• Man saves drowning family, but they leave him to drown in return
    259 replies, posted
we r all human bengs and deservd to have an lived
[QUOTE=Muukkis;36798398]It's sort of a [url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/08/chinas-good-samaritans-count-cost]cultural thing in China [/url] [url=http://www.echinacities.com/expat-corner/why-chinese-see-a-stranger-suffering-and-do-nothing.html]Another article [/url] [editline]herp[/editline] That's not to say that it's not horrible but one must take into account the circumstances and the culture this instance happened.[/QUOTE] not to be racist or anything but yeah this sort of is a cultural thing in China. That toddler thing, other things like this, happen on a daily basis.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;36799229]Personally i'd argue that even if you did it for someone, the end result of feeling good is still present, and the knowledge of that, subconsciously or otherwise is enough to drive you to accept that action, making it selfish in the end.[/QUOTE] Not necessarily, if you give your life to save someone, I'd hardly say that was for self gratification, while you may feel what you did was right and feel good for it (for the amount of time it takes before you're dead) the overall reason for doing it was for someone else, not your own gratification.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;36799180]I'd say altruism depends on the reason for doing it rather than what you get out of it, if you did it solely to feel happy then that wouldn't be altruistic, however if you did it to help someone but felt happy about it afterwards then I'd argue that was altruism.[/QUOTE] I say altruism is impossible because what you do, you do because you want to, invariably, no matter WHY you want to. Maybe you do shit because you like helping other people or because you like watching other people drown or whatever. I do defend that there's no good people, only people with tastes that are more useful and cause more happiness when done and are, therefore "better".
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;36799154]Or we accept and understand that objective morality is only the construction of someone who believes in it, and that there are multiple answers and multiple different ways of varied designs to meet complicated questions and problems composed by nature, an incredibly chaotic and complex thing? Yeah, objectivism makes a whole lot of sense.[/QUOTE] Objectivism = that randian capitalist pseudo-economic garbage. Our definitions for Morality, like everything, must be based in reality in some way. We have to compare our conception of something with the faculties of [I]how we conceive[/I]. Now, we can only rely on our senses for what we know. We can never know if what we're looking at is really what we're perceiving. there are really two camps of knowledge: that which we know by experience and perception and that which we intrinsically know through [I]pure reason[/I]. take space for example: you can't perceive space. You can perceive objects [I]in[/I] space (i.e: this table, that lamp, this chair), but you can't perceive space itself, because space is nothing, but it still exists. Why? because it's an intuition of [I]pure reason[/I] which the faculties of our mind intrinsically have. Compare this conception of reality with morality: If morality exists (which it does, otherwise all humans would be in stasis; we would have no drive to do anything, not even for me to breath, eat, or even commit suicide), it cannot be perceived. You cannot hold "a morality", thus it must be an intuition of pure reason. If we can perceive objects in space [I]spatially[/I], then when can perceive objects in morality [I]morally[/I]. those objects are actions. Thus, morality has it's roots not in the subjectivity of experience, but the "objectivity" (I put these in quotes for it's ironic usage; we cannot know objects as they truly are) of pure reason, and can be logically deduced as such. then we just examine the conclusions of this logically and rationally.
[QUOTE=prooboo;36798170]He knew the risks, he accepted the possibility of the consequences. The family had themselves to take care of now. Sure, it's heartless, but you make exceptions when it comes to your family. Morality just doesn't apply when you're protecting a family[/QUOTE] Alright, so when you save a family of three and you're left helplessly in danger, what would you think? You're pathetic. And what does some basic level philosophy has to do with this thread/news?
