Cruel Logic

[Nessa]

Just because killing is in your genes doesn’t justify doing it! That’s what animals do; us humans are better than that… unless we are mentally sick.
Ken

Do you see human value as subjective?

Yes. Let me give an example; If you ask me, I will tell you all human lives are equal. But if you look at my reaction of watching a stranger whom I've never met die, vs watching my brother whom I've spent my entire life building an emotional relationship with; die, it will be obvious from my reaction that I value my brothers life more than I do of a stranger even though they are both human and equal according to my lip service.

Ken

Your actions would reveal that you believe your brother is more valuable than a stranger despite your words.

So if human value can vary from person to person because it's sujective then a person could actually not have any value according to some. And that wouldn't be objectively wrong, right?

[Nessa]

I look at this forum with over two thousand members. Each of us is a statistic. People come, people leave. Some people are considered more valuable here by others. Someone who will never actually post may be less valuable here to some than a regular loyal contributor. Some people may even think those people have no value here at all. They will always just remain a name on a member's list.

This forum only really needs people to keep it going. But does it matter who? Does it have to be a certain person? Now our feelings may say, of course it matters after we get to know people and care but that is subjective. It doesnt objectively matter in any real sense.

In a very small way, its not totally unlike life itself. A life without objective human values

Is it really wrong or does it matter for someone to leave here, the forum, and never be seen again? Maybe to some, others no..

A person may be unfairly banned for good but even that isnt objectively wrong, only according to a 'set of rules' we have in our 'community'. You go over to another forum and they may say the banning was fair. Neither forum is more 'right' than the other. It is all opinion.

So you may think someone leaving this world is unfair by your feelings or rules put in place but objectively there is nothing wrong with it. Take your pick, killing people, killing yourself, killing babies in the womb...take away God and anything goes. Just depends how you feel and what the 'rules' are in your 'community'

[Kenny]

Just because killing is in your genes doesn’t justify doing it! That’s what animals do; us humans are better than that… unless we are mentally sick.
Ken

Do you see human value as subjective?

Yes. Let me give an example; If you ask me, I will tell you all human lives are equal. But if you look at my reaction of watching a stranger whom I've never met die, vs watching my brother whom I've spent my entire life building an emotional relationship with; die, it will be obvious from my reaction that I value my brothers life more than I do of a stranger even though they are both human and equal according to my lip service.

Ken

Your actions would reveal that you believe your brother is more valuable than a stranger despite your words.

Sorta; my actions would reveal my brother's life is more valuable TO ME than a stranger, despite my words.

So if human value can vary from person to person because it's sujective then a person could actually not have any value according to some. And that wouldn't be objectively wrong, right?

Sorta; let me give an example. If you felt my life had no value, obviously to you my life is worthless; but to someone else my life does have value. As long as there is someone who values my life; weather it be my family, friends, or even my dog, then my life has value even though my life may be worthless to you.

On a recent trip to Canada I bought some stuff using US currency and got my change (a few quarters) in Canadian currency. Upon returning to the US I found out real quick US business do not accept Canadian currency. Because I had no intention or returning to Canada any time soon, I simply threw the money in the garbage because TO ME that money was worthless; even though to people in Canada the money still had value.

Ken

[Nessa]

Just because killing is in your genes doesn’t justify doing it! That’s what animals do; us humans are better than that… unless we are mentally sick.
Ken

Do you see human value as subjective?

Yes. Let me give an example; If you ask me, I will tell you all human lives are equal. But if you look at my reaction of watching a stranger whom I've never met die, vs watching my brother whom I've spent my entire life building an emotional relationship with; die, it will be obvious from my reaction that I value my brothers life more than I do of a stranger even though they are both human and equal according to my lip service.

Ken

Your actions would reveal that you believe your brother is more valuable than a stranger despite your words.

Sorta; my actions would reveal my brother's life is more valuable TO ME than a stranger, despite my words.

