You’re going to hell for degrading god to a pile of noodles. Have fun burning for an eternity. -Erik Vavro
You’re going to hell
Published by henderob January 27th, 2007 in Hate Mail (and concerned criticism).
1269 Responses to “You’re going to hell”
Pages: « 1 … 50 51 52 53 [54] 55 56 57 58 … 64 » Show All
-
1061 - February 12th, 2007 at 2:59 am - St. Romaine Says:
All good pirates need a place to lodge while in Hell, here is a good one (I re3commend it highly):
.
http://www.radissonsas.com/cs/Satellite/Page/RadissonSAS/Page/rsasLocation/1053434513428/en/hotelCode–svgza/ -
1062 - February 12th, 2007 at 3:05 am - DreadPirateBen Says:
Hm… couldnt we also see if we could move hell? I mean, Norway is beautiful and all, but its cold… I’m part Russian, but I hate the cold. Cant we make Norway the cold part of hell and some place like… I dunno, Barbados, the hot part of hell? This whole “I’m going to Norway when I die” thing is really getting me down.
-
1063 - February 12th, 2007 at 3:15 am - St. Romaine Says:
Warmth (Caribbean)=Heaven
.
Cold (Norway)=Hell -
1064 - February 12th, 2007 at 3:24 am - St. Romaine Says:
LOL, hotel link was broken here it is:
.
http://www.radisson.com/hoteldirectory/hotelbio.jsp?hotelCode=SVGZA&origin=Hotel%20Directory&backURI=%2Freservation%2FhotelPreference.do
.
RAmen -
1065 - February 12th, 2007 at 3:24 am - Wench Nikkiee Says:
@DreadPirateBen
“Norway is beautiful and all, but its cold…”But there’ll be a big warm fire won’t there?
-
1066 - February 12th, 2007 at 3:42 am - Red DutchPasta Kidd Says:
Yes but you need to be carefull or else you get burned in hell.
-
1067 - February 12th, 2007 at 6:59 am - St. Romaine Says:
Debauchry in hell:
.
http://www.herlige-restauranter.com/Webdesk/netblast/pages/index.html?id=77664 -
1068 - February 12th, 2007 at 8:11 am - 'trick Says:
@bill
I am no so sure killing one person to save two people is not the most moral action. This makes a general assumption that we can assign “value” to particular people to even propose we can logically conclude it to be a moral action (assigning “value” is very difficult if not impossible). What about killing one person to save a million lives? What if that one person was the one person to find a cure for cancer, and in essence would save more than a million lives if we did not kill him/her. Ultimately, to kill any person, and for it to be moral, we would have to conclude the current and future value of that person does not override the current morality of killing him/her. It will always be an immoral action to kill a person, but there are degrees of morality. It may be (if we can logically conclude value), that it would be a larger immoral action NOT to kill that person. There are both moral/immoral actions, as well as moral/immoral inactions. Though this might seem cruel, it could possibly be the better of two evils.
.
If we COULD concluded that killing this person would achieve the maximum cumulative happiness for all living things, it could be the more moral action if not killing the person causes more harm than the actual killing of that person. The problem is actually being able to conclude that that is the case…. is very difficult if not impossible (in this scenerio). -
1069 - February 12th, 2007 at 11:51 am - bill Says:
@’trick
Hi ‘trick. You’ve made some interesting points and it gives me an opportunity to say some things I find of interest. If we take my theory of ethics seriously then we can see the problem of killing one person to save two as a moral dilemma. A moral dilemma is where there are two or more moral principles in conflict. On the one hand, using one person as an instrument for good is not treating that person as a person, i.e. is not respectful. On the other hand we have the saving of lives, an act of kindness and caring.
My thesis is that there is no objective way to decide the ‘right’ thing to do when these principles truly conflict. You have what are called incommensurables, impossible to measure or compare. But the decision you make determines the kind of person that you are. So, if you would kill the one to save the two, then this says something about how much kinder you are than respectful. If you would not kill the one to say the two, then you would rate higher as a respectful person and not as high on kindness. Your choice about what kind of person you want to be is your choice
But there are other issues. For when you look at a problem like this in terms of a utilitarian view, maximizing value, you can’t narrow your focus to merely this simple consequence, you must also take into consideration all of the effects of your action. Assume for a minute your incarceration is not of issue. You can ask things like, if someone sees you do this would it make them more likely to do something similar in a similar situation. Furthermore, you might ask if it undermines peoples sense of security to realize that there are people who would kill them if they thought it would save a couple of lives. In terms of the greatest happiness for the greatest number, one might not like the kill 1 save 2 choice. But as you point out, there is some number like maybe kill 1 to save 10000 where almost everyone will be on board.
Ursula LeGuin argues differently in a short story called ‘The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas’ She posits a idealize society, where everyone is happy but one person, one constantly tortured miserable person, who did nothing wrong. But for some reason because he is tortured, the rest of the society is perfect, happy and healthy. Anyway, it’s a good read.
