawkins a process like that would take longer then the universe has been in existence. There had to have been some sort of intervention to cause it to happen in the time it did

I'm tired now but I'll write more tomorrow

 

[evanescencefan91]

people say that suffering is all part of Gods plan, but if God was all knowing couldn't find a way to acheive it's goal(not refering to God as male or femal) without any suffering.

just my spiteful contribution

 

[NeverMore]

people say that suffering is all part of Gods plan, but if God was all knowing couldn't find a way to acheive it's goal(not refering to God as male or femal) without any suffering.

just my spiteful contribution

well it's a good contribution cause I've been thinking about it ever since you put it and Friday I asked this guy who is a philosophy major and is taking this class called the problem of God, so I thought if anyone would know it would be someone in that class. And his answer went something like this:

Evil (suffering is included as an evil) is the perversion of good and arises from human free will and I then asked well why couldn't God have made us have free will but without the possibility of evil? and he said then it wouldn't be true free will then would it..

So suffering exists cause of human free will

idk I sat in on that problem of God class for the past 2 weeks and since then it's changed a lot of what I think but at the same time I still have major objections to it all, idk I for one am tired of talking about God about something new?

Do you think we have a soul that is separate from the body or do you think our mind is just our brain?

 

[Skorian]

I think if we have a soul that it is like a passenger in a car. How that car drives (like our body) is determined by the charactersitics of that car.

As far as good and evil. There can never be one without the other ever (even in heaven). Good and evil is a distinction or comparison between two things and how their qualities differ. If there was no evil. Then the lesser half of good would then become the new state of evil. As long as there are more then a singular object there will always be a variation of things resulting in a state of good and evil. My problem with evil is the depth and degree of it. So if the world finds a new low in standards then what was once evil will become considered good. If that makes sense. It's really a continum and one half will always be rated as good and one half always evil. It's why ying and yang is such a powerful symbol.

All our perceptions really mostly come from the ability to compair one thing to another. Without that we wouldn't be anything more then a tree stump. Maybe you could even call that 1's and 0's. Like 1 is good and 0 is bad. On is good and off is bad. It's maybe a bit oversimplified, but that is basically the gist of how all our preceptions and abilty to think comes about.

 

[NeverMore]

Descartes thought we had a soul because you don't even know if you really have a body, you think you have a body but really you have no way to concretely prove you have a body but you can concretely know you have a mind/soul because you are thinking

Yea theres no doubt that the mind(whether it's a soul or ur brain) and the body are linked together and what adversely effects one will harm the other. But you could argue that this relationship is only an illusion think about things like the placebo effect, your mind changes your body because it thinks it's getting what it needs when in reality it's just getting tricked

 

[Skorian]

The mind doesn't change the body though.

I guess I have a problem wit Descartes cause his logic doesn't really make sense. Seems flawed and really easy to punch huge holes in. Only problem is it sorta comes down to oppinion in most things, but honestly I would argue that our body and mind are all actually our mind. Our in other words saying our brain is our brain is oversimplified and the real truth is that our body is our brain. That perhaps in fact our organs and the chemicals they release are what results in much of our behavior and instincts. That our bodies are a bunch of different types of cells with symbiotic relationships that all in a way have a mind of their own. You can't disconnect them because our body is every bit as much our perceptions and senses as everything else. When you try to just alter the mind without doing it properly all you create is a distortion of reality which will result in malfuctions. As such the distortion will be a sort of insanity and disconnect from what is realistic and what isn't. Sort of like making some guy believe there is no pain so he walks on a broken leg and thus after doing so long enough can never walk again. Right here is where I have a problem with the field of psychology. The whole field is largely obsessed with the human mind to the exclusion of the body and all those that do this practice an art that is mearly distorting reality. Rather then actually fixing anything they just distort it. Which results in malfuctions to the point in some cases of abominations.