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;36799257]Not necessarily, if you give your life to save someone, I'd hardly say that was for self gratification, while you may feel what you did was right and feel good for it (for the amount of time it takes before you're dead) the overall reason for doing it was for someone else, not your own gratification.[/QUOTE] It was to stop yourself from feeling bad for not saving them
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;36799180]I'd say altruism depends on the reason for doing it rather than what you get out of it, if you did it solely to feel happy then that wouldn't be altruistic, however if you did it to help someone but felt happy about it afterwards then I'd argue that was altruism.[/QUOTE] Dumbass objectivists don't realize that altruism arose through our continued evolution for a reason. When two people help each other two survive, both benefit and are more likely to have offspring. When some motherfucker goes out and kills someone else's family for the "sake of his own family," that motherfucker gets hunted down. [editline]16th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=prooboo;36799299]Objectivism = that randian capitalist pseudo-economic garbage. Our definitions for Morality, like everything, must be based in reality in some way. We have to compare our conception of something with the faculties of [I]how we conceive[/I]. Now, we can only rely on our senses for what we know. We can never know if what we're looking at is really what we're perceiving. there are really two camps of knowledge: that which we know by experience and perception and that which we intrinsically know through [I]pure reason[/I]. take space for example: you can't perceive space. You can perceive objects [I]in[/I] space (i.e: this table, that lamp, this chair), but you can't perceive space itself, because space is nothing, but it still exists. Why? because it's an intuition of [I]pure reason[/I] which the faculties of our mind intrinsically have. Compare this conception of reality with morality: If morality exists (which it does, otherwise all humans would be in stasis; we would have no drive to do anything, not even for me to breath, eat, or even commit suicide), it cannot be perceived. You cannot hold "a morality", thus it must be an intuition of pure reason. If we can perceive objects in space [I]spatially[/I], then when can perceive objects in morality [I]morally[/I]. those objects are actions. Thus, morality has it's roots not in the subjectivity of experience, but the "objectivity" (I put these in quotes for it's ironic usage; we cannot know objects as they truly are) of pure reason, and can be logically deduced as such. then we just examine the conclusions of this logically and rationally.[/QUOTE] Hey, buddy. Before you go arguing for social darwinism maybe you should read up on the evolutionary benefits of altruism. Human nature is not "fuck everyone else I'm surviving." We developed society, ethics, culture and altruism because it is beneficial to all of us on an evolutionary level. Altruistic society has a lot better offspring than Mad Fucking Max society. Natural Selection is not the only form of evolutionary selection, and it hasn't been the primary factor in human evolution for like ten thousand fucking years. Stop arguing a naturalist world when you have no understanding of nature.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;36799257]Not necessarily, if you give your life to save someone, I'd hardly say that was for self gratification, while you may feel what you did was right and feel good for it (for the amount of time it takes before you're dead) the overall reason for doing it was for someone else, not your own gratification.[/QUOTE] but the feeling of gratification will always be a large enough factor to call why exactly you did it into question.
[QUOTE=prooboo;36798829]We're animals.[/QUOTE] To that end, why aren't you seeking a mate at this moment? Come on now, you're wasting time, we need to continue the species!
[QUOTE=MountainWatcher;36799292]I say altruism is impossible because what you do, you do because you want to, invariably, no matter WHY you want to. Maybe you do shit because you like helping other people or because you like watching other people drown or whatever. I do defend that there's no good people, only people with tastes that are more useful and cause more happiness when done and are, therefore "better".[/QUOTE] I'd strongly disagree, I feel there is a difference between doing it solely for gratification, and doing something for someone else and gratification being a mere product of it, because they did what they believed was right.
I really don't want to live on this planet any more. In all seriousness though if ever we get attacked by aliens we have only ourselves to blame
I'm at a loss of words.
I think prooboo might be Chinese.
[QUOTE=Chaoss86;36799358]I really don't want to live on this planet any more. In all seriousness though if ever we get attacked by aliens we have only ourselves to blame[/QUOTE] Actually we can blame Prooboo give them aliens Prooboo in a ritualistic sacrifice to appease their appetite for our blood.
[QUOTE=Lankist;36799317]Hey, buddy. Before you go arguing for social darwinism maybe you should read up on the evolutionary benefits of altruism. Human nature is not "fuck everyone else I'm surviving." We developed society, ethics, culture and altruism because it is beneficial to all of us on an evolutionary level. Altruistic society has a lot better offspring than Mad Fucking Max society.[/QUOTE] This isn't social darwinism. This is as close as you can get to altruism without being an altruist.
