I’m sorry if this has been asked before, I’m new to this forum.
My question is this.
If a man is dieing of a disease and there next to the man stands a doctor with the cure, if this man dies what is the cause of his death? The obvious was leading me to the disease, but as I was thinking wasn’t it the doctor lack of action to cure the disease that caused the disease not to be cured and ultamently reason for the man’s death. So is there a ultimate cause or a combination of the two causes?
Likewise a simiar senario but with factors a little different.
Here is a man who does not fead himself, but only when others feed him, if this man starves what is the cause of his death? Was it the others refusal to feed him that caused him to cause his own death?
it was the fault of the man dying of the disease because he knew he was dying and he knew that the doctor had the cure. if the man who had the disease took the cure from the doctor regardless of the wishes of the doctor he could have saved his own life. the man himself is at fault.
the man who refused to feed himself committed suicide.
No extended circumstance, to this analogy because whether he has the ability to take the cure introduces another factor. Lets say he does not have that ability to take the cure because he doesnt not know the right ingredients to make it.
What was the cause for him to commit suicide, becuase no one gave him food and he would not eat himself right?, So the cause for him to not eat was from the refusal from others to give it to him. Just as he could have prevented his own death by eating, the others could have prevented his death to give him the food. Each one has control over the outcome.
Again, if some committed suicide they are the cause of there death because they could have prevented the outcome right?
So if the doctor could have prevented the outcome which is the death of the patient he would be the part of the cause of death, right?
The obligation of a doctor is to save lives it may not be his moral obligation, but it his obligation to save him by the very definition of what he does. But the obligation of what he does isn’t relevant to the fact of cause.
being in weak disoblige you of any act to do because it is the harder man could face which use all his energy to make, so the obvious blame is always on the silent shape who is not giving any of what he carry of energy
Now I’m not asking weather it is right for others to help him, weather that it’s there obligation.
Now, if I can say that it is the cause because the outcome could have been prevented, then the doctor was part of the cause of the death of his patient and others refusal to feed a starving man are the part of the cause of his death as they both could have prevented the outcome. Just as the starving man is the cause of his death because he could prevent the outcome.
The jumper can prevent the cause of death by not jumping, the police man if in his ability to do so can prevent the jumper from jumping than he is the also cause for not preventing the outcome of death. Both of which is in there choice to prevent.
This is based on defining cause by the prevention of outcome. Whether it is the obligation of the person to do so is just a mask to say they are not part of a cause. It is up to the individual to decide, if that it’s there obligation, but saying that it isn’t there obligation, relieves them of part of the cause, right?
NO asterisk you insist on blaming the poor weak mind to prevent an outcome that you feel of yourself as guilty to not do what you can, first you are unable to judge what is beyound your situation of feelings, second you know how powerful is always the survival instinct giving by God to men how this is always what any animal can do, holing to the last hope of loving himself to remain, even if men commit real suicides they would never be to blame it will necessarily proove an extraordinary will who made this exception to say the unbarible pain or to make others feel ashamed or to open their eyes on the relative truth of being alive, whatever is the different reasons to contribute on making the truth of this man death, it is NEVER NEVER the fault of someone in pain, put this on your head for ever, YOUR PAIN FREE YOUR MIND OF ANY OBLIGATION
I don’t understand what you are saying. Please don’t be upset as I’m only useing these for anologys.
but let me explain myself better,
We can agree that the person who commits suicide is the cause of his own death correct? He is the cause because he could have prevented it by not doing so.
So we can establish that the cause is the ability to prevent the outcome.
If the previous conclusion of this is correct and I’m not mistaken here, then we can infer.
That if a police man could prevent the out come of death of a person who also could prevent the out come of death they are both the cause, as because of the ability to prevent the outcome.
Obligation is regarded as if it’s ones employment of prevention.
[qoute]
there is not and cannot be obligation of another over the acts of the one.
-Imp
[/quote]
That is another debate, but if you broke you leg and went to the doctor it would be his obligation to help you, becuase of what he does. An obligation over the acts of you for breaking your leg.
If cause was relevant to obligation, than cause is nothing more than ones employment, or moral duty.
Is that so? If a patient gets ill it is to the obligation of the patient to cure himself? Do you have a job? Is that job not the employment of obligation to others? You have already gone astray, because the question is not about obligation it is about cause, and you say there are no causes? Surely your mistaking as the cause of you reply was my previous message.
When I say cause I’m not refering to purpose, I’m refering to “the reason of”
as in what was the cause and what is the effect. Imp I understand you relpy on free will becuse of your misunderstanding of what I ment by cause.
you are ignoring on purpose or unconsciently the biggest truth of men condition to be i am trying to put in words, asterisk you are thinking of cause and effect to justify your feeling of the truth in judging each man’s act, but mistir you cannot judge unless you are aware of all the truth, if the truth of responsability exist thinking it in cause and effect is reducing it to none, cause and effect is only a weak tool given to a small brain for a survival purpose in a complex educational unvisible world of emotional intelligence ruling our souls, it is not meant at all to use it to justify what God said of slave willing his acts, unfortunately this how evil truth is always the depth expressions of humans thoughts, what made you create this false combination of a weak tool willing to make all the truth of God, is in real your desire to be God in judging by the worst mind who is denying that he cant, as if you are willing to kill the truth of God in expressing so obviouly your pleasure to pull him down to your poor ability to see without making any effort in trying to understand what you cannot see, such an insult to the complexity of truth can only be justified by a strong desire to be in killing what IS, Impenitent is doing the same by forcing the relation between the free will he doesnt know what is, to justify himself as a judge instead of God, let me ask you guys, what are you judging here? the moral man obligation towards God plans to be? isn’t it too much for you? debate on this first before jumping to the subject of your will, what is to be in God plan forcing a man to respect as to make? this is the real tool you are trying to use for justifying a man damnation without saying it, are you feeling ashamed to be as slaves forced to obligations of a master you fear? why arent you justifying in truth of your wills? how can you say anything when you know that you are playing to mislead and hide your wills? what is the purpose of your words? is that being snakes? how is it wise? what kind of benefit it can bring such lies in peaceful exchange of thoughts?
there is a big truth you obviously dont know and i am sure that God had made of his kindness and respect to the depth of truth, PAIN, obviously you never felt or thought the truth of PAIN, you cannot put together a man who is suffering of pain he is not responsable of and another one appearantly healthy expressing both their desire to die, pain is a sacred truth because it could reach the depth of our condition in God as abused, but also to the depth that we are not, so no obligation to man aware of the truth in pain, because God appear to him as all there is no free will anymore, anything that would come out of a man in deep aware of pain will be of God master power on Him but also a truth of nature that God did it is not any more the fake believes of men doing to open their souls to God seeing, it is the truth doing only but the truth, and i want to say so much more about pain, how much i respect a man in painas a hero no matter if he is crying or shouting or keep on hoping or praying all his behaviours vanish infront of me because of the truth he is living being, he is the true incarnation of truth he is therefore the real maker of being he is the only one who deserve the power and peace truth because also he is the one who can think of better world to do
no, I mistake nothing. I don’t believe in freewill. (though I understand we live as if there was freewill and induction worked- but neither is the case) without freewill there can be no obligation, no morals, no duty. without cause there can be no freewill.
there is no logical necessary connection between events.
The doctor does not cause the disease. I doctor could have prevented his death, but that doesn’t make him morally culpable in my mind for the diseased man’s death. It’s not a question of cause and effect, but of ethics I guess.