The Everlasting CCCP !

[GeneralTacticus]

"What is essential to your life, your life or others life ?" This is nonsense.

No, it's not. WoA said that he would enver kill someone else to save his own life. Archaic then asked whether he valued others lives above his own.

Im not talking about morale, yet again. But things are illogical sometimes.

Death is not in any way illogical. It may seem so ('Why did that car have to have faulty brakes?' 'Why did he have to take that particular flight?' 'Why did she put off going to the doctor?' etc), simply because it appears to have been random chance, but you can't call random chance 'logical' or 'illogical', because it's just that: random.

And, of course, the logic or toehrwise of someone dying due to chance ahs no bearing whatsoever o Archaic's original statement, in which he was talking about your claim that he had a limited capacity to understand because he didn't accept an illogical argument. If an argument is illogical, it is invalid, and hence should not be accepted.

[Jamski]

Ah GT, good morning (evening for you?)

Shall we get back to business?

OK. I hypothesise that murder is always an irrational act. You disagree, and claim that in some situations a rational justification for murder can be found, namely to preserve one's own life, to preserve the life of others or to make a profit. I've just read back over the thread and I think this is correct? We can both agree, that murder for no reason at all is clearly irrational, yes? So basically, you require that I demonstrate that your "rational grounds for murder" are not rational, and then, unless you can conceive some new "rational grounds", it can be concluded that murder is irrational.

1.) You claim that preservation of one's own life is a basic instinct. If this is the case then it is not rational to wish to preserve one's own life, but instinctive. The ability to act rationally comes from our "upper brain" functions and allows us to ignore our instinctive "lower brain" functions, which are a hangover from our days as "monkeys". Therefore the will to preservation of one's own life is not a rational decision, but instinctive, a mere matter of reactions. When someone falls over a cliff, for example, and clutches wildly at the edge, they are not making a rational decision to save their own life, they are simply reacting to the situation as their lower brain takes over.

2.) You claim that it would be rational to kill someone if you would profit from their death (IIRC, there were conditions attached such as not being caught etc.) As you yourself would be the first to agree, opinion is not part of a rational argument. As this decision would involve the murderer making a value based decision where he would have to decide whether to kill someone or not based on how much he himself valued the life of this person against how much he would profit from it. In judgeing the value of a human life, which has no fixed price, he (the murderer) is making a decision based only on his opinion, as reflected in his value system. A decision made in this way is not a rational decision by any stretch of the imagination.

3.) To save the lifes of other people. This is the least tricky one. You claim that killing one man to save the lifes of 10 others is a rational decision. This is again a value based decision. Who's life/lives are most important? Its a matter of opinion, not reason.

I'm looking forward to your response, GT. I'd like to get back to the concept of crime and punishment in a free society again, if that's OK with you. If you can think of some more "rational grounds for murder" then it could be said that for every rule there is an exception, and we can move on?

-Jam

[Archaic]

Originally posted by Pandemoniak
"What is essential to your life, your life or others life ?" This is nonsense.

In the sense that it's a question to which the answer is obvious, a question which should never need be asked, yes it is.

Originally posted by Pandemoniak
* Pandemoniak seizes Camus' works.
I'll take it. Let's defend the right of suicide !

Tell me Pan, just how many times have you tried to commit suicide, hmmmm? Compared to mwa, who tried many many times, many years ago.
Now get your facts straight already. Nowhere did I attack a persons right to commit suicide. That doesn't change the fact that suidide is illogical

Originally posted by Pandemoniak
Taking an example is not necessarly an hasty generalization, and can on the contrary be a thoughtful generalization. You're yourself quite an expert at giving examples in order to demonstrate, while abstaining of an actual demonstration.

*Watches as the bull****-o-meter blows up from the overload*
An example is a very different thing to an overarching generalization.

Originally posted by Pandemoniak
Do you want the quotes ?

I know I said those exact words once. Many months ago. Get something recent.

