Euthanasia - Opinions. Please read whole post before responding...

Fair enough, but I just think it needs to be put out their that there are many flavours of euthanasia.

Fair enough, it could be a supplementary reason, but it is largely an appeal to emotion.

Well, even with all these systems, the system will never be fool proof. It's like the death penalty, though the burden of proof is beyond all reasonable doubt, innocent people still get caught up in the mix. Now, I'm assuming if someone doesn't want to get euthanaised, but get's euthanaised anyway by their doctor and family this would be morally wrong.

Essentially, if euthanasia is allowed, there will still be people who are killed when they do not want to be (even after careful analysis). Should we not then attempt to prevent this? We have palliative care after all, where the pain would be mitigated, so the people would not be suffering.

What if hypothetically the families would not have to pay any money, and that state would fund it instead. This would make allay the economic factor, leaving only the moral factor.

Basically, you're claiming the families shouldn't be forced to pay. Ok, fair enough, someone else will gladly pay, does it change the situation?

Just hoping to get some more refined arguments out of this; I'm largely playing devil's advocate.

 

Nothing more to argue on this. We both agree to this statement.

As it IS an appeal to mostly emotion, this appeal is still valid. We both essentially agree that this is a reason though.

If Euthenasia requires the patients concent as well as the families concent as well as the doctors approval, I hate to use the world "never" but honestly the amount of people being killed due to Euthanasia when they didn't want to is VERY VERY low, almost none. Not saying that doctors can't be wrong, but I am just saying that if the patient wants it, even if the doctor is wrong, we are still saving the patient from suffering.

I am not going to fully reply to this because it is in a way irrelavent. Because you and I both know that this scenario will not happen anytime in the future, if at anytime at all. But, no, even if the families did not have the burden of healthcare costs there would still be many other factors of why Euthanasia should be allowed for their loved ones. This is just another burden on the patients family, just as watching your loved one suffer is a burden on the family as well.

^_^

Thanks,
Anet390/Andrew

 

Not really, it's a logical fallacy, convincing maybe, but fallacious nonetheless.

If the purpose is to save the patient from suffering, then if we can save the from suffering (palliative care), without them dieing, would that not be better?

The point I'm trying to make is there is a economic boulder in front of the moral question. When we remove the economic arguments, we are left purely with the moral argument.

To be more cut-throat, the families have a decision, they can say sorry, we don't want to pay for this. While it is true that most families choose to look after their loved one's in situations like this, there is a choice. Furthermore, let's say, that the family says, sorry, we can't afford it, or we don't want to, or we don't like you (valid, and practical), what do you think would happen? I'm not 100% sure, but I'll bet that due to the public healthcare system, those elderly would be looked after, and their medical treatment would be catered for.

 

I need to get some sleep. It has been very nice debating with you. I hope to continue this debate tomorrow.

Thanks,
Anet390/Andrew

 

I actually just did my big senior project on doctor assisted suicide/euthanasia. In my opinion, I believe that euthanasia SHOULD be allowed, but only if the person is going to die soon from a disease/illness. The only time this should be used is if the person is in extreme pain and want to end their suffering.

 

Agreed 100%. What many people fail to understand is that the person is going to most likely die anyway. And even if they could be saved, the quality of their living will still be very very low. For Example, one who has cancer CAN be treated, but if the treatment means they can't walk anymore, eat properly, etc. Is it really worth living if the quality is that bad? Especially if you WANT to just relieve yourself of the suffering.

 

Why should only the terminally ill have a right to their own body?

 

I think Euthanasia should be legal, people should decide if they want to live or die not the government...

 

They would get more hate for actually doing so because it's considered murder either way you put it or say it. It's his life, I see no reason not too.

 

Not true. I would actually consider it as a favor. Because the person wants to be put out of all the pain and suffering. Especially because it may be possible for them to get treated, but maybe the quality of living is so low after they are treated (can't walk, eat correctly, extreme pain) that they would much rather be put to sleep. I see no reason to call this murder.

 

Excuse the long wait, malakadang. I have currently been inundated with work!

Here's a brief summary of this post:

1. First, I'll clarify why some of your refutations on my counter-examples are incorrect.
2. Second, I'll provide more counter-examples (including the one at the bottom of my post) to substantiate my stance.
3. Finally, I'll go over definitions, and why I believe some of yours are faulty. Morality will be included here.

Yes, but for what we're talking about, in principle, they will not prevent you from leaving (to avoid taxes). They will only prevent you if you're a criminal, which I believe is justified.

I think I'm misunderstanding. Property rights as in this Mexican man can purchase a house right next to you without having an Australian citizenship. I assumed that 'property' only referred to land, which is faulty on my part. Excuse me.

Yes, aren't those adequate benefits? Definitely, in my opinion, better than barter.

That's your opinion. I disagree. I do not think trade can be precise in that case. It's the exact same problem with barter. If I make something that's worth $1.41 in reality (not in this free market without fiat money), how hard would it be for me to achieve that exact amount with gold?

