Crazy?

OK lets see how ILP handles this…
I think this is a valid question.

Example:
I am a sane person, I have a firm grasp on reality. However my world-view leads me to believe that my actions are meaningless in a moral sense.
Now say one day I’m going about my business; sane, calm, friendly, comfortably living. But then I have a spontaneous thought…why not hijack that car and kill the passengers.
Do you call me crazy? Do you call me angry? Do you analyze my mental state and come to the determination that I was abused as a child and have an inferiority complex which in turn led me to commit these ‘atrocities’? Do you respect this boldness and total lack of guilt? Do you say “No boy you’ve got it wrong”?
Or do you join me? Discordian style.

I would say that your bleak outlook on life caused you to eventually snap psychologically. Wether or not a psychologist agreed with me does not matter to me. What would be important is that you were taken out of society so you could not commit the attrocity again

By your personal view it would be acceptable. By everyone else’s it would not be. The quesiton is who’s got the power to make laws and put people in jail and who doesn’t. They get to decide what those actions mean in reality.

Generally the public do have a voice to what is exceptable and what is not. For example, I dont think there is a very large percentage that would say that cold blooded murder is ok, even if its just because they dont want to die themselves.
And as a genearl rule of thumb, as everyone has different ideas on what is right and wrong, the majority will always be the ones making the laws and upholding them, which can produce bad effects, and there are alot of minorities that I think have a better idea of what is right, but then I’m just a guy with an oppinion like everyone else, but with a few of the minorities in this world I am releaved that the numbers generally win out. Society is far from perfect, but it could be alot worse

you are a potential threat to society…people who do not immediately refrain themselves from such thoughts or make the effort to do so are usually sent to psychologists and are then reprogrammed to act and think accordingly :confused:

You didn’t mean to say that.
The lawmakers decide the physical consequences of your actions (depending on whether or not you get picked up or not). They most definitely do not decide the reality of your actions, that is the debate at hand.
What binds you to your chains? What binds me? Is it altruism? Its imbued into you, so…why do you think its there?

Beautiful.

If its a carload of pushy telemarketers I award you a ribbon.

Avoidance of those legal consequences.

Is that rational in your opinion? Or is it outrageous?
Or actually somewhat in line with your own moral stance in any case?

I don’t have a moral stance. The only thing that makes right and wrong to me is the instrumental value of an action. If I do something in a way which yields negative consequences, then I was wrong. If those consequences don’t occur, then I was right. Does that make any sense? Any action combined with any intent is permissible so long as the context in which it occurs is one which facilitates a greater gain than loss for me.

Yes I understand your pragmatism. But there is not only the physical consequences you have to deal with. I kinda wanna know if you think you could do it, knowing you could get away with it. Regardless of whether or not the action in question is good use of your time.

If I think I can do what? Get away with whatever I please? So far so good I suppose.

Well then, you seem pretty confident. Aggressively so. We can’t talk anymore.

What is that supposed to mean!?

I’m sorry I just mean…well I’m tired of the talk.
I was looking for another lunatic or at least someone who would entertain the idea, but your too pragmatic. No offense. As well, in this scenario you seem to be confused by my question, and I don’t like to flesh things out.

Thrthfully I haven’t read your question. I just jumped right in the middle.

Nice