Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Final moral question about killing and this website

Morals? Ethics? Sure, we want to keep in mind our "humanity" when we carry out these so-called "dark" tasks, but in light of ecocide, overpopulation and a pattern tending increasingly towards moral decay and decadence, wouldn't it be morally/ethically wrong NOT to carry out such a plan if it were deemed the only viable/logical one out of all other proposed plans? What are the other options? I haven't heard of anything in between eugenics and apathy that is plausible.

In a Woodruffian sense, an irreverent action/being/state when met with irreverence is in turn a reverent action. Most of the people we would be getting rid of are irreverent and the conditions in which they live are most resoundingly irreverent. In light of there being no other reasonable action besides leaving them alone and allowing them to propagate, eugenics seems like a fairly reverent/moral/ethical choice. It won't be "perfect", but then again, when is a solution ever "perfect"?

Though this doesn't really make it any more "humane", I'd like to think of it as a "holy war". The ancient way of life was always riddled with conflict and war and this wasn't thought of in terms of what is "ethical". Certainly, reverence/nobility/honor as well as worship of the gods, but conquest and war was a regular occurrence. Either we begin this war or we die out as certain other traits are favored in this modern environment.

Well in the ancient ways, like of gengis khan, the people who carried out the great wars were also ruthless tyrants that tortured the population for no reason, and I'm not bloody kidding. I have read on the internet about the worst tyrants (and by worst I mean cruel to innocent people, and I CAN separate things and understand their greatness and AT THE SAME TIME CONDEMN THEIR OTHER ACTIONS), gengis khan included, liked to pick random people and like, drop burning steel on their eyes for laughs or something, and I don't want this. Some people want this: I don't want this. And it was not just khan, there were a lot of corrupt rulers who did this stuff, and it's always the same like eye-removals, burning lead, rape, etc...

Aquarius: That's just the stuff I'm talking about!!! I actually feel lazyness of responding to this. YES, independently of me identifying or being equal to them or not, I AGREE the average people (not the REAL average people, but because of the fact that society is so immoral and there are so many people, the average decays, but I'm NOT talking about the normal people I meed day to day, who are NOT moronic, have responsible carreers or business) is moronic, but it is a HUGE LEAP to go from that, to reading a fucking news story saying that people were killed in a movie theater and AUTOMATICALLY STATE THE PEOPLE MURDERED THERE WERE MORONS, which has no basis other than the fact that there are a lot of morons (and in fact the guy who saved his girlfriend shows the contrary, because this is a damn courageous and RIGHT action), this probability game is not right at all.

And even if the people shot were average, that does not mean a thing. Those people may be lovable, responsible, take care of their old, respect morals, help other people, contribute to society, etc...

You're way off aquarius, if I were you I would not try to justify such unjust statement even more. Are the majority of people morons? Maybe. Are you right for saying those people were morons based on that? Only in a TEMPORARY FICTION BASED ON PROBABILITY THAT MAY HAVE NO EQUIVALENT IN REALITY.

You are gravely missing the point here Zyklon. "Good" virtues/values are not restricted to any level of intelligence, therefore they ought to be left of the question. The question is: would humanity be better off with a higher average IQ and a lower population?

You're mistaking the question for one of ethics and morals when it is not a question of either.

Only if you answer my aliens question. It is a fantasy question, but it is designed to make a point, so I would like to know everyone's opinion on it. I am aware the scenario I described will not happen, no need to talk about this.

Would we make blood sacrifices to the Gods (aliens in this scenario) to achieve a greater ends? I think the answer is still the same unless you wished to draw a line on human development.

 Are you trying to imply a slippery slope here?

No, I want to know the answer to my question, and the terms are in the original post, no more, no less.

On a side note, I was in amazon now reading a review for a book on the paranormal, and I read a somewhat negative review by a guy who lived in japan and explored parapsychology there. Then I clicked the reviewers profile and found this:


I just answered your question though.

Well you're whacked, because the aliens were actually Jesus testing you, and now YOU and YOUR FAMILY and everyone that you love are the ones who will be handed to the aliens. I hope you learned your lesson.

Just kidding. Your answer says a lot, thought. But if you care so little about human suffering as to accept that, then where do you draw the line? That was my point with the question: Would the world be a better place with only high IQ people? Sure! Also it would be great with only beautiful ones. No one denies that, but the METHODS for achieving this are many, so that the question is misleading, because after the person says "yes", the one who asked will say "Why then surely you must support mass death of the dumb!"

Then I came up with the children example and failed, because I thought people would say no. So as I said, where to draw the line? Where is truth exchanged for power? Should we let little girls be tortured for what? To preserve the suffering of a bunch of fucking plants and animals you put those beings of light trought that? Would you put your own daughter if it was needed? NO, YOU WOLDN'T. You'd drop out, I'm sure of it. "To the other, yes, grind him. No, not my family no, this is monstrous." Come on, be honest, you would not hand your daughter to torture. Maybe if she had down's syndrome... but not a normal one.

Where to draw the line? The USA is, I think, the biggest generator of pollution. Should I create a lethal gas that has no impact on the environment, would you think a good idea for me to use it on all of the US population? To use it on all countries who are generating more pollution? Because the people who created this pollution certainly had high IQ.

You draw the line at the moment you believe humanity has finished developing per your beliefs.

You talk about suffering, but what causes suffering? Poor choices. Who makes the most poor choices?

We can debate methodology all day long. Instead the questions are best answered in an objective sense IE free from the fog of ethics and morality.

If you want an answer in terms of ethics and morals then all you need do is consider that man.has sent far far more to.die in the name of land resource and ideology than what you have proposed.

If morality is not real, why care about the environment at all?

Abusing the planet adversely affects you. That isn't a moral position that is causality.

Fuck! Of course not. All of we on this forum will not feel the effect of this devastation, future generations will. Yes, I know we are already feeling the effects, but we still have beautiful natural places, resources, air. All of this is going to las a loooong time before we die... No need to worry, from the non-moral egotistical viewpoint.

Now if you're honest and admit that morality exists, then you can say: "I may die before this affects me, but destroying nature is WRONG. Because."

That is why everyone who understands this and become older accept absolute truth. And you can clearly see that the one's who don't, while they may have good social skills and even other good traits, are the most nihilistic [in the bad sense], unconsiderate, "don't-give-a-fuck about the environment or about anything but my pleasure" types. The ones that, while they even seem like moral upstanding citizens, good taste people with lovely houses, take part in illegal pollution, or in murders for money, corruption, etc... And they say: "That's just the way it is..."

Except I never said morality doesn't exist. Objectivity lies outside of morality. You are arguing with yourself on this one bud.

You're right, I misused the word. I'm tired. It's challenging trying to make my points, not because I am in doubt about them, but, well you must be good debaters. But would you hand your daughter to the aliens? Last question, I swear. And I'm not even going to comment on it, I just want to know.

Other people free to answer too.

I just want to understand. But obviously I will always disagree.

I think people here are more interested in truth than winning arguments. Being a good debater seems to imply the goal is the latter.