Why ending a life is morally neutral

[Terxpahseyton]

MIGHTY GOOOOOAAAAAAAAD!

I hate you,
Your messages are cryptic, while bringing the promise of fruity juicy meaning.
I endorse your whims, hoping for salvation. Hoping for other grounds affirming those of mine. But you only grow more cryptic! I feel like what good I do, you will twist it and turn it against.
Yes I know this makes us think of the same person!!! CONSIDER

Anyway, whuat?! Beauty? Go frack my camels.

No... srsly... I was serious ALL THE TIME
were you? I was was was.
Please respond srsly. Plz. I am honest. I am! I am just so desperately lost in my honesty that I require satire to even connect at all!

 

[Perfection]

Mate, this is philosophy, talking past each other and not getting anywhere is par for the course even among the best. If you have no tolerance for it pursue a different hobby.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Spare me your reference to the crap others did. This is simple.

I do not know what edited part of my post you read, but if you want to get down to it, let's get down it. So far, I was keeping it light.

You have not uttered anything meaningful to my original point so far. Nothing. You questioned and "poked holes", which is great with a big G!, but it was all child's play. I haven't even began to flex my philosophical muscles since OP. I am just playing kindergardener, trying to guide your stumbling steps.
So don't tell me the hard business of being a philosopher.
I experience it in every sentence I exchange with you.

Oh and I am still waiting for anything meaningful I can't swipe down with the ease of Zeus himself.
Intelligible would be nice as well. I know, a problem.
But you can do it!

 

[Perfection]

You okay bro? This is a pretty emotional reaction to me expressing some skepticism (even if half-cocked or unfair) about your philosophical system for ethics.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I believe to have made clear that I am still looking for the "skepticism" to take seriously. Since I have not found it a few lines before now, I got light-hearted. Somewhat assuming you take it on. But you responded very serious. And now you wonder what is wrong with me because I am so serious.
I really like the absurdity this is going for.

 

[Perfection]

I can see you didn't care for my beauty argument. I contend it was worth a closer look but I'm not going to beg you take it more seriously

If you're looking for better skepticism perhaps this challenge will be more fitting

When you said:

"Emotions are, by definition, where good and bad are even born and where the development of any path chosen will eventually actually manifest. Emotions are, again by definition, what gives meaning to anything."

What definitions are you referring to?
Because when I look up "emotion" in the dictionary that's not what I see.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I can see you didn't care for my beauty argument. I contend it was worth a closer look but I'm not going to beg you take it more seriously

If you're looking for better skepticism perhaps this challenge will be more fitting

When you said:

"Emotions are, by definition, where good and bad are even born and where the development of any path chosen will eventually actually manifest. Emotions are, again by definition, what gives meaning to anything."

What definitions are you referring to?
Because when I look up "emotion" in the dictionary that's not what I see.

Isn't perception of beauty basically an emotional response?

 

[Perfection]

Isn't perception of beauty basically an emotional response?

When beauty is perceived an emotional response is typically illicited, however that doesn't make beauty itself merely about emotion. There are certain aspects of things that trigger us to respond with a sense of awe. I'm tentatively proposing those aspects as being a source of value that we can ultimately use in making ethical decisions.

 

[timtofly]

Every response is emotional, that is not the point of morality. If you say that humans only behave as reactionary then that is cause.

What about behaviour that is not reactionary? Are you saying it does not exist?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

When beauty is perceived an emotional response is typically illicited, however that doesn't make beauty itself merely about emotion. There are certain aspects of things that trigger us to respond with a sense of awe. I'm tentatively proposing those aspects as being a source of value that we can ultimately use in making ethical decisions.

But that's the root of "beauty is in the eye of the beholder." We might look at the same thing, and one of us have an emotional response. To that one whatever we are looking at might be beautiful while to the other it is not.

 

[timtofly]

Do we put value on a person's abilities or their emotional responses?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Do we put value on a person's abilities or their emotional responses?

Their ability to elicit an emotional response.

 

[timtofly]

So a sociopath has no value?

 

[Perfection]

But that's the root of "beauty is in the eye of the beholder." We might look at the same thing, and one of us have an emotional response. To that one whatever we are looking at might be beautiful while to the other it is not.

I have often found myself not able to aesthetically appreciate something only to have someone point out why they appreciate it and then suddenly I can see it. I am being shown beauty i was previously blind to.

I think that lends plausibility to the idea that beauty isn't merely subjective but as an actual objective element.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

So a sociopath has no value?

Sociopaths elicit emotional responses really well...usually fear

I have often found myself not able to aesthetically appreciate something only to have someone point out why they appreciate it and then suddenly I can see it. I am being shown beauty i was previously blind to.

I think that lends plausibility to the idea that beauty isn't merely subjective but as an actual objective element.

In the case you describe it is a product of agreement, not truth, which makes it still subjective.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

If you have others that love you, care for you, or depend on you, ending your life is selfish.

Unless you live in that person's body and know that person's thoughts and everything that is going on, you're not qualified to make that judgment.

The best you can hope is that the person will choose to live, but if the person is terminally ill and in agonizing pain, it's pretty damned selfish of people to look down their noses and start quoting scripture and preaching about "God's will."

 

[timtofly]

So sociopaths are the rarest commodity. They see no value in others, but are the most valuable to all?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

So sociopaths are the rarest commodity. They see no value in others, but are the most valuable to all?

I wouldn't say that. There are lots of people who are highly able to elicit an emotional response in others...emotional responses that are subjectively better than the emotional responses elicited by a sociopath, generally.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Unless you live in that person's body and know that person's thoughts and everything that is going on, you're not qualified to make that judgment.

The best you can hope is that the person will choose to live, but if the person is terminally ill and in agonizing pain, it's pretty damned selfish of people to look down their noses and start quoting scripture and preaching about "God's will."

Why would someone who is always snotty about people talking about "god's will" have introduced it into the conversation. NO ONE in this thread has said word one about "quoting scripture and preaching about god's will" at someone who is choosing to die, until you just did.

Moderator Action: Calling someone "always snotty" about some issue is trolling. - Bootstoots
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[timtofly]

Would not those who comit suicide be valuable, but unable to see value in other people. What is the point of this value?