Why the ethics?

If life means something, why should we bother with ethics that other people have made, people we might not even trust or like ?

supposing someone believes it is ok to murder an elderly person every week. And takes the stance that the world is overpopulated, They to do the right thing, and kill the elderly, and therefore free up more space, time and resources for the younger fitter generation.

This is evolution in motion, in progress after all, why become emotional about it?

Why attach a greater significance to the human race, we are a herd you could say, an animal, nothing more.

A functional brain with no soul. What we imagine to be love and feelings of love and charity are none other than selfish emotions at the core. What would you say to that?

so what if the elderly can give us their knowledge. We can use books for that. Do away with them our murdering friend says.

you say it is wrong because someone in their family will feel suffering from what has happened and this is not ethically right?

Yes but that would be your take on life, why should he follow yours? What if he disagrees? What if he lives by his own self made ethics and does not believe that he has to work with others to create a safe envoirnment?

Are you saying we should throw this man in jail for expressing his desires? Who are we to do that if life means nothing? Surely we cannot just decide on what is right and slump it on to everyone else who is ever born and just say “you have to do this” because we say so.

Perhaps someone enjoys sniping at the mentally infirm from a bush or hilltop. Picking them off one by one and escaping capture by the authorities. Satisfied and genuinely happy with a good days work. Why should we strip him of his happiness, when he is only getting rid of a weak link you could say?

Like a rat catcher with an air rifle, solving the problem slowly but surely. Or why was hitler wrong to take this ideas to the extreme if we are only animals? Would you say cannabilism is wrong?

This is where Governed Order comes into play. We live in (for the most part) a governed society that believes killing is wrong. Killing can only be governed and authorized by the government (Issuing hunting licenses, training police with weapons, training our military to kill the enemy). Only the government has the authority to take on such an act to take away life. The question that should be asked is “Why does this regulation exist and why was it first created?”

My explanation on this is that it was first created to keep the order… A government cannot govern if its people are all dead. So ‘keeping the peace’ is to keep control over the masses rather than the slaughtered. a Religious factor also comes into play as ‘it is only God’ who can make such judgement on who should die. It is within the religious doctrines that make the claim that ‘Thou shalt not kill’. Which in my honest opinion is where Government came from. It came from a religious aspect of controlling the masses to keep the Order.

But what if a serial killer may only pick off a handful of the infirm and the elderly. Supposing he genuinely enjoys it , and is actually helping the envoironment, and not harming it. After all the world is over populated. Suppose he does not slaughter everyone , but like a ratcatcher, enjoys hunting and killing people?

Hello

Why is this post in religion?

Ethics stives to create the most equality and take emotions and religion away from any situtaion.

They have every right to believe this but they better not act on it. While their stance of the overpopulation of the world could be helped by killing off old people to better the community you must also put equal consideration of interest. This does not give equal interest to the older community.

Living by your own self made ethics is fine but you must not break the law. Plus ethics really isn’t an individual thing. Because anybody who thinks they can justify harm through ethics is a moron and can easily be disproven.

This thread should be moved to somewhere else.

EZ$

I suppose because it may lead up to a philosophical/religious discussion.

Whos law, what makes them right? Why not break it, law for what, animals, evolved apes?

Why should it not be an individual thing if someone prefers living as an individual?

How would you disprove that justifying harm through ethics is wrong?

Well, we know suffering is real. Life may not mean anything but we do know that suffering is now. Ethics help to prevent suffering and that means that the ethical are trying to make things as good as they can while it is all lasting.

This takes us back to the term of, You say potato I say potato… What I mean by this is if you put 4 people in the same room and 3 say the walls are Red but the 4th says the walls are Blue it is correct with the majority of persons in the room. The same goes for this thread,

Even if someone believes that it is good and morally just it doesn’t mean that it is Correct to the majority. The majority will always have the power and always have the masses controlled, even if a select few believe their cause is right. Maybe their cause is right, maybe not. But regardless it is the majority that says it is wrong.

But if someone enjoys the buzz of making others suffer?

Hi

I figured it out.

This belongs in Mundane Babble.

EZ$

So we should,nt follow ethics made by the majority because it essentially boils down to the sheer numbers of them bullying the rest into submission?

Easy, it does,nt. Lets just go with the flow.

We attach emotion to it because that is what we do. We are emotional beasts.

Iron

Yes in respone to your question. Culturally in our society it is not Legal nor is it the norm of our society to go out and kill people. Should you have a point to this thread please make it quick because its really boiling down to nothing quick. The point I’m trying to make in this is that just because someone believes something to be good does not make it good, (I believe thats what you’re trying to say but in the sense of just because its Bad (in the majority) doesn’t make it bad) The sense of Good and Bad has not been a singular judgement in the sense of history. It has always been the majorities rule. It has always been the doctrines of Religion that has persuaded our cultures path in certain directions and has “morally” guided us to see Good and Bad as we see it today. 'Nough said… The arguement of Good vs. Evil is a touchy subject in which has no end much like many other topics. If you have a good arguement please show it.

Iron Dog,

Will you go first?

Shalom

Iron Dog, the problem with your statement is not the knowledge in which your posing but the lack of acknowledgement to the common sense of Man. Everyone (unless growing up in a violent society where that is acceptable) will grow to strive for peace (ironically creating chaos in the middle). We as a society seek life not death but in the irony of it all we die naturally. Your statement in your beginning of the post makes for a statement not a question or logical theory. You must pose your question as a question not a “This is how it is”. Don’t take this as an attack because its not, its just that your trying to prove what you haven’t tried explaining fully.

Our emotions, including the emotional attachment to loved ones, is a functional biological/evolutionary trait. If you care for your family group/mate/offspring, they are less likely to be eaten by lions because you (and others) will be looking out for them.
It’s about survival and the replication of life at it’s core.

The fact that logically, ridding the world of crack addicts/the infirm/the very old/etc makes sense, the fact’s that:
A:Most people don’t know how to think clearly or employ logic.
and
B: the overwhelming majority (barring the mentally ill) is subject to the human emotional response of love/protectiveness, just as the same overwhelming majority will blink if a bug lands on their eye.

  • Will insure a society, built for humans by humans, in which such activities don’t take place. At least it has so far!

Who says?

Along these lines Bob.

Ethics and morals, as I understand them, are ways for humans to engage in this gregarious behavior that we all seem to benifit from (or, we stand a good chance of doing do). So, if we are going to have a gregarious species, shouldn’t that species have evolved or been created with an inborn ethical/moral capacity which develops alongside language?

Think on it for a while and you can get to why ethics exists.

However, why a specific ethical rule exists is an entirely different matter requireing a more specific question. Why not kill off the elderly? Well, in some situations of scarcity, it is incumbant on each individual to limit his/her lifespan and the group will, for the groups survival, ensure that all individuals do not outlive their usefulness. But in moderately prosperous places,it is not an endangerment to group survival that individuals live past productive years. Actually, a graceful old age is a promise worth keeping to insure long term loyalty to the group. People whose bodies have gone downhill to the point that life is nothing but meaningless pain with no more purpose to the individual or sociecty could be considered fair game once we get past the technical ambiguities of how to determine when a person has got to that point.

Interesting topic is this.