- #36
KaneOris
- 113
- 0
Btw, congrads to those who stereotyped me as depressed for saying i would press the button, you contribute to racism, sexism, hate against religious groups etc.
What does your psychology book say about people who would press the button? And why are you taking psychology at all if you don't think its possible to tell things like that about people?KaneOris said:Btw, congrads to those who stereotyped me as depressed for saying i would press the button, you contribute to racism, sexism, hate against religious groups etc.
IMHO you've to justify this statement. Whatever people think of you. You're not merily quoting a psychology book; you decided to press. I think this needs at least considering the counter arguments.KaneOris said:Id press the button without thinking twice
KaneOris said:Did anyone not listen when i said I am not depressed and i got this out of a pyscology book?
Dovekie said:Personally, I'd rather not be the one who decides the Fate of all the ife on Earth.
If I should use reasoning to come to the conclusion that you had to be killed, would you mind what kind of arguments I would use? Of course not, what matters is that some propositions in my mental world doesn't justify the destruction of your entire world (body, mind and so on). Albeit that you have an infinite amount of rational arguments to destroy the world, I invalidate them by an appeal on emotion.The chapter is about the human race as a whole, a singular body, and when confronted by questions like these many people can't see enough reasoning to press the button.
I didn't think that you was depressed, but I thought that you intellectually came to the conclusion that you would press the button if it was in your reach. If you want to discuss, use arguments, tell how you feel about it, don't complain about people that don't.im just really worked up because a lot of people just made a lot of assumptions on what and who i was.
saviourmachine said:Albeit that you have an infinite amount of rational arguments to destroy the world, I invalidate them by an appeal on emotion.
saviourmachine said:Can we - human - decide for ourselves that we don't deserve to inhabit earth? Especially in the case that you're not convinced about the specific value of humanity.
False Prophet said:My belief is that it belongs to a beautifully diverse spectrum of life, including plants that smother other plants for survival purposes, owls swooping in on mice for a meal, and people eating chickens, cattle, eggs or dogs. None of this is wrong, it's for survival. It's the proficient ability to destroy entire species that is the truly unique characteristic of mankind.
hypnagogue said:Mankind is also the only species that cares whether or not another species is destroyed.
hypnagogue said:(If this were not true, there would be no conservation efforts, nor would you have created this post.)
hypnagogue said:Here is a question to consider: In what sense is killing the last of a species worse than killing the first?
hypnagogue said:The only answer that seems coherent to me is that destroying an entire species is worse than killing many but leaving the species intact because, in killing off the whole species, we lose another piece of the beautiful diversity of nature.
hypnagogue said:This is certainly a respectable argument, and one that I would agree with, but let's put it in its place: it's based entirely on human subjective values.
Since when do you, as a homo-sapien, know the "animals' standpoint"?hypnagogue said:From the animals' standpoint, they don't know or care that their species might be dying; they care about their immediate life and perhaps their immediate family or social group. Certainly the individual animals that belong to plentiful species and are killed don't suffer any less for knowing that their legacy will be passed on.
This is not my point, rather I claim the oppositte, that for the most part, humans DON'T CARE about the killing of another species. The species itself is what is really affected. If the button is pressed, the humans CAN'T CARE. But the species, and others that depend on that species, can care.hypnagogue said:So we humans are the ones who suffer the more for the killing of a species, not members of the species itself.
I hope you know by now, my motivation is nothing but consideration for life on the planet (besides humans). It's not self loathing, or even loathing of humanity. I press the button for the sake of countless other species, who's combined value is far beyond my own. In fact I respect myself more for this viewpoint.hypnagogue said:If this is right, it would seem that using this as a motivation for saying that humans should be exterminated is more a matter of human self-loathing than a matter of consideration for the life on the planet.
Yes, so you agree with me that you are using an emotional argument just triggered by a (subjective) feeling: empathy for some?False Prophet said:Emotion is irrelevant! Remember for my argument I can be just as emotional for the species that have been lost thanks to humans alone.
You didn't read good enough, it's worse . I defined 'world' as 'mind & body'. The world that is me. The world ceases to exist, when I'd be destroyed. I relate moral actions to how they affect me, so you can imagine that pressing the button is one of the most immoral actions thinkable in my moral system.Also, the button won't "destroy the world", only people. This illustrates your perspective
No, it's not. It belongs to the species that survive. Besides, in which are we different from 'earth'? You seem to look at it as 'we' against 'them' and favouring 'them'. I see myself as a legitimate part of our earth.[cynical] Since we are innovative, can manipulate our environment with that fancy grasping thumb, and are smarter than every other animal in the world put together, the Earth belongs to us.
You define 'wrong' as destroying entire species. Remind me, what was your suggestion? Mankind isn't one? So, you seem to want to take revenge. :grumpy: Our unique characteristic is that we destroy entire species? So this didn't happen until we entered the stage? What about dino's, and all expired species before we even existed? There is nothing new under the sun in regard to this.None of this is wrong, it's for survival. It's the proficient ability to destroy entire species that is the truly unique characteristic of mankind.