So if human value can vary from person to person because it's sujective then a person could actually not have any value according to some. And that wouldn't be objectively wrong, right?

Sorta; let me give an example. If you felt my life had no value, obviously to you my life is worthless; but to someone else my life does have value. As long as there is someone who values my life; weather it be my family, friends, or even my dog, then my life has value even though my life may be worthless to you.

On a recent trip to Canada I bought some stuff using US currency and got my change (a few quarters) in Canadian currency. Upon returning to the US I found out real quick US business do not accept Canadian currency. Because I had no intention or returning to Canada any time soon, I simply threw the money in the garbage because TO ME that money was worthless; even though to people in Canada the money still had value.

Ken

But why is it ok to throw the money in the rubbish while, to someone in the world, the money is still valuable to THEM?

What is objectively wrong about me killing you and throwing you in the rubbish cos you may not matter to ME.

[melanie]

Just because killing is in your genes doesn’t justify doing it! That’s what animals do; us humans are better than that… unless we are mentally sick.
Ken

Do you see human value as subjective?

Yes. Let me give an example; If you ask me, I will tell you all human lives are equal. But if you look at my reaction of watching a stranger whom I've never met die, vs watching my brother whom I've spent my entire life building an emotional relationship with; die, it will be obvious from my reaction that I value my brothers life more than I do of a stranger even though they are both human and equal according to my lip service.

Ken

Your actions would reveal that you believe your brother is more valuable than a stranger despite your words.

Sorta; my actions would reveal my brother's life is more valuable TO ME than a stranger, despite my words.

So if human value can vary from person to person because it's sujective then a person could actually not have any value according to some. And that wouldn't be objectively wrong, right?

Sorta; let me give an example. If you felt my life had no value, obviously to you my life is worthless; but to someone else my life does have value. As long as there is someone who values my life; weather it be my family, friends, or even my dog, then my life has value even though my life may be worthless to you.

On a recent trip to Canada I bought some stuff using US currency and got my change (a few quarters) in Canadian currency. Upon returning to the US I found out real quick US business do not accept Canadian currency. Because I had no intention or returning to Canada any time soon, I simply threw the money in the garbage because TO ME that money was worthless; even though to people in Canada the money still had value.

Ken

The same Question Kenny.
Life has value.
To whom, well that's subjective. Does my dog, my husband, my kids care more about it than a stranger who doesn't know me?. Sure.
That doesn't negate at all the preciousness of life.
Does a homeless man, who doesn't have a dog, a partner, family have any less value to be alive?
Of course not.

You can talk of the US dollar, or Canadian, or the Yen, or rupee. Does the Yen help me buy oranges
In Australia. Nope.
Does that disintegrate the necessity of currency.
No.
The universal language is currency.
Of some description.
Can I walk into a store and buy a T.V with acorns. Would be nice if I were a squirrel

[Nessa]

Can I walk into a store and buy a T.V with acorns. Would be nice if I were a squirrel

[Kenny]

But why is it ok to throw the money in the rubbish while, to someone in the world, the money is still valuable to THEM?

I justified throwing the money away because I couldn't afford the time nor expense it would take to get the money to someone who would value it. I could have spent another $100.00 worth of gas to go back to Canada, waited another 2 hours in line at the border each way, (in and out) and find a homeless person in Canada to give the few coins to, but to me that was unacceptable; it was much easier and more practical to just throw the money away.

What is objectively wrong about me killing you and throwing you in the rubbish cos you may not matter to ME.

[/quote]
I can only tell you what is subjectively wrong with doing that. It goes against my morals, and it goes against the law. Of course if you had such a desire to kill me, you probably wouldn't have much respect for my morals, and you probably wouldn't have much respect for the law; so hopefully the answer then becomes what will prevent you from killing me; and hopefully it is because you don't want to face the consequences of the law.

Ken

[Kenny]

Do you see human value as subjective?