There's a problem with the way you modeled your logical statement though. In reality, you assumed that for me to be against the government as a monopoly, I must be against all monopolies (don't forget, you directed this statement based on what I said, not your beliefs). The government is a singular monopoly. To translate that into 'monopolies' is incorrect. You have to translate it into 'one monopoly' or else you're not modelling the situation appropriately.

I modeled it correctly - if you are against one monopoly, you are against all monopolies. This is a hasty generalization. Surely you'd agree.

In any case, if P, then Q. You're essentially defining P and Q to be the same things. I'm against monopolies (which means I'm against all monopolies), therefore I'm against all monopolies. It doesn't get us anywhere.

Defining P to be against one monopoly is more relevant to what we're talking about. I never said I'm against the idea of monopoly - it could depend.

I defined my argument as 'one woman'. That is a singular.

One to many is. Don't forget, you claimed I'm against monopolies based on being against the government as a monopoly. That's just one monopoly that I may be against (hypothetically).

Your logical statement was not modeled appropriately for the situation. Mine was.

Or social contract theory =/= real life. Remember something - evolution is a scientific theory. The term here is different than the term 'common theory'. There are 2 versions of the word.

Business theories, subjective theory of value, and yes, even social contract theory are not scientific theories.

I'd like to know how.

Who created the government?

I don't agree that a government can exist solely without initiating force. I mentioned that initiating force would lead to consensuses being reached more easily. I'd prefer a consensus rather than arguing ensuing among the society. I also find it necessary to have good infrastructure, police, and firemen, which I'm still not convinced would occur in a society where there's no initiation of force.

Perhaps I can agree with the second form of market you'd like - but not anarcho-capitalist.

Now trace back the argument - we're evading a very important point here.

Welfare's job is to fix poverty. If you're going to go into lower class now, what's going to stop you from soon jumping to the middle class? Welfare exists to get rid of poverty, and it's doing its job. This is backed by statistics.

We agree that initiation of force is behind it all.

Children do not necessarily want to go to school - an 8 year old, with no friends, may despise going to school, yet is still forced, and is forced to conform to the school's education system.

If you agree that initiation of force is used here (and it can be against a person's will), then, based on your original premise, what schools are doing is immoral. Darn, what an immoral society we'd have if everyone was educated! If you're willing to account for the scenario here, then you'd be agreeing with something vital that I said earlier, and drop a big portion of your argument.

What's interesting is that the more I give you scenarios, the more 'conditions' I'm receiving. Control. Force. Initiation of force. Initiation of force with someone against that force. Etcetera.

You are missing the point - we're talking about morality here! In that scenario, did the person do something immoral? Yes. Can he possibly be considered a criminal by law? Yes - just like the drug dealers. I'm using what you said, that trade is trade. But I'm showing you how even so, it doesn't mean what's happening is morally right. You keep diverting from the initial point at hand. Again, this shows why PURE logic isn't as helpful as we think it is when we talk about morality, because you ignore the details. If I just consider 'trade is trade', I cannot judge morality appropriately FOR ALL SCENARIOS.

Then you agree to what I said. Trace back - this is like 4 posts back now. I claimed that you can leave if you're not a criminal, and have the potential to cause harm to others. You asked about victim-less crimes such as taking drugs and using prostitutes and I said even those people can leave too. It's just people like drug dealers, or pimps, that cannot leave.

Depends. Based on what I said, finding one counter-example means nothing because I didn't say anything absolute. However, you did - you claimed that it's always immoral PERIOD.

We also cannot know for sure if people can voluntarily solve it. I really wish they could, however.

It's a nice idea, but I do think it's just giving lots of hope.

Please, post the idea - I mean, these articles are huge here. I have like 40 minutes of video to watch, a book to read, etc. I try to research and pour what I understand here, and only refer to links as evidence.

You will use the infrastructure because you need it. More on that.

I didn't say it's unreasonable - it just requires more money to control infrastructure. Something that's not easily controlled like it was centuries ago. You're saying it's more expensive yourself now. This isn't a simple 'we'll all pay to fix the toilet' scenario now. There's much more money at hand. Any private enterprise that wants to take over infrastructure must be HUGE.

Your examples in a gated community are incorrect. People do chip in money for the gated community. You don't just live in a gated community for free. Maybe in very rare cases - but that's what they are, 'rare'. It barely means anything for real life.

Ah, okay! Now let's not isolate bridges - a new highway is made. Now, I can use the old highway which takes me 90 minutes to get from point A to point B, or I can use the new one, which takes 30 minutes. At point B, my company exists. Prior to the new highway, my company requested for me to show up to work at 7:30. The company is aware of the new highway - it now requests for me to arrive at 6:30. Either I take the new highway and pay (against my will), or I wake up earlier (at 5:00 instead of 6:00 - against my will). These conditions are 'forced' upon me as I have no other choice (something you would say, so don't bring the whole 'trespassing private property' debate). Social standards have put pressure on me. The desire to arrive in a shorter time exists. The need would soon arrive, due to all of the pressure. In the end, I pay and use the highway based on my own needs. Sure, I agreed by contract to work for the business, but apparently, this is meaningless if I'm left with no options. The private enterprise made the new highway, which made my company make the decision for me to come earlier. According to what you said previously about working for a business and whatnot, what the private enterprise has done to me is immoral. After all, they were the initial cause of all of this.

