The vast majority of all ethical and logistical problems revolve around a single inconvenient fact: human beings die unwillingly.
this is so wrong I pretty much stopped reading. The root cause is disagreement among the living over how to use resources. Having more living beings does not help with any ethical or logistical problem.
Again, I’ll start with the good. Anything stylistically that causes people to immediately disregard my writing without actually reading it should be avoided at all costs. So thank you for pointing this out to me. Next time I will not lead with an incidental sweeping statement that has the potential to derail someone’s train of thought. And I’m not being a smartass here, I do appreciate you telling me why you stopped reading, rather than simply downvoting.
But that said, if you had literally just read the very next sentence you would have seen that we are actually on the same page here. Of course most ethical dilemmas are centered around resources. But if no one died due to starvation, we wouldn’t be having any disagreement as to whether or not it’s okay to steal a loaf of bread to save one’s starving family.
But if no one died due to starvation, we wouldn’t be having any disagreement as to whether or not it’s okay to steal a loaf of bread to save one’s starving family.
You are still wrong. Imagine that starvation leaves you very weak, in constant pain, but alive. It is OK to steal a loaf of bread to feed your children? Let me also remind you that in Christian Hell no one dies :-/
The human existence does not revolve around death.
Sure, I’ll concede that in the edge case that we figure out how to prevent death, and have not in the process, figured out how to eliminate hunger pains (or if Christian Hell exists) then you’re 100% right.
Either way though, stylistically that was a poor choice of opening sentences on my part. It doesn’t add anything to the piece, and it’s too easy to dispute it, thus distracting from the overall point.
If nobody could die, we’d STIL be having arguments about when it’s OK to steal a loaf of bread. Whether to prevent starvation, or just to prevent hunger pains, or to increase strength by a bit, the question of “need” cannot be easily compared across entities.
this is so wrong I pretty much stopped reading. The root cause is disagreement among the living over how to use resources. Having more living beings does not help with any ethical or logistical problem.
“Having more living beings” doesn’t help because it confuses preventing death with creating more new living beings.
Again, I’ll start with the good. Anything stylistically that causes people to immediately disregard my writing without actually reading it should be avoided at all costs. So thank you for pointing this out to me. Next time I will not lead with an incidental sweeping statement that has the potential to derail someone’s train of thought. And I’m not being a smartass here, I do appreciate you telling me why you stopped reading, rather than simply downvoting.
But that said, if you had literally just read the very next sentence you would have seen that we are actually on the same page here. Of course most ethical dilemmas are centered around resources. But if no one died due to starvation, we wouldn’t be having any disagreement as to whether or not it’s okay to steal a loaf of bread to save one’s starving family.
You are still wrong. Imagine that starvation leaves you very weak, in constant pain, but alive. It is OK to steal a loaf of bread to feed your children? Let me also remind you that in Christian Hell no one dies :-/
The human existence does not revolve around death.
Sure, I’ll concede that in the edge case that we figure out how to prevent death, and have not in the process, figured out how to eliminate hunger pains (or if Christian Hell exists) then you’re 100% right.
Either way though, stylistically that was a poor choice of opening sentences on my part. It doesn’t add anything to the piece, and it’s too easy to dispute it, thus distracting from the overall point.
If nobody could die, we’d STIL be having arguments about when it’s OK to steal a loaf of bread. Whether to prevent starvation, or just to prevent hunger pains, or to increase strength by a bit, the question of “need” cannot be easily compared across entities.
If humans didn’t need resources to live, why would there be any disagreement?
edit: Didn’t realize I posted this. I folded this point into my above post.