NationStates

Purgatio wrote:

Geneviev wrote:People shouldn't be encouraged to do things that are certain to harm people. That does include suicide.

Except your definition of "harm" is "any time you make a choice over your own body that makes someone else sad" which, if true, means you are prevented from doing so many things over your own body and over your own life. Whatever choice you make over your body, someone out there is going to be sad. If you have gay sex, someone is sad. If you decide to never get married and have children, someone is sad. If you decide to get tattoos or piercings, someone is sad. Whatever you do with your body, you have the potential to make someone out there sad. But "hurt feelings" is not an argument that you can wield to stop someone else from making a personal choice over their life and body.

Harm is actual harm. If someone is offended by something, it isn't causing them to actually suffer.

Geneviev wrote:

Jean-Paul Sartre wrote:Offense is taken, not given.

What do you mean?

You seem to be thinking that harm through non-physical action (i.e. suicide) is the same as harm through physical (e.g. stabbing) action. Stabbing will produce a standard physical response in another, suicide will not. It is up to the other to decide how they will deal with it.

Jean-Paul Sartre wrote:

Al Mumtahanah wrote:He doesn't consider depression justification to kill people.

Yet it seems he does. He’s either not omnipotent or not good if he creates depressed people who will eventually commit suicide. allah is a moral monster. Do better than him.

I don't consider His morality human anymore than His Face. A praying mantis is moral to eat her mate. God and humans and bugs are different.

Geneviev wrote:

Purgatio wrote:
Except your definition of "harm" is "any time you make a choice over your own body that makes someone else sad" which, if true, means you are prevented from doing so many things over your own body and over your own life. Whatever choice you make over your body, someone out there is going to be sad. If you have gay sex, someone is sad. If you decide to never get married and have children, someone is sad. If you decide to get tattoos or piercings, someone is sad. Whatever you do with your body, you have the potential to make someone out there sad. But "hurt feelings" is not an argument that you can wield to stop someone else from making a personal choice over their life and body.

Harm is actual harm. If someone is offended by something, it isn't causing them to actually suffer.

Exactly, so if someone gets hurt over a person's decision to end their own life, that's their choice, it's not the fault of the suicidal individual. You are responsible for your own feelings and your emotional reaction to the autonomous choices of others.

in a world as overcrowded as ours, if someone wants to make more room for the rest of us, that's fine.

of course the problem is most suicides are drama queens seeking vingence for some real or imagined inequity.
and then there are situations where the termination of one's own physical life are the only way out.

however much we might regret or resent someone else doing it, yes, it is a natural right no one should be robbed of.

i can think of lots of reasons it would be dumb for someone to kill themselves.
most of which can be summed up as emotional crisis.

and i suppose that's why people don't want other people killing themselves.
i think there's a bit of personal guilt involved in that too,
sometimes we feel, and often righfully so, that we have someone contributed to another person's sense of hopelessness.

well sometimes that can't be avoided either, when the trade off is to become depressed ourselves by trying to live a life contrary to our own nature.

we probably need to avoid generalizations that are overly general. its really not logical to make them,
and yes, logic does and should have, if not everything, certainly a very great deal to do with,
and more to do with it then is often given credit.

so while it is on all of us, to do everything in our own reasonable power, to avoid promoting suicidal depression in others,
we have no right to deny someone else the ultimate right to terminate their own physical life.

Al Mumtahanah wrote:

Jean-Paul Sartre wrote:Yet it seems he does. He’s either not omnipotent or not good if he creates depressed people who will eventually commit suicide. allah is a moral monster. Do better than him.

I don't consider His morality human anymore than His Face. A praying mantis is moral to eat her mate. God and humans and bugs are different.

Then what does it mean to follow his moral code if he himself can’t follow it?

Jean-Paul Sartre wrote:

Geneviev wrote:What do you mean?

You seem to be thinking