Originally posted by Pandemoniak
What do you call liberal arts ?
Oh, and in case you didnt notice, I was talking about knowledge in general, not in any specific case. Someone who thinks because he read a rebuttal and not the original, but is still convinced that he knows more than anyone who has read the original is either a fool, either an obsurantism. You're both, unfortunately.

I call the Liberal Arts the Liberal Arts. Don't you even know what it was you studied now?

And what about reading a rebuttal which includes the full text of the original, as I stated previous? General Knowledge matters for nothing in a debate on a specific topic, and my specific knowledge on these topics is undeniably more comprehensive than yours.
As for the rest of your statements......*YAWN*. And you think you can complain about my debating methods when all you can do is try and discredit me?

Originally posted by Pandemoniak
Im not talking about morale, yet again. But things are illogical sometimes.

Kindly make a ****ing point already.

Originally posted by Pandemoniak
Please finish your sentence, you definetly have a problem with english grammar, for a native english speaker...

Again, kindly make a ****ing point instead of turning everything into personal attacks in an attempt to discredit me (At least I discredit you through your arguements before making attacks.). And just delete the "(You also". A laptop's touchpad isn't the best cursor for highlighting and deleting.

Originally posted by Pandemoniak
Sure, sure... Go explain that to Francis Ford Coppola, George Lucas, Steven Spielberg, and all the 70's generation of filmmakers... They sure are belittled by all other majors... As for your platonician exile of the poets, thats another topic. "Any debate on that ? Any at all ?"

And again, this has any ****ing point to the discussion of rationality? Or is muddying the waters so that the original debate topic becomes lost the only strategy you know?

Originally posted by Pandemoniak
Certainly. But I do not pretend to be intelligent, but bright (lucide), not knowledgeable about everything, but decently taught on some subjects, and certainly not wise, on the contrary, I am a foolish impulsive young man. Just like Cyrano de Bergerac.

Congratulations Pan, you've reasonably described me. I consider myself to be both intelligent and wise, coming from my displayed ability to reason, and not from my own judgements of those, but from the judgements of my peers.

Originally posted by Pandemoniak
"slaughter ? " ... "field of debate ? " ... " Black Night ? " ...
Come on, its not AD&D, wisdom is not a sum of numbers and cannot be proven by sordid in which we both spend more of our time bashing each other rather than actually trying to be wise...

And I ever compared this to Ad&d how? Does anyone else see the blantant red herrings here? My symbolism makes not a jot of difference to my point, which you seem to have ignored as always.

Here, I'll state it in simpler terms. You lost a debate. On that topic, you are obviously less wise. And the Black Knight syndrome was already clarified by Cedayon if you aren't familiar with it.

Originally posted by Pandemoniak
I shall be wise and will stop this debate anyway. as well, please dont post too much in the CCCP thread.

Translation: I know I've lost, so I'm trying to make myself out to be the good guy and win the debate by having muddied the water with red herrings, then trying to claim a moral victory by backing out.

I just have one thing to say to that Pan.

CONCESSION ACCEPTED.

[GeneralTacticus]

OK. I hypothesise that murder is always an irrational act. You disagree, and claim that in some situations a rational justification for murder can be found, namely to preserve one's own life, to preserve the life of others or to make a profit. I've just read back over the thread and I think this is correct?

You are correct as to our positions (mine, anyway; you're the only one who can confirm yours).

We can both agree, that murder for no reason at all is clearly irrational, yes?

Yes. Murder in order to satfisfy some kind of psychological impulse is also irrational.

So basically, you require that I demonstrate that your "rational grounds for murder" are not rational, and then, unless you can conceive some new "rational grounds", it can be concluded that murder is irrational.

Yes.

1.) You claim that preservation of one's own life is a basic instinct. If this is the case then it is not rational to wish to preserve one's own life, but instinctive. The ability to act rationally comes from our "upper brain" functions and allows us to ignore our instinctive "lower brain" functions, which are a hangover from our days as "monkeys". Therefore the will to preservation of one's own life is not a rational decision, but instinctive, a mere matter of reactions. When someone falls over a cliff, for example, and clutches wildly at the edge, they are not making a rational decision to save their own life, they are simply reacting to the situation as their lower brain takes over.