We might also ask if you would want everyone to be of the mind to kill one to save two. For it’s hard to defend the position that you should do it but that you wouldn’t want to see everyone doing it. If you complicate it with the different values that could be given to different lives, like maybe an American life is worth 10 Iraqi lives? Or one of our guys (whatever your country) is worth 10 of their guys, then again you might have a principle that you would not want universally adopted. I knew a guy once who said that he would kill 10,000 Iraqis to save one American life. I don’t usually say this sort of thing but I told him that was insane.
And the final point is about happiness being the main value. Take a thought experiment where suppose everyone would be a lot happier if we could lower everyone’s IQ by 20 pts. I know it’s hard to imagine but suppose it were true. You know, ignorance is bliss? Or suppose we could put everyone in the Matrix leading perfectly healthy and happy and imaginary lives. Would we want to do that? Would you want to be hooked up like that, if you didn’t know afterwards you were hooked up, but you’d be happy? Your choice. I’m just trying to argue here that we may have more than the one value of happiness. Anyway, I hope you find this interesting. -
1070 - February 12th, 2007 at 12:25 pm - 'trick Says:
bill,
You make some interesting points youself, however, the only reason it is a moral dilemma is because we do NOT (can not) have all of the facts for us to make a logical decision. I propose that if we could have all the facts and make a clearcut logical assessment as to the happiness for the now and the future, that there really is no dilemma at all. If it is KNOWN that not killing a person is a cause of more sadness, grief, pain, or other negative effects, than killing the person and all of its consequences, then our inaction becomes an action of immorality.
.
The reason I choose “happiness” is that I believe everything we do, we do because that is what will give us the most happiness. See my other view: http://www.tricksplace.com/views/004-Our_Selfish_Selves.pdf
.
We might not voluntarily decrease IQ or place people into The Matrix because we might believe that it would not make us happier. Then again there are people who do mind altering drugs because they are not happy in their real life and this alternative makes them happy (but usually not in the long run…which should be looked at as well). You bring up an interesting point because I know I would not want my IQ decreased to be happier. (However) I think this is due to my belief that logic and critical thinking makes me happy. -
1071 - February 12th, 2007 at 12:50 pm - 'trick Says:
Keep in mind that I am totally agreeintg with you that it is a moral dilemma, but that does not take away from my point as to how a moral should come about. Some morals we just cannot come to given our lack of information on the subject. These are the ones that we should not come to an absolute conclusion on based on our “feelings” of the subject.
-
1072 - February 12th, 2007 at 1:49 pm - bill Says:
@’trick
I understand where you are coming from. You are committed to Utilitarianism and thus believe that that all of my concerns i.e. integrity, respect and kindness can all ultimately be reduced to the greatest value for the greatest number. Others have maintained similar things. Kant thought that all of these could be reduced to respect, and he had different ways of expressing this. Others think that it all has to do with keeping your contracts with individuals and humanity in general, in other words integrity.
And any of these might really be the case. In fact they might all be the case, which would make them commensurable after all.
But until that time when we can see how they reduce (which we cannot fully see now), for the sake of action we may have to treat them as if they cannot be reduced. That is when considering an action in the real world now we might want to ask ourselves all these questions. What would be the kind thing to do, what would be the honorable thing to do, what would be the most respectful thing to do? All these questions may give us a deeper insite into the nuances of the decision than just asking the question, what’s the action with the greatest outcome? As you suggested we will not really be able to see what action has the greatest outcome because we will likely always be in at least a partial state of ignorance.
So until the day when we can show that all of these are reducible to one of them, or something else, we have to behave as if there were irreducible.
Besided when people say something is wrong, the can usually easily trace it to the breaking of one of the 3 principles, or 4 principles if they are religious.
Also, you didn’t quite address my question with its presupposition. If you could lower your IQ by 20 points and know you would be happier, would you? You avoided the question directly by saying if you lowered your IQ by 20 points you wouldn’t be happier, denying the premise of the question. But consider that tomorrow you found out you are wrong and you would in fact be happier, if you lowered your IQ 20 or 30 or 40 pts. Maybe you wouldn’t be solving problems but you see that there is something else you would get much more satisfaction from. I don’t believe you would do it, even if you were certain because you have more values than happiness that you want to keep. -
1073 - February 12th, 2007 at 2:06 pm - 'trick Says:
I agree with you for the most part.
.
As for the IQ question, the ONLY reason I would not do it is because truth makes me happy. Such as in The Matrix, I would rather know the truth and live in the world that was not so great, as the truth makes me happy. If this was NOT the case, in a scenerio where truth, logic, intellegence, and critical thinking was not important to me, why wouldn’t I choose the less IQ? The only reason I wouldn’t is that these factors ARE important to me and the type of happiness that I wish to obtain. Since your scenerio would have to take these factors (and a mutitude of others) out of the equation for it to be applicable, if it did…there is No reason for me NOT to do it for my own happiness. The reason you do not believe I would is because you probably believe you would not. But I assure you, the reasoning that you would not has to do with your own idea of what you prefer for your own happiness. You need to take those completely out of the equation. -
1074 - February 12th, 2007 at 2:23 pm - 'trick Says:
The values that you talk about would all fall under the umbrella of what makes you happy.