As far as us having a soul in control of us. Well if that is true why can chemicals affect us at all? I imagine mostly our soul if we have one is just along for the ride. Why can you drug a person to the point where before they would never murder and then they would turn around and crave murder? Like all these innocent victoms of psychology who go on insane rampages on anti depressants. Commiting crimes pretty much unknown before more recently. Most people have a purpose for their crimes. Like something useful. Who kills others just so they can kill themselves? The only purpose I can see in that is something like saying "I am damaged". Or "My reality is distorted". There will come a time, hopefully soon, where those who give people drugs that result in such behaviors will be at risk for any crimes their patients may commit.

 

[Skorian]

Basically what I am saying is a personality isn't static, but instead constantly changing.

All these movies where people think they can tranfer their brain into another body and like live forever or just get a new healthy body or whatever their reasons. Chances are between distinctions in the body and the brain that what would result would be a cross between the body doners personality and the personality of the brain doners. Of course you would retain your experiences which would have an effect, but the way in which those experiences were interpreted would even be different. Because interpretation is a present time phanominon(sp).

 

[NeverMore]

The mind does change the body, the mind controls the body, obsessive worrying thoughts can kill you eventually

Yea your right Descartes argument has flaws but it's still interesting to put it as a counterpoint to materialism. As for why drugs effect our mind, our mind and body are connected so anything effecting the body will effect the mind. And in the example of extreme changes like someone taking drugs and changing completely I think Descartes would say argue that no matter how much the mind changes it is still a mind, there is something essentially unchangeable about that fact that it is still a mind..

I have a hard time thinking that everything we are is chemicals, and electricity so I tend to not agree with materialism but at the same time I disagree with Descartes' idea of dualism

 

[NeverMore]

Do we really have free will or are our actions determined by our environment that we live in?

If you think your free, why do you think your free? If you think things are determined then why do you think they are determined?

 

[NeverMore]

Can love ever be a bad thing?

 

[skapunk23]

ooo, cool thread!

hmm... let's see

yeah, love can be a bad thing. if one is really protective of oneself, they'd view love as a bad thing, because it can be a cause for them to open up.

love can also be bad when it causes fear and anxiety, but if these are overcome, it becomes a good thing.

i have a theory. basically, it says that everything can be logically connected through antithesis. take something really good for example, like... ... life. life is good because it means that we exist and are autonomous. it can be bad because it creates an opportunity for pain and suffering.

it's a really bad example, but i think it illustrates my point.

 

[Naleena]

Can love ever be a bad thing?

First you would have to define love. There are many things people call "love." Co-dependance, martyrdom, jealousy, etc. I assume you were talking about romantic love?

I think love is different in definition for everyone and the answer to your question is as diverse as the people who define it.

 

[bookbinder]

I realize I'm getting into the moral absolute discussion a bit late, but does anyone agree with the idea of parenthood as an absolute, i.e., you are morally required to provide for your children?

 

[Bluey]

I thought you where moor then morally required to provide for your children. I thought it was law that you did. Not that you would know that in how some ppl bring up there kids. But do you mean not just the basics like food and drink. But they should feel they are morally obliged to put them fro uni as well?

 

[NeverMore]

ooo, cool thread!

hmm... let's see

yeah, love can be a bad thing. if one is really protective of oneself, they'd view love as a bad thing, because it can be a cause for them to open up.

love can also be bad when it causes fear and anxiety, but if these are overcome, it becomes a good thing.

i have a theory. basically, it says that everything can be logically connected through antithesis. take something really good for example, like... ... life. life is good because it means that we exist and are autonomous. it can be bad because it creates an opportunity for pain and suffering.

it's a really bad example, but i think it illustrates my point.

Yea I can see what you mean, I love the word antithesis just btw

I think love is good and can never be bad in a way.. Whenever you imagine a scenario in which love supposedly turns bad, like when it becomes obsessive, it's not really love anymore it's more a corruption of what love is not love itself, right?

First you would have to define love. There are many things people call "love." Co-dependance, martyrdom, jealousy, etc. I assume you were talking about romantic love?

I think love is different in definition for everyone and the answer to your question is as diverse as the people who define it.