Read above. Vague references to the initiation of force are possible.

Don't forget, you're claiming everything will be 100% private. I think we need to look at the definition of private more clearly though. Are you telling me that the present highways in which the government charges toll fees are private as well? A private company, owning the infrastructure, may make the streets public because everyone CAN use them. Public does not imply that it's free. Don't forget, public universities are not necessarily free. Yet they're public.

Yes, Newton's laws worked until they were doubted with a single counter-example in regards to a certain divisibility. Many other experiments were performed just to confirm the findings. The thing is, Newton's laws were assumed true for everything (based on empirical evidence), and that assumption was later proved wrong.

Yet they'd still use it. Note we're not just talking about bridges - even streets.

It contributes - it's pressure. If you're allowed to use vague connections, so am I.

No, what can't you understand about this? You NEED to use the roads. It's obligatory. You're expecting that the roads are all private now - expect most to be funded by tolls. I can't get anywhere now with my car because all the private enterprises are charging money to use the roads. But still, I do it anyways based on my own needs. If we trace back (like you always do), the cause of this was the existence of the private enterprises making the roads private and charging to use them in the first place. Of course, if we trace even farther back, it was the people who threw out the government in the first place. And then we trace back, it was the government which 'caused' the people to do this. Then we trace back, and it was the people who elected the government. Etcetera.

Wrong. The man is walking on a public area (they're called public areas). That area belongs to all of us. We all have the right to be there. Including him. We're 'sharing' the property - the trespassing law doesn't apply here, or you'd have the right to shoot anyone on this property as that violates the trespassing law, and self defense is justified. He's essentially walking in his own backyard that happens to be owned by you and the police as well. You're basically kicking him off of a shared property. This isn't retaliatory force - it's still the initiation of force.

What's up with the black or white thinking? Come on, I said morality is not subject 100% to logic. We know other ways of knowing are used to attain knowledge. Sure, tell me logic is always present. But the fact is, emotions can be present too, and for morality, they are normally present. You can use logic to discuss morality, but not logical arguments which are the property of, for example, math. Explain human behavior with logical arguments. Now I find a counter-example. Your argument is flawed. This is the real life - you're dealing with real, unpredictable humans. It's hard to make logical arguments.

Anyways, we'll talk about the definition of morality later in this post.

But I'm not. I think you're just reinterpreting some scenarios so we try to channel out the initiation of force. In any case, you are making a conclusion here that I'm wrong when I haven't even replied to your post. Perhaps your interpretation/analysis of the situation was wrong? Or have we already established that we are right?

Excuse me here, but I'm lost - to preclude one another, as in, in the statement? If that's the case, the two concepts to not preclude one another means the dilemma 'God exists, or God doesn't exist' is false? We know that's not true (although in modern logic, it may be). Excuse the misunderstanding - I'm asking a genuine question here. Nothing rhetoric.

Okay, relax. I admit I made a mistake.

But this does prove something. Essentially, the negation of beautiful is many things. It's 'average'. 'Okay'. 'Not bad'. 'Cute'. 'Ugly'. 'Hideous'. All this shows is that to make a logical case to prove that Julia is not beautiful, I'd have to use a LOT of logical statements, when for common sense, it's as simple as saying, "Julia isn't beautiful - just look at her big nose!" And note that a big nose doesn't necessarily mean not beautiful.

Let's use the law of the excluded middle now for morality.

Either A, or the negation of A. Either moral, or not moral. You're saying the initiation of force is not moral. Hence, either it's not moral, or it's moral. There can't be cases where it is moral, and there can't be cases where it is not moral. Do you agree with this? You should, based on this law.

I don't think it's really nonsensical that emotions are included in morality.

You have all you need.

1. The naked man is on public property - it belongs to him as well. You can't use your 'trespassing' laws on public property - or else you'd be allowed to shoot anyone in a park, as they're 'trespassing' and you can make a case for self defense. Furthermore, I can tell someone to get off my lawn, but I can't tell someone to leave the park (unless that someone is naked and is masturbating).
2. Public property belongs to everyone. It's in the name. Hell, public property was paid by everyone. Again, both you and I have the right to be in the park. The naked man paid his taxes, and so did I. You cannot tell me to leave the park because I'm 'trespassing' your property.
3. Assume what you said is correct (government fully owns public property). I already gave a case against this - if you walked up to the man and told him to go home, and initiated force, it is still not wrong. But you don't work for the government. So this is like me initiating force in the government's backyard.

You haven't made a good case against this counter-example. I urge you to look at the one near the end of this post as well.

Sounds like we're saying that for the sake of the argument. I've given you a scenario before - you've implied it's moral with your own explanations of the scenario which has already happened. Fact is, the scenario is there - irregardless of any explanation, if you attempt to give a reason why it's moral, you're agreeing that it's moral. Now you're saying it's immoral.

That was sarcasm. However, I admit, sarcasm isn't something that's easily decoded on the Internet, so I don't blame you for anything.