I'm beyond the typical "remove genitals with rusty cutting tools" phrase and more in the direction of "I hope every trace of their DNA is wiped off the face of the fucking universe" level of anger here.
[QUOTE=Last or First;36799200]Probably drowning kittens or something like that.[/QUOTE] You know as well as anyone that they wouldn't do that. Throwing food away is wasteful.
[QUOTE=prooboo;36799399]This isn't social darwinism. This is as close as you can get to altruism without being an altruist.[/QUOTE] You're wrong. Give it up. When the time comes that we all have to sacrifice one man to the alien overlords, the rest of us are going to pick you.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;36799340]I'd strongly disagree, I feel there is a difference between doing it solely for gratification, and doing something for someone else and gratification being a mere product of it, because they did what they believed was right.[/QUOTE] but what I believe MountainWatcher is getting at here is, you think something is right based on how nice you feel afterwards. say I give a beggar ten pounds - I think that's a morally right decision because, when I do it, I feel awesome. it's sort of like how you can train mice to do useful things by stimulating the pleasure centers of their brains when they do it right.
[QUOTE=Cone;36799442]but what I believe MountainWatcher is getting at here is, you think something is right based on how nice you feel afterwards. say I give a beggar ten pounds - I think that's a morally right decision because, when I do it, I feel awesome. it's sort of like how you can train mice to do useful things by stimulating the pleasure centers of their brains when they do it right.[/QUOTE] If you've always felt good about making the right decision, you haven't had to make very many real decisions in your life. Oftentimes the right decision is something that ends up impacting you negatively.
[QUOTE=Cone;36799442]but what I believe MountainWatcher is getting at here is, you think something is right based on how nice you feel afterwards. say I give a beggar ten pounds - I think that's a morally right decision because, when I do it, I feel awesome. it's sort of like how you can train mice to do useful things by stimulating the pleasure centers of their brains when they do it right.[/QUOTE] Well no, when I do, I do it because I feel I am helping someone (or at least that would be the reason if I could stop being an impulsive selfish cunt) not because I want to feel good.
[QUOTE=Fatman55;36798180]I cant even imagine how that guy felt when he saw them just walking away. [IMG]http://i.somethingawful.com/forumsystem/emoticons/emot-saddowns.gif[/IMG][/QUOTE] drowned out [highlight](User was permabanned for this post ("Gimmick" - Gran PC))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=prooboo;36799299]Objectivism = that randian capitalist pseudo-economic garbage. Our definitions for Morality, like everything, must be based in reality in some way. We have to compare our conception of something with the faculties of [I]how we conceive[/I]. Now, we can only rely on our senses for what we know. We can never know if what we're looking at is really what we're perceiving. there are really two camps of knowledge: that which we know by experience and perception and that which we intrinsically know through [I]pure reason[/I]. take space for example: you can't perceive space. You can perceive objects [I]in[/I] space (i.e: this table, that lamp, this chair), but you can't perceive space itself, because space is nothing, but it still exists. Why? because it's an intuition of [I]pure reason[/I] which the faculties of our mind intrinsically have. Compare this conception of reality with morality: If morality exists (which it does, otherwise all humans would be in stasis; we would have no drive to do anything, not even for me to breath, eat, or even commit suicide), it cannot be perceived. You cannot hold "a morality", thus it must be an intuition of pure reason. If we can perceive objects in space [I]spatially[/I], then when can perceive objects in morality [I]morally[/I]. those objects are actions. Thus, morality has it's roots not in the subjectivity of experience, but the "objectivity" (I put these in quotes for it's ironic usage; we cannot know objects as they truly are) of pure reason, and can be logically deduced as such. then we just examine the conclusions of this logically and rationally.[/QUOTE] Pardon me for dusting off an old source, but if nothing implies the non-existence of everything, how can it exist as a thing? You can perceive space as the perception of non-objects. I'd agree that there is things you can deduce from sheer reason such as A is A. Also, morality does not mean what humans do. Morality is what should be done, even if no one does it. I don't follow your last argument. You say that because morality is not physical, it must be purely mental and, as such, what you perceive is irrelevant to it? Alright, I'll grant you that, but I don't think it addresses his point, subjectivity is still mental in nature. Although I do agree subjective morals is ridiculous, if not for the simple fact that it allows contradictory things to be moral. Or just says there's no morality at all, which is debatable