Such actions taken to preserve one's own life are instinctive, yes. And in some cases (depnding on what you're trying to achieve), it is rational to sacrifice your own life, or simply to be willing to do so. As I'm sure you'll agree with me here, I se eno need to provide examples, although I can easily think of several.

However, I maintain that trying to stay alive is normally rational; it is, in most cases, preferable to be alive than dead, no matter what you want to do (e.g. if you had just led the overthrow of an oppressive government, would you prefer to be alive and victorious, or dead and victorious, assuming that this would ahve no impact on anything else?).

2.) You claim that it would be rational to kill someone if you would profit from their death (IIRC, there were conditions attached such as not being caught etc.) As you yourself would be the first to agree, opinion is not part of a rational argument. As this decision would involve the murderer making a value based decision where he would have to decide whether to kill someone or not based on how much he himself valued the life of this person against how much he would profit from it. In judgeing the value of a human life, which has no fixed price, he (the murderer) is making a decision based only on his opinion, as reflected in his value system. A decision made in this way is not a rational decision by any stretch of the imagination.

Wouldn't this make pretty much every decision one makes irrational? Whenever one does something, one ahs to make a values judgement on whether to do it, based on what you are trying to achieve. Usually this in unconscious (most people wouldn't engage in deep reflection upon whether they should shift the coffee table to give thmeselves mor leg room), but these decisions do happen, and they are base don your own values system. Making a decision based on a values system isn't irrational (of course, a values sytem based on something which is obivously false or doesn't make sense is irrational, but that's not entirely relevant). You for example, made the decision that you would not kill anyone for any reason absed on your values sytem. Does this mean that your decision is irrational?

3.) To save the lifes of other people. This is the least tricky one. You claim that killing one man to save the lifes of 10 others is a rational decision. This is again a value based decision. Who's life/lives are most important? Its a matter of opinion, not reason.

Of course. But so is the decision that human life has any value whatsoever. One could argue that as life is merely a set of molecules moving and acting in certain ways over extende dperiods of time, that there's nothing special about life, and we should trouble no more over killing people than over knocking down a wall (Obivosuly, I don't beleive that, but this coudl be argued).

[quote]I'd like to get back to the concept of crime and punishment in a free society again, if that's OK with you. [/quote[

Okay with me. I'll post up my position on the issue after dinner.

If you can think of some more "rational grounds for murder" then it could be said that for every rule there is an exception, and we can move on?

Well, I can't really think up any more rational grounds for killing (I won't use murder, as it implies that it is wrong, and I don't beleive that killing in self-defence or in defence of others is wrong), but I'll agree that it isn't always rational. Soemtimes it is, sometimes it isn't.

[Jamski]

Originally from Archaic. I consider myself to be both intelligent and wise, coming from my displayed ability to reason, and not from my own judgements of those, but from the judgements of my peers.

You really shouldn't encourage him.

-Jam

[Jamski]

Some good points GT.

I'm still not convinced that preservation of one's own life is rational and not merely instinctive. You use the argument that it is "better to be alive than dead", but the use of the word better to compare something known with something completely unknown is not, IMHO, rational. It could also be argued that this is another value based decision Hmm.

I'm just reading a very worrying book which claims to "prove" that we have no free will. Maybe all our decisions are irrational, if this is the case.

Anyway, I actually have to do some work in this office, look forward to after your dinner.

-Jam

[Archaic]

"Better the evil you know than the evil you don't"

Taking a chance is almost always irrational if that chance could potentially put yourself in a worse end situation. Letting yourself die on the hope that there might be an afterlife there that's better than life most certainly is one of those.

[GeneralTacticus]

I'm still not convinced that preservation of one's own life is rational and not merely instinctive. You use the argument that it is "better to be alive than dead", but the use of the word better to compare something known with something completely unknown is not, IMHO, rational. It could also be argued that this is another value based decision Hmm.