I could only argue that morality exists as an abstract concept.

So one engages in a debate about God, and asks, "Why does He do this?" "Why does He do that?" Does that mean he believes God exists? Nope. But this happens all the time.

I didn't argue that morality doesn't exist - I believe it exists as an abstract concept. A way we explain things.

Our way to determine objectivity is not necessarily true. Let's say we say the sky is blue (you'd argue this is objective). Now, a different life form (hell, even a monkey) looks at the sky, and points to red on the color palette. Who's right? Did we define the wavelength incorrectly? I'm not debating that reality isn't objective - I'm debating on how we can know if what we're dealing with (the colors) is really objective.

What's interesting is that there are some humans which actually have more developed color receptors than we do, and they see the sky to a surely different shade of blue than we do. Which one is right - us, or them?

What-are-you-not-understanding? The symbols - can they not be subjective?

1. "The heater is a cat." "The heater is a dog." What is it in reality? A heater.

2. "It's hot." "It's cold." What is it in reality? It's 70 degrees Fahrenheit.

3. "The sky is blue." "The sky is red." What is it in reality? A certain wavelength.

The scenario's 'moral fact' may be objective. Now the way we determine if an action is good or bad - is that not subjective? Don't talk to me now about objective moral principles. We don't even know if those exist, and you haven't made a case for them. Don't forget, existence is subject to logical proof, and you have yet to provide me any. For me, I believe morality exists as an abstraction - a way we explain things.

Let's talk about principles now. Principles can exist for:

1. Subjective notions (beauty - generally, big noses, bad complexion, etc. mean someone is not beautiful)
2. Abstract concepts (the social contract)

It doesn't necessarily mean that if principles exist, then what encompasses these principles is objective. For example, it's 70 degrees Fahrenheit. Sure, there are some principles that would suggest it is hot - the Sun is out, there's no wind, etc. but yet, someone might still say it's cold.

Reason is absolute. Okay. When do we determine we are performing 'absolute reason'?

I believe it exists as an abstract concept - much like how science exists. We apply the rules of science to the real world - abstract concepts can do this. But science is just our way of understanding things. Let's not forget, science, in some cases, may not help us understand concepts like acupuncture.

And stop calling me names. I've been a utilitarian, a consequentialist, and now a nihilist. Surprisingly not a misanthrope!

Tell me, if morality exists as you're trying to imply, logically prove it exists outside of the mind.

You earlier said that a drug dealer may feel he is living a good life. Does that mean he's moral too?

I think this is the problem. This isn't exactly what morality deals with (your definition), but I don't mind it. It's interesting. I'll later go through the definition of morality.

But not reasoning on its own. Don't forget, I thought quickly, but the only thing where I could believe that reasoning is used on its own is math. Heck, even some language is included in there. But reasoning is the most used (for math).

I would argue that reasoning may be the final step for everything though. But in any case, if emotion is included, I don't believe pure logical arguments can make appropriate conclusions - or heck, are appropriate for the situation at all.

Okay, but we're putting initiation of force into a scenario. Before you were saying that initiation of force against someone's will (that actually stemmed from just the word 'control') is always immoral. I'm assuming you made this the premise of your argument due to the preface you once gave me ('you own yourself') and what you have just said now (violating property rights). You used this to claim why it's nonsensical for me to associate morals with politics - morals with laws, and that laws are innately immoral because they apply 'force'. Do you reject that now?

How was that relevant to what I said? I said you can take responsibility and force the man to go home. Is that immoral?

Okay! But aren't we talking about real life here? Fact is, this CAN happen in real life, and we CAN still judge if it's immoral or not. If you're agreeing that logic cannot be used for aspects in real life (a statist society is an example that you provided yourself, and moral situations are another), you drop a lot of things you have said earlier.

I'm not really getting how this is relevant. Excuse me if I'm reading fast.

Exactly - aesthetically unpleasant behavior is not initiation of force. The man running naked is committing aesthetically unpleasant behavior. Yet it is the police, or you, which is forcing this man back into his home, and the situation is moral.

Also, moral standards are different for everyone.

Um, exactly. I agreed to what you were saying, but used it to show how the 'aesthetically unpleasant' side of things doesn't necessarily get us anywhere when determining if something is moral/immoral.

I can ask the same questions to what you said. I was essentially copying exactly what you said, but with different stakeholders.

Calculations - not in the sense you're trying to elicit. There are no numbers. Number deals PURELY with reason. Math. No room for emotion. Morality encompasses emotion.

When I judge if someone is beautiful, I make calculations?

What I'm doing to judge morality is only based on its definition (we'll get to this). You only have a problem because the definition of morality, as we'll see it soon in this post, actually suggests subjectivity.

We've spoken about Occam's Razor before.

And what do you have to prove your assertions? A lot of the things you say about the free market are extremely hypothetical. We barely have empirical evidence. Do any true free markets with no governments exist?

Addressed.

You know, something funny is that one of those links actually corroborates to what I said. Perhaps there's a misunderstanding - I'm speaking of ethic value. I figured it'd be obvious, since we're talking about morality, a huge part of ethics.