-
1075 - February 12th, 2007 at 2:52 pm - bill Says:
‘trick
O.K. I understand your thesis but the only thing you have said to counter my thesis and my reasons is that it disagrees with your thesis. So, then, it’s natural for me to ask:What are your reasons? -
1076 - February 12th, 2007 at 3:19 pm - 'trick Says:
I wasn’t countering your thesis. I like your thesis. Yours seems to delve more into the psychology of the topic and the why. I was just offering my point of view on the subject. I think the two are compatible to a degree. What do you think? Incompatible?
-
1077 - February 12th, 2007 at 5:02 pm - bill Says:
‘trick
I think it depends
If your thesis is that ultimately all the things that I mentioned are reducible to or founded upon the belief that these principles bring about the greatest happiness for the greatest number, then certainly they are compatible. But when you show me how, I would then have to change my view that three are incommensurable.
Some have even claimed that the reason God created his commandments is because he sees them as a way that leads to the greatest happiness for the greatest number.
I was arguing once with someone who claimed that God’s commandment against homosexual acts was because he cared for us and that homosexual acts are unhealthy. He was talking about male homosexual acts mostly and we didn’t get much further on that because we couldn’t agree on whether it was unhealthy or not.
But even thou he thought god was also against female homosexual acts, he couldn’t come up with a health reason.
I should expose you, if you aren’t already familiar with it, to the difference between rule-utilitarianism and act-utilitarianism, next post -
1078 - February 12th, 2007 at 5:47 pm - bill Says:
@’trick
Utilitarianism breaks down into many different kinds. Some hold that it only applies to your own good and others claim it is over all good for all human beings, or all lifeforms. In general the thesis is that the rightness or wrongness of an act depends only upon the goodness or badness of the consequences. In your case, you equate goodness or badness with happiness or unhappiness. The hedonist utilitarian uses pleasure or displeasure. There has been a lot written upon the relation of pleasure to happiness.
Anyway, an act utilitarian is contrasted with the rule-utilitarian. The rule utilitarian claims we should follow the rule that will lead to the best consequences if everyone were to follow the rule.
You seem to be stating your view from the act utilitarian point of view. There are difficulties both views, but of course, there are difficulties with all views (except mine of course, hehe).
One problem with both forms of utilitarianism is that we have a hard time or even impossible time trying to come up with how good any act is. After all, we have to consider not just the happiness of the people around us, but how it will affect future generations maybe thousands of years into the future, assuming humanity makes it that long, or other life forms. The butterfly effect compounds the uncertainty. It can be shown that if you know all the positions of all the atoms around the earth and can predict the weather a month down the line, that the neglecting of a single butterfly flapping his wings in south america may throw off your calculations to miss a hurricane in north america a month later. Small changes can make big differences and uncertainty compounds.
Secondly, by utilitarianism every act you ever do is thus a moral act, because every act has potential for good and bad. This seems counter intuitive
The special problem with act utilitarianism is that it does not easily account for why not keeping your promises, (for example) is considered wrong.
If you’ve made a promise then in the specific circumstance you can always ask, is it better if I keep this promise or break it and this will lead to breaking the promise more often than if we didn’t even think about it.
And finally its not clear whether you really want people out there calculating what they think is the act that will bring about the greatest good. It’s way to easy to see how they can be wrong and ultimately bring about more suffering because of it.
The rule-utilitarian may be able to justify why we should keep our promises, but has other problems. Suppose you are in a situation where you know that if you keep your promise then it will likely result in a negative consequence.
So anyway, that’s the drift of how the argument generally goes, and the most problematic part is there doesn’t seem to be a way to show that utilitarianism must be true. It get’s posited and adopted but the principle itself is never well justified. There have been tries, but it is generally accepted that the justifications fail.
I hope you find this interesting. If you do there is a lot of literature on it. -
1079 - February 12th, 2007 at 5:51 pm - bill Says:
‘trick
One more thing, I don’t think my thesis is a psychological one as much as it is a semantical one. The foundation starting at the question “what do people mean to say when they say an act is right or wrong?” Just like “what to people mean to convey when they say that ‘X is a bachelor’?” -
1080 - February 12th, 2007 at 6:00 pm - 'trick Says:
Ah..tis the reason the moral should be “logically concluded” in my opinion (and not faith based). Really that is what my view is about the most, why morals that come about through religion can be most flawed because they are static beliefs that cannot change, where as those that come through logic can change once more information is aquired.
.
It’s funny, I had a similar debate with a religious person about it (homosexuality) being unhealthy, which he could not show why it is unhealthy as well. He referenced aids like the disease was a homosexual only one (which it is clearly not). He had also stated it to be unnatural because one cannot obtain children that way, which I had to clearly state to him what about people that just cannot have kids, people that choose not to, and birth control methods!
.
I think my beliefs more align with act-itilitarianism. I don’t list off static rules, but rather have a process to come about rules that can obviously change and are flexible. A mix of classical utilitarianism and even some negative-utilitarianism.