Much like everything else that we do. His si why it is hard, and so unproductive, for, say, evolutionists and YECs to 'debate', or Neo-Nazis and anyone, or anything between two different groups of religious fundamentalists. The values systems which they interpet the world through are either so different from one another that no connection can be made, ro require the rejection of all other values sytems out of hand, or both.

And I agree with Archaic: it would be highly irrational to die for no other reason than that you hope there is an afterlife.

I'm just reading a very worrying book which claims to "prove" that we have no free will. Maybe all our decisions are irrational, if this is the case.

Well, the book may be right in the sens ethta our thoughts effectively consist of particles moving in certain ways; however, we have something pretty close, in that our actions cannot be exactly predicted (even down to the tiniest level, due to the Uncertainty Principle). So, we may not have free will in that we can make a decision independant of our bodies and brains, but given where our thoughts come from, that's pretty much impossible (something can't be independant of itself).

btw, sorry that I can't post up my reasoning abotu crime & a free society just yet; I've just foudn that I have rather more homework than I anticipated.

[Jamski]

Question : What is/are YECs?

And I agree with Archaic: it would be highly irrational to die for no other reason than that you hope there is an afterlife.

I must be dreaming... yes I agree with Archaic too, but that wasn't really the main thrust of the argument was it?

-Jam

[Archaic]

YEC = Young Earth Creationist.

[GeneralTacticus]

Question : What is/are YECs?

Young Earth Creationists. Basically, they beleive thta the world was created exactly as stated in the Bible, with no ifs or buts about it, and if anything doesn't fit then either they're either part of God's plan, or else the person pointing them out is lying.

EDIT: cross-posted with Archaic.

I must be dreaming... yes I agree with Archaic too, but that wasn't really the main thrust of the argument was it?

Well, you were arguing that it wasn't rational to try to preserve your own life on the grounds that it was values absed decision, and sinc ethe alternative to life is death, and we have absolutely no idea what, if anything, happens afterwards, I consider it perfectly rational to try to avoid it as long as life is, at the very elast, endurable.

[Jamski]

Young Earth Creationists. Basically, they beleive thta the world was created exactly as stated in the Bible, with no ifs or buts about it, and if anything doesn't fit then either they're either part of God's plan, or else the person pointing them out is lying.

Ah, I have one of these "God planted the dinosaur bones" types at work with me. I find him intensly hard to get along with

"Better the bed that we know, than the unknown" is not really a rational reason for staying alive either. I can think of no rational reason to stay alive, I'm doing it entirly out of curiousity. I just want to know what happens next.

-Jam

[GeneralTacticus]

Ah, I have one of these "God planted the dinosaur bones" types at work with me. I find him intensly hard to get along with

I had a debate with one in the OT once. It's always hard to debate with someone who thinks that accepting he's right should be a precondition to the debate.

"Better the bed that we know, than the unknown" is not really a rational reason for staying alive either. I can think of no rational reason to stay alive, I'm doing it entirly out of curiousity. I just want to know what happens next.

Well, most of the time, we find the current situation fairly acceptable, don't we? We may want it to improve, but we wouldn't take extreme risks to change things. As we have no knowledge of what happens after one dies, unless the situation is truly intolerable, it's not really rational to give up life, which is acceptable currently, in exchange for something which is entirely unknown and may well be much worse than the situation currently.

[Jamski]

On a subject related to above posts : Monty Python's Holy Grail (not quite sure about the English title, the Germans title is best translated as "Knights of the Coconuts") is on German TV tonight(13.Feb). Looks like I can experience the Black Knight myself. What a coincidence, eh?

-Jam

[Jamski]

Well, most of the time, we find the current situation fairly acceptable, don't we? We may want it to improve, but we wouldn't take extreme risks to change things. As we have no knowledge of what happens after one dies, unless the situation is truly intolerable, it's not really rational to give up life, which is acceptable currently, in exchange for something which is entirely unknown and may well be much worse than the situation currently.

But this is a prime example of a value based decision !

-Jam