This was included in your definition, which I disagree with: "Values do not necessarily deal with what is good or bad they are just reasons for purposeful action."

Read 'ethic value' in the Wikipedia link you gave me.

Yes, but do chemical laws, or any types of laws, exist for morality? According to you, that'd be very contradictory, as laws are essentially immoral themselves (your belief). Yet morality, something moral, is governed by them?

Don't forget, if such laws do exist, surely you can prove them, especially if morality is objective. After all, physical laws in science do have proof. And so do chemical laws. If you claim they're subject to proof, yet you cannot prove them, why should I believe you?

Just a bit aloof from your scenario - mental illnesses are accounted for in court. I do not ignore them either. If a retard punches me (initiation of force), but is laughing afterwards (not bad intent), I don't consider this immoral. Actually, I believe it barely pertains to morals. This is like asking if a monkey (sorry for the rude reference) took a crap on my lawn, and violated my 'property rights'. Darn monkey is immoral! Not really - the intent just doesn't exist. No point in talking about it.

Now, let's talk about your scenario in specific. I'd just like to know - how would that hold up to you if a retard had the intent of performing good but killed everyone instead? Immoral? You just based it on the consequences. Weren't you against looking at the consequences when it comes to scenarios where we try to judge the morality/immorality? Or are we contradicting ourselves a bit here?

I'm using my four ways of knowing. Now what do you use to evaluate the situation? Logic? You should be able to provide me logical proof then. I find one counter-example, and that logical proof is incorrect.

Exactly. The action is moral, yet I'm initiating force (I'm forcing him back into his home).

I think the opposite is true.

Ah, so I used moral means to achieve what you just stated that you believe is immoral! This is essentially against a MAJOR premise of your argument.

Why does this problem more frequently happen in ethics? Serious question.

I could argue reasoning is included - but emotion can come before it. You before said that it's hard to make logical statements out of illogical means. If emotions are included, how can the laws of reasoning be applied, such as logical proof? This is given that you accept morality deals with emotions. If you don't then it's subject to pure reason, and you should be able to provide a logical proof of why morality is pure reason. Don't forget - morality's real definition is found at this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality.

"Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are good (or right) and those that are bad (or wrong)."

I underlined the important parts in the quote.

1. Differentiation can be subjective.
2. Intentions is something that I said must be included in trying to determine the morality of the situation and you objected against this by giving the example with the retard.
3. Decisions can implicitly refer to the consequences - something you said we shouldn't even account for. Don't forget, it's complete nonsense to make a decision without thinking of its consequences. We generally call people who do this 'stupid'.
4. Actions refers to the actions that take place in the scenario - we pretty much agree on this one, but not exactly on how we encompass the whole system.

So as you can see, the way I judge a scenario actually conforms to the definition of morality. You leave a lot of parts out.

Okay, you're not sure how to judge if something is moral - you're only basing it on one aspect. Yet you criticize me when I attempt to. Why must I have a debate with you if you barely have any information on the topic yourself?

Also, you're being very personal with morality now - you're using your own definition of it (how we should base our lives, when it is actually how we determine that something is right or wrong/good or bad). I explained the definition of morality above. If anything, I'm following it more appropriately than you are.

Why can't you just reply with what you understood from the link? Anyways, the link helps me more with the word 'definitions'. Are you telling me that definitions could never change? I already said this - the definition of Earth used to include 'a flat surface'.

This was in your link. I underlined the important parts. "An explicit definition provides a clearer understanding of a concept. It allows a more complex manipulation and use of the concept. It also allows communication of what the concept is."

First thing's first, a concept doesn't necessarily have to be objective.

Now, with 'definitions' - it does not necessarily mean it's an absolute truth. Our understanding could be false. We could manipulate it incorrectly. Etcetera. The wavelength exists. When I say 'blue, and Sean says 'red', we're both referring to the same thing - but we're not using this thing's actual name. We're using 2 different names which, in language, conflict with each other. Which one is right?

I'd like you to read these - I've already said these points before (so you don't have to open them - they're more like 'evidence'), but they're summarized very well here in the following 2 links:

1. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ientists-claim-persons-red-anothers-blue.html

2. http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20120209-do-we-all-see-the-same-colours/1

It will be an interesting read - I can promise that!

Exactly! Now relate to morality. How can we determine, if it exists as you imply, its TRUE nature? Its TRUE principles, if they exist? I believe that for things like morality, we're going to be stuck with subjectivity. There's no point of talking about its nature if we can't ever discover it (or prove it exists). Unless there's like an alien that designed us with morality and has a book hidden somewhere with all of morality's principles. I think we can both doubt that.

The only case you gave for morality's principles was given as an analogy. But the thing is, if the principles are objective, I expect logical/empirical proof of them. The analogy doesn't prove anything - it could be completely false.

Yup! Just different interpretations. Surely it'd lead to a debate (as we are doing now). Assume morality exists - we talk about given scenarios based on how we think of them. 'Think' includes the 4 ways of knowing (emotion is in there). And that makes this topic debatable in subjective terms.