Yes. Let me give an example; If you ask me, I will tell you all human lives are equal. But if you look at my reaction of watching a stranger whom I've never met die, vs watching my brother whom I've spent my entire life building an emotional relationship with; die, it will be obvious from my reaction that I value my brothers life more than I do of a stranger even though they are both human and equal according to my lip service.

Ken

Your actions would reveal that you believe your brother is more valuable than a stranger despite your words.

Sorta; my actions would reveal my brother's life is more valuable TO ME than a stranger, despite my words.

So if human value can vary from person to person because it's sujective then a person could actually not have any value according to some. And that wouldn't be objectively wrong, right?

Sorta; let me give an example. If you felt my life had no value, obviously to you my life is worthless; but to someone else my life does have value. As long as there is someone who values my life; weather it be my family, friends, or even my dog, then my life has value even though my life may be worthless to you.

On a recent trip to Canada I bought some stuff using US currency and got my change (a few quarters) in Canadian currency. Upon returning to the US I found out real quick US business do not accept Canadian currency. Because I had no intention or returning to Canada any time soon, I simply threw the money in the garbage because TO ME that money was worthless; even though to people in Canada the money still had value.

Ken

The same Question Kenny.
Life has value.
To whom, well that's subjective. Does my dog, my husband, my kids care more about it than a stranger who doesn't know me?. Sure.
That doesn't negate at all the preciousness of life.
Does a homeless man, who doesn't have a dog, a partner, family have any less value to be alive?
Of course not.

You can talk of the US dollar, or Canadian, or the Yen, or rupee. Does the Yen help me buy oranges
In Australia. Nope.
Does that disintegrate the necessity of currency.
No.
The universal language is currency.
Of some description.
Can I walk into a store and buy a T.V with acorns. Would be nice if I were a squirrel

I agree!

Ken

[Nessa]

I justified throwing the money away because I couldn't afford the time nor expense it would take to get the money to someone who would value it. I could have spent another $100.00 worth of gas to go back to Canada, waited another 2 hours in line at the border each way, (in and out) and find a homeless person in Canada to give the few coins to, but to me that was unacceptable; it was much easier and more practical to just throw the money away.

In the same way you didnt value that money, another person could not value the baby in their stomach. They justify killing it (where its legal) because they dont want to spend time/money raising the child - maybe they just started college or a new job. Quite possibly theres other reasons they use to justify the abortion e.g rape....so its not objectively wrong in that case to take a life and not see the baby as worthless. Maybe they see it as just not practical raising another child cos they have 10 kids already and they dont want to go through the trouble of pregnancy, birth, adoption.

And in case you dont think abortion is wrong then say it was late term abortion for arguements sake where pre term babies have survived outside of the womb

Why should they be wrong for not valuing that babies life any more than its wrong for you to throw money away. Its all subjective and mere opinion as we both agree without God.

So we also agree you cant say its objectivly wrong to kill a life any more than take money and put it in the rubbish. Which is where some babies end up by the way. Some through abortion AND some after a teen mum might give birth somewhere alone.

Welcome to life's currency.
(Without God)

[Kenny]

I justified throwing the money away because I couldn't afford the time nor expense it would take to get the money to someone who would value it. I could have spent another $100.00 worth of gas to go back to Canada, waited another 2 hours in line at the border each way, (in and out) and find a homeless person in Canada to give the few coins to, but to me that was unacceptable; it was much easier and more practical to just throw the money away.

In the same way you didnt value that money, another person could not value the baby in their stomach. They justify killing it (where its legal) because they dont want to spend time/money raising the child - maybe they just started college or a new job. Quite possibly theres other reasons they use to justify the abortion e.g rape....so its not objectively wrong in that case to take a life and not see the baby as worthless. Maybe they see it as just not practical raising another child cos they have 10 kids already and they dont want to go through the trouble of pregnancy, birth, adoption.