I can't define love but I was thinking of love in general, even brotherly love and love for your fellow human being.

You know it's interesting that we only have one word for love which is stupid, the Eskimos have 12 words for snow we should have the same for love as many confusing and similar things it can mean.. By the time love become something harmful, it shouldn't be called love anymore in my opinion because it's something entirely different

I realize I'm getting into the moral absolute discussion a bit late, but does anyone agree with the idea of parenthood as an absolute, i.e., you are morally required to provide for your children?

Yea I would, I remember I read James Rachels' challenge to cultural relativism and in it he gave some morals that were universal to every culture because they were necessary components to even have a society, like they must value truthfulness to some extent or else you would never know if someone was telling the truth and there would be no reason to consort with others in a societal fashion, and I remember, it was required for a society to care for their children in some way.

Yea that's a good one it fits with Kant, if everyone in the world cared for their children I would think it would be a better world right?

Well I can't think of a reason at the moment why it couldn't be a moral absolute but I will think about it,lol

I thought you where moor then morally required to provide for your children. I thought it was law that you did. Not that you would know that in how some ppl bring up there kids. But do you mean not just the basics like food and drink. But they should feel they are morally obliged to put them fro uni as well?

I don't know, that can be awfully complicated some people don't want to go to uni maybe moral obligations end at the point in which the child can take care of itself?

 

[Bluey]

I thought you where moor then morally required to provide for your children. I thought it was law that you did. Not that you would know that in how some ppl bring up there kids. But do you mean not just the basics like food and drink. But they should feel they are morally obliged to put them fro uni as well?

I don't know, that can be awfully complicated some people don't want to go to uni maybe moral obligations end at the point in which the child can take care of itself?

Well maybe every parent should take care of there child tell such time they have a great job and good pay? Not just tell the child is old enough to feed its self and cross a road? Personally I think if you decide to have a child you are there for taking a responsibility on for the rest of your life. I mean even to help out with your grandchildren if you get any would be of help to your child. just like a dog, its for life not just for Christmas or 16 years.

It is a lifestyle choice you are making by having a child after all.

 

[NEREVAR117]

Do we really have free will or are our actions determined by our environment that we live in?

If you think your free, why do you think your free? If you think things are determined then why do you think they are determined?

Technically, we do have free will. Life is nothing more then a giant chemical reaction. MANY things we do are controlled by these reactions, chemicals in your brain mix and move, give short bursts of electricity to our verves, which makes us move. It makes us hungry, it makes us think.

Now at first, one would assume we don't really have free will, as the chemical reaction are played out naturally, not by us. But that is simply incorrect.

If I were to shout too you, or start talking to you. You would hear me and reply, or look back, etc. I had absolutely NO contact to you though. No chemical reactions happened because of me addressing you. This must logically mean that we do, indeed, have free will.

Sleep on that.

 

[NeverMore]

Technically, we do have free will. Life is nothing more then a giant chemical reaction. MANY things we do are controlled by these reactions, chemicals in your brain mix and move, give short bursts of electricity to our verves, which makes us move. It makes us hungry, it makes us think.

Now at first, one would assume we don't really have free will, as the chemical reaction are played out naturally, not by us. But that is simply incorrect.

If I were to shout too you, or start talking to you. You would hear me and reply, or look back, etc. I had absolutely NO contact to you though. No chemical reactions happened because of me addressing you. This must logically mean that we do, indeed, have free will.

Sleep on that.

Actually if I shout at you, the sound travels through your ear where it's vibration stimulates various sensory organs to produce various chemicals that the brain takes in, interprets and processes as sound, so you see everything is eventually chemicals in the brain

So the question of free will, is really whether we have control over our path in life or do the chemicals make the decisions and we just have the illusion of free will?

Cause we think we could have made the opposite decision of what we did make even in everyday decision like what to have for breakfast, but could we really have?

I honestly don't know, I used to think we have free will and I'm still semi confiednt we do but have no real way of proving it..