Ah, we determine the wavelength of the sky, but how do I know which shade of blue I should associate with this wavelength? Don't forget - shades are supposed to be objective as well (RGB color model). Which one do I pick? The shade that I see?

I gave a link about this above. Findings reported around 2 months ago are even leading to some scientists concluding that the colors we see are not necessarily objective reality.

This is black or white thinking. You even claimed yourself that it's okay for the police to use a gun in self defense scenarios/defense of others. This is off the point of 'initiation of force'. I don't care how you explain it - use self defense, the thing is, you're saying the scenario is moral, which is all I'm asking for, as it provides me with one counter-example. Just because you disagree with it for taxes, doesn't mean you must disagree with it for all cases. Just because I disagree with coercion in some cases, doesn't mean I disagree with it for all cases. Logical arguments disregard the word 'cases'.

Yes, but you keep thinking I have the same belief as you - that initiation of force is always wrong. My point here is that you're pinpointing very vague references of the initiation of force. Well, I can do that too. Go back to infrastructure in a true free market.

And go to the naked man, or the example at the bottom of this post, for scenarios where I believe the initiation of force against somebody's will (no matter how vague) is justified.

You want to rewrite history for yourself?

In any case, go to the infrastructure example.

I've addressed the labor part. It's your natural right, given the conditions. I cannot work for Rockwell if I do not meet their qualifications.

Now, to sell the products of my labor - what if I make heroin? I have the right to sell that to kids on the street?

If they treat me well, provide me with benefits, and I tangibly agree to these benefits, then I wouldn't leave. These bandits wouldn't have that negative connotation that you're trying to give them anymore.

You're forcing things on yourself based on your own needs. I said this for the infrastructure scenario. If you disagree to this, then the infrastructure scenario contains very vague references of the initiation of force being committed by the private enterprises, as 'no other choice was left'.

Given the conditions.

Now trace back the argument. You're telling me you disagree with the hasty generalization you made way before? Or is this mockery?

I stopped there. You're telling me that you disagree with owning a unique idea? Okay, do you disagree with copyright? You must - it's the same thing. So, Julia can make an awesome song, and I can steal it, and sing it for myself, make money off of it, and watch Julia try to prove it was her song when she doesn't have a copyright to prove it. After all, this song was Julia's idea.

With no patents, reverse engineering would take place. We'd have iPods, iP0ds, 1Pods, 1P0ds, etc. I can make a product called the 'iPod' (nothing preventing me from using that name now), call my business 'Apple' (no trademarks), and steal customers that Apple has paid good money in advertisements for by making my store look exactly like Apple's stores. Scamming is also easier - I can be just like Apple, but provide shitty products. Sure I'll go out of business, but my profit margin was high - I made lots of money selling shitty products at the price that Apple offers them for! Now, it's time for me to do the same with Microsoft, Samsung, etc.

I don't want to live in such a world. Money implies greed. Don't think humans wouldn't do this. You're essentially 'legalizing' counterfeit.

I'm not understanding why you're acting aggressive.

You HAVE to use the infrastructure. Or do you want to stay at home for the rest of your life? Don't bring the case with just a bridge. Companies will need to make profit for most 'private' infrastructure they own. I HAVE to drive. I'm given no other options. Just because I do drive on the streets, doesn't mean I support paying the tolls. You said this earlier yourself (when talking about using a governmental service, but not necessarily agreeing with the government's actions). It's the same case with businesses having to agree to certain governmental conditions before registering. You're essentially 'forced' into it (according to you). Now, for infrastructure, the private enterprises are initiating force on me. This is so immoral!

Not really - the initiation of force is vague. Just like the government's initiation of force when taking your income taxes (after you tangibly agreed to it) is vague.

Also, let's say I'm poor. There's a highway that takes me directly from one state to another, but of course, requires an expensive toll fee. This highway was made by the government but was later inherited by the private enterprise, so I used to use this highway for free. Now, I NEED to get to the other state. My only other option is taking an airplane, which is too expensive, and I cannot afford it. So the highway is my only option - the private enterprise has essentially forced me to use it. This is how you sound when you make the case where governments are forcing you to pay taxes. The only person that's forcing anything is YOU - on yourself.

You probably saw 'eHow' and then laughed. I won't criticize - I probably would too. But I think you should open the link again, and go to the part where it says that the residents are most likely required to pay fees for living in such an area (similar to a Homeowner Association). They have to pay when there's a pothole that needs fixing in the streets. The money can be obtained from bumping up water bills, electricity bills, etc. There can be a monthly residency fee. Don't forget, gated communities are generally used to make profit by entrepreneurs.

What if it was my only choice - I am a celebrity that needs the security? What if I want a bigger house - I'm forced to be in rich neighborhoods which are generally gated communities? You claim that it being an only choice means it's forced upon me.

I agree - they're forcing things on themselves. But it's their only option. And just like when you agree to work for a company, you're forcing things on yourself, even if it's your only option. So don't blame it on the government.

I think you fail to understand that this applies for other scenarios that you agree with (gated communities, infrastructure, and whatnot). You're forcing things on yourself. Again, don't blame the government.