And in case you dont think abortion is wrong then say it was late term abortion for arguements sake where pre term babies have survived outside of the womb

Why should they be wrong for not valuing that babies life any more than its wrong for you to throw money away. Its all subjective and mere opinion as we both agree without God.

So we also agree you cant say its objectivly wrong to kill a life any more than take money and put it in the rubbish. Which is where some babies end up by the way. Some through abortion AND some after a teen mum might give birth somewhere alone.

Welcome to life's currency.
(Without God)

I get what you are saying, but I put humans in a totally different category than I do inanimate objects like Canadian coins. For a human life I would have spent the $100.00 worth of gas, and waited in line for 2 hrs at the border to make sure the life was with someone who appreciated it.
But that’s me; I am sure there are sick monsters who wouldn't take the trouble and would simply throw a human life away in the same way I did the few coins.


Ken

[Nessa]

But that’s me

Yes, my point exactly.

[Philip]

Mel:

Mel: Not okay to lie...... When does lying become not only justified but necessary.'

It's WWII and the Nazis are at your door - and as you knew they were on the way to your house, you hid your Jewish guests in the basement: Gestapo barks: "Are you hiding any Jews in this house - you best answer truthfully!" So, to tell the truth / give your Jewish friends up for certain death - or NOT?

Stealing is wrong..... But when is it honorable and not negative.

OK, extreme example: You work for the FBI, in an area in which you have access to and help maintain secret information, which you are legally sworn to never reveal or remove the contents of, unless ordered to by some superior authority. You discover digital documents that reveal great corruption in the bureau, and you know that your boss and others (you are uncertain of whom) you work with are in on and have helped cover up the corruption, but all are unaware that the proof of their corruption is in certain digital files. And so, the ONLY way you can prove what you know - before anyone might be tipped off and destroys the archived documentation - is to break your sworn oath and steal (if temporarily) discs that you want to send to outside investigative authorities, as otherwise, you'd have no proof - or the proof might disappear. So, to reveal the corruption, you will have to break your oath and steal the documentation, if but temporarily. So, to steal or not?

[Nessa]

I am sure there are sick monsters.......

Sick monster? By whose standards?

images (3).jpg (20.95 KiB) Viewed 2765 times

[Kenny]

I am sure there are sick monsters.......

Sick monster? By whose standards?

images (3).jpg

By my standards.

Ken

[Kenny]

Mel:

Mel: Not okay to lie...... When does lying become not only justified but necessary.'

It's WWII and the Nazis are at your door - and as you knew they were on the way to your house, you hid your Jewish guests in the basement: Gestapo barks: "Are you hiding any Jews in this house - you best answer truthfully!" So, to tell the truth / give your Jewish friends up for certain death - or NOT?

Stealing is wrong..... But when is it honorable and not negative.

OK, extreme example: You work for the FBI, in an area in which you have access to and help maintain secret information, which you are legally sworn to never reveal or remove the contents of, unless ordered to by some superior authority. You discover digital documents that reveal great corruption in the bureau, and you know that your boss and others (you are uncertain of whom) you work with are in on and have helped cover up the corruption, but all are unaware that the proof of their corruption is in certain digital files. And so, the ONLY way you can prove what you know - before anyone might be tipped off and destroys the archived documentation - is to break your sworn oath and steal (if temporarily) discs that you want to send to outside investigative authorities, as otherwise, you'd have no proof - or the proof might disappear. So, to reveal the corruption, you will have to break your oath and steal the documentation, if but temporarily. So, to steal or not?

I think you made an excellent point concerning the objective vs subjective morality argument. If morality were objective, and lying and stealing are moral issues, to use your scenario; lying to the Gestapo would be wrong, and stealing in an effort to prevent corruption would still be wrong as well. That is why I say morality is subjective, because subjectivity allows for opinions and extenuating circumstances when determining moral issues like lying and stealing.

Ken