[QUOTE=prooboo;36799299]Objectivism = that randian capitalist pseudo-economic garbage. Our definitions for Morality, like everything, must be based in reality in some way. We have to compare our conception of something with the faculties of [I]how we conceive[/I]. Now, we can only rely on our senses for what we know. We can never know if what we're looking at is really what we're perceiving. there are really two camps of knowledge: that which we know by experience and perception and that which we intrinsically know through [I]pure reason[/I]. take space for example: you can't perceive space. You can perceive objects [I]in[/I] space (i.e: this table, that lamp, this chair), but you can't perceive space itself, because space is nothing, but it still exists. Why? because it's an intuition of [I]pure reason[/I] which the faculties of our mind intrinsically have. Compare this conception of reality with morality: If morality exists (which it does, otherwise all humans would be in stasis; we would have no drive to do anything, not even for me to breath, eat, or even commit suicide), it cannot be perceived. You cannot hold "a morality", thus it must be an intuition of pure reason. If we can perceive objects in space [I]spatially[/I], then when can perceive objects in morality [I]morally[/I]. those objects are actions. Thus, morality has it's roots not in the subjectivity of experience, but the "objectivity" (I put these in quotes for it's ironic usage; we cannot know objects as they truly are) of pure reason, and can be logically deduced as such. then we just examine the conclusions of this logically and rationally.[/QUOTE] "Our definition of morality must be based in how we concieve our perceptions and conceptions of reality, leading to two camps of morality based in perception or intrinsic [I]pure reason[/I](tm). Seeing as how we can perceive things but cannot perceive things we cannot perceive but we can conceive these things we can't perceive means [I]pure reason[/I](tm) is intrinsically the primary faculty of our minds, as you can conceive intrinsically and intuitively through [I]pure reason[/I](tm). Due to our conception of the contradiction of our perception of reality and morality, the latter of which must be conceived and not perceived, thanks to [I]pure reason[/I](tm), objectively we can perceive morality morally and simply conceive morality but not simply perceive morality. Thus, objectively you can conceive and perceive that morality is objective and not subjective (I use these terms ironically because objects are impossible to either conceive or perceive) and based in [I]pure reason[/I](tm), and can be logically deduced as you can surely perceive that I have logically deduced, so thus we must just perceive and conceive the conclusions of this objectivity and not subjectivity with [I]pure reason[/I](tm). Therefore we should just let the motherfucker drown, fuck him I got mine." I have no idea what the fuck you just said, but I can [del]sense[/del] [I]perceive[/I] the wrongness in your posts.
[QUOTE=MegaJohnny;36799336]To that end, why aren't you seeking a mate at this moment? Come on now, you're wasting time, we need to continue the species![/QUOTE] Who would want to mate with an objectivist?
Prooboo hasn't developed the proper and basic social skills necessary to be a productive member in our society if he's trying so hard to argue this madness of his. There's virtually nothing subjective to his posts...he's just wrong.
I still don't understand why prooboo keeps throwing some philosophy stuff (in a dumb way), it's just not suitable here. Mr Deng's and the family's actions can simply be explained via Psychology. Deng did obviously care about the family, but the family didn't care about him. It's similar to narcissism. Now that we are speaking about psychology, I think prooboo is just too dumb to believe in science, so he just throws some philosohpy. He just keeps talking about some "wise stuff" that we have learned from high school
China.
[QUOTE=Someguy13;36799604] Now that we are speaking about psychology, I think prooboo is just too dumb to believe in science, so he just throws some philosohpy. He just keeps talking about some "wise stuff" that I have learned (forceully) from high school[/QUOTE] With that said, it's probably reasonable to deduce that he's quite socially awkward. You know, the arrogance that nobody around him understands him because he's so "wise" and we're all wrong. I've met a few people like that and they embody social "losers" pretty much to the stereotype.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.