Also, taxation is an effect to an agreement you have tangibly given. Of course there's going to be coercion involved there - you tangibly agreed. Now, if you refuse to work so you don't have to pay taxes (because you don't agree with it), will you be sent to jail and be met face to face with a gun? No.

In a gated community, if they bump up the prices, and everyone agrees to pay except you, what happens to you?

You assume that at any given moment, reason is correct. We know this is at fault. By only accepting reason, you reject the theory of knowledge. You're basically telling me that we cannot acquire knowledge though perception, language, or emotion. This is silly. Here's an analogy - imagine the computer. The CPU is the reason unit. Imagine that unit on its own. It's useless. You need input (perception), and language (binary). The computer lacks emotions - but humans do not.

That's completely off the point. Evolution is dealing with objectivity. There is no emotion there whatsoever. You cannot use emotion to learn about evolution when evolution isn't concerned with emotion like morality.

And yes, it's easy to show how emotions play a role in morality. Have you ever heard this phrase, "It just felt wrong?" Do you know some people feel guilty after their first time masturbating? There's no 'reason' to tell them it was wrong - their parents most likely didn't talk about it (and vice-versa), there's no indication that it's wrong, etc. Now, this is assuming you disagree with watching porn and masturbating (as in, you think it's immoral), but there are many other examples. The point is, emotions in this context, included with perception, were the sole reason why the person felt the action was immoral. Whether it's immoral or not is irrelevant because I don't believe we could ever know that as a fact when it comes to morality.

I read your link. Now here's the funny thing - it says that the subconscious mind essentially comes from the conscious mind. This is true for many cases but NOT all cases. When a baby's born, and the doctor slaps said baby to see if he/she is alive, and the baby cries (the subconscious mind has released chemicals which elicit pain and lead to crying), you're telling me the baby's conscious mind had prepared its subconscious mind in the womb? The excretion of emotion's chemicals is most likely biological (in such a case).

Anyhow, back to your link. It's essentially the same thing - emotion is an effect. But it doesn't necessarily have to be an effect of reason. Don't forget, when we use reason, we're talking about CONSCIOUS reasoning. Not just 'your brain'. Otherwise perception can be reasoning too. Now, back to the baby scenario. The baby touches hot stove - perception. It performs a reflex using the spinal cord (not reasoning). The brain releases chemicals which elicit certain emotions. The baby cries (emotion). The baby, using its very limited capacity of reasoning, concludes that it should never touch the stove again.

This knowledge to 'never touch the stove' was achieved with 3 of the 4 ways of knowing, and in this case, emotion came before reasoning, and was NOT the effect of reasoning.

I used to have the same mindset as Ayn Rand when I took a theory of knowledge course in college, but I kept getting the same, damn argument with the baby!

No - the baby lacks the language we have. It is unfamiliar to 'hot'. But it knows that touching the stove is a big no-no. Touching the stove being a big no-no IS OBJECTIVE INFORMATION. And emotions were used to achieve this conclusion. Emotions - used to achieve a conclusion. A good conclusion, too.

I agree - you cannot use emotions to learn about gravity! But you can use them for morality because, face it, morality deals a lot with emotions - with ethics.

Also, ways of knowing are not mutually exclusive. I would never advocate using emotion all by itself for a debate.

Hot is a description and has to do with language, not reasoning.

May I ask you why the association was strong? Emotions. Is it a good thing that the association is strong? Yes, of course - it facilitates the survival of the baby. So, were the emotions appropriate here?

To the extent of things which I believe will never be understood objectively (morality), given that they exist objectively in nature (outside the mind). Not for scientific laws - emotions should stay aloof from those.

No, you're missing the point! Even though the person who started it is morally wrong (I agree, in this case), the fact that it escalated to the killing of this initiating person based on something so small is not morally wrong? After all, all that person (the killer) is performing is retaliatory force, which you see no problem with. This is the entire point, and you've dodged it completely.

Also, it could happen. We can't deny that.

Okay, how's this then - provide me logical proof which I can use for ALL scenarios that would say that something is moral or immoral. If anything, the way I define if a situation is moral only conforms to the definition of morality in the first place (as Wikipedia puts it).

You just don't understand. Do ideas exist? They're not tangible. Do they exist outside of the human mind? Not tangibly. But still - do ideas exist? Otherwise, if they don't, then how can you even think that YOU exist? Hell, how can you even think?

Social contract is not tangible. It's an abstract concept. Can an abstract concept be applied to real life? Yes. In any case, this argument is practically void of the social contract now.

Again with the logic, and we're dealing with morality. Answer this - can it perform moral deeds?

And here's a simple example where even if it's a contradiction, it is not wrong. I need to use my fear of spiders to stop my fear of spiders. So, I associate myself with spiders, despite my fear, to eventually stop my fear.

I need to use my fear of heights to stop my fear of heights. So, I go sky-diving, to rid me of my fear of heights.

I can go on. These apply to real life - this is psychology.

'Crime' is the word we use to describe someone performing an extremely immoral action. Removing laws removes 'crime' in the sense as we understand it (language). But does it still stop things that were encompassed in 'crime', such as murder, rape, theft, and whatnot? No.