We don't kill all bacteria. We are even - maybe in the near future - able to create new species. If you relate 'good' and 'evil' to natural diversity, these scientists must have the highest moral standards imaginable. :uhh:Don't look down on bacteria either, they are pioneers of life on Earth. They don't kill ALL humans. Neither do grizzly bears.
Can you as a member of the 'evil' human specie (willing to do 'evil') discern what is 'good' and 'evil'? You're suggesting that we are 'evil' in relation with bla-bla (other species). Next to that you're suggesting a penalty: 'destroying the human specie'. And finally you think that it's okay to execute that ourselves. I plead for an independent judge between us and bla-bla. I wouldn't give the scepter to mankind if it as evil as you describes it.[can we decide for ourselves to destroy ourselves?] Of course we can! ... Justification on an ethical level is only for convincing, which isn't needed in the button room.
There is also the possibility that earthly species swarm out over the universe thanks to mankind. I don't know how you see that, but it's possible to see that as something 'good' or something 'evil': a spreading disease, or a developing flower.And for one more subjective argument, there's the threat of global destruction thanks to man, which in my opinion is far more immoral than pressing the red button or the destroying meteorite.
Absolutely! Now I do believe emotion may be relevant, it did bias me. I guess I "flip-flopped".saviourmachine said:Yes, so you agree with me that you are using an emotional argument just triggered by a (subjective) feeling: empathy for some?
I think that emotion is relevant by the way. But for the case of others - like you - I mainly used a kind of 'rational' arguments. You can focus on them if you 'want to'
For my perspective I'm considering an objective world that exists whether or not we do. Whether anything really exists outside perception is an old philisophical debate and the thread at PF is interesting (but confusing). I meant the real world, not anyone's particular personal world. I know it's immoral for you, that's not right or wrong, we just have different values. Honestly I can't say I'm right OR wrong, just that I believe it's the right thing to do.saviourmachine said:I defined 'world' as 'mind & body'. The world that is me. The world ceases to exist, when I'd be destroyed. I relate moral actions to how they affect me, so you can imagine that pressing the button is one of the most immoral actions thinkable in my moral system.
I never thought of it as a competition, but I suppose that's true, and I do favor "them". The Earth does belong to those species that survive, I just don't think that other creatures should be denied their stake because humans go outside their boundaries to claim ownership through unethical means.saviourmachine said:No, it's not. It belongs to the species that survive. Besides, in which are we different from 'earth'? You seem to look at it as 'we' against 'them' and favouring 'them'. I see myself as a legitimate part of our earth.
I don't recall ever saying mankind is not a species, If I said that I need to give up this discussion and go back to first grade. My suggestion is that mankind is a species not playing by the rules. It's not revenge, but prevention.saviourmachine said:You define 'wrong' as destroying entire species. Remind me, what was your suggestion? Mankind isn't one? So, you seem to want to take revenge.
First of all, the past is irrelavent. If you want to prevent a murder from occurring, you probably won't give up just because other murders have happened all through history. Nonetheless, humans are a unique SPECIES based on our erradication proficiency. There is a difference between the innanimate meteorite that may have killed the dinosaurs, and humans. That is I don't have the chance to stop the impending meteoroid (if I could, I would) but I do have a chance to stop humanity thanks to the red button.saviourmachine said:Our unique characteristic is that we destroy entire species? So this didn't happen until we entered the stage? What about dino's, and all expired species before we even existed? There is nothing new under the sun in regard to this.
I didn't know that. Do you have any references, (not that I don't believe you, I am just intrigued by this idea.) Chances are the scientist's agenda is to benefit mankind, not the ecosystem. Perhaps we should leave species creation up to God, or nature/evolution (whatever you believe). Maybe we'll screw up and accidentally invent a bacteria that makes everything sick and die.saviourmachine said:We don't kill all bacteria. We are even - maybe in the near future - able to create new species. If you relate 'good' and 'evil' to natural diversity, these scientists must have the highest moral standards imaginable.
I don't recall using the word "evil" but if that's what you would use to describe my illustrations of humanities wrongdoings that is fine. I reserve the word for some humans (Bin-Laden, Hitler, Bill Gates, etc.) But the whole point of the question is that one person does indeed have this sceptor. The question is not whether or not humanity should have this power, but what would you do IF you had this power. Furthermore, I never intended pushing the button as a "penalty" at all. It's for the benefit of Earth.saviourmachine said:Can you as a member of the 'evil' human specie (willing to do 'evil') discern what is 'good' and 'evil'? You're suggesting that we are 'evil' in relation with bla-bla (other species). Next to that you're suggesting a penalty: 'destroying the human specie'. And finally you think that it's okay to execute that ourselves. I plead for an independent judge between us and bla-bla. I wouldn't give the scepter to mankind if it as evil as you describes it.
A spreading disease. After we have completely conquered the Earth and migrated to other planets, do you honestly believe we would not exploit whatever other life forms, recources, etc. for human gain? Would human nature magically change? Also consider with humanity out of the picture, other species can have a chance to develop, perhaps intelligent, who may one day explore (hopefully not conquer) the stars.saviourmachine said:There is also the possibility that earthly species swarm out over the universe thanks to mankind. I don't know how you see that, but it's possible to see that as something 'good' or something 'evil': a spreading disease, or a developing flower.
I do favor myself.False Prophet said:I do favor "them"