Why should I support the labeling theory if it doesn't exist? Note that, this is a rhetorical question. I don't really mean it. But you'd say this for the social contract theory.

Yeah I understand, but assume the first option is impossible - why do you think taxes are needed?

...

You're imposing insurance on me. I'm essentially 'forced' (no matter how vague) into buying it? Sorry, I missed the part of how we would obtain insurance. Brief me upon it.

Ah, you're missing something with malls! Do malls make profit? Yes, of course! They charge businesses to rent a portion in the mall. Malls do not need to charge tolls, but this is because they're already making profit. The fact remains that profit needs to be made for businesses. I don't think we can deny this - business implies there has to be a profit made, or else the business would shut down.

The same applies to the company you work for. It's making profit - you can use its toilet. The company can afford that very, very minuscule cost.

And the same applies for who needs to take control of the infrastructure. They need profit. Big profit, as they have a huge expense.

Gated communities are making profit. Private businesses are making profit. Etcetera.

Tolls can also lead to a vague reference of 'initiation of force'. Read above.

----------------------------------------------------

OPINION, OPINION. Finally, I just think a free market would virtually eliminate the middle class. It's an opinion based on personal experience. I do believe most people are poor because of their own actions. And some of those actions, I'm afraid to say, have biological components. I don't think discussing this is important because for both of us, it's completely hypothetical.

However, you're missing something crucial. Education leads to people earning more money which leads to richer people. Now here's the thing - the children of these rich people already have what they need (money). This would make them lazy in school, and lazy in life, as they already have what they need. They may ignore education, and ignore working for society. So I'm not sure if the rise of education would help as you said it would in the long run (possibly more than just decades).

----------------------------------------------------

I think we have to put an end to this absolute statement that initiation of force is always wrong (against the voluntary will of another person, as 'you own yourself', so we're going against property rights). Take this example.

Suppose Jimmy has to get vaccinated. He hates doctors, and he especially hates shots - so he doesn't want to go. His parents take him to the doctor anyways (force). The doctor gets the vaccine out. Jimmy sees the shot, and begins to cry and squirm (against his will). The doctor forcefully grabs Jimmy's arm, and injects the vaccine into his veins.

Now, there was a lot of force in this scenario. In fact, we can trace back - the government generally has laws on what types of vaccines you should take (although, we should note that not all vaccines are necessary). You can even say the government initiated the force. But now we're down to the final, vital question.

Was this scenario moral or immoral?

Don't forget - you can say whatever you want to make it appear moral. 'The kid didn't know better.' 'Vaccines are good for you.' But in the end, all you're doing is explaining WHY it's moral (funnily, with the consequences too). The fact is, we're dealing with an absolute claim from you: the initiation of force is ALWAYS wrong if it is against another person's will. You used this claim to say that the idea of law is immoral. One counter-example against your premise is sufficient. If the scenario contains initiation of force (it does), and if this initiation of force is against a person's will (it is), and you agree that the scenario is moral, then your claim is proved false by logic.

 

I felt that it is entirely necessary to point out that, just because nobody responded to your essay of a post, does not make you right. As everybody else has been trying to show you, you have a very distorted point of view. So much so, that it takes you a paragraph of your own logic to argue with one sentence of somebody else's. And here we are with this last post, so much insanity that nobody has bothered to break it down any more for you. Hope you enjoyed yourself.

 

You're right, I never think that in the end I am absolutely right. Malakadang has opened my mind to new thoughts/ideas which I am willing to accept. Sometimes I asked questions just to learn more about what he's talking about.

I only have a few counter-examples against a crucial point of malakadang's argument which I believe are still valid (and they're summarized pretty well - one is at the end of my last post).

And also, length means nothing - I like to elaborate. If it takes me one paragraph and another person a sentence, it doesn't mean that I'm wrong and the other person is right. In any case, both malakadang and I were making huge posts, and I find nothing wrong with it. Also, note that I was referred to videos/links which had a huge amount of text/potential text as well. In fact, I was given an e-book to read (which I still haven't, unfortunately). If you were to consider those as text, then everything would be essentially the same.

I try to summarize my research into my posts - there's nothing wrong with that.

Also, you're calling me insane when I doubt you've read all that I've posted. In any case, if you believe that I'm insane/distorted, then please, try only to address the last point of my post that you quoted, and explain to me what's so insane/distorted.

Finally, there's no 'everyone else'. It was just me and malakadang that were arguing. You're making me seem like I'm some hated lunatic.

 

You basically made your last post so long that everyone (there were more than malakadang) gave up debating with you. And I'm not going to get started. I did not call you insane though, I said some of the points you're trying to make are insane. Mainly the ones about how your opinion matters in someone else's life.

 

The last post was only with malakadang. And he was making posts as large as mine. There's nothing wrong with it.

And okay, that was when I was speaking about suicide with kill dank - completely irrelevant to my and malakadang's conversation. In any case, yes, I do believe my opinion could matter in the case of a suicidal person - but don't forget, in the end, I said I would never force anything on anyone. I would simply voice my opinion. I don't find anything 'insane' about that. After all, my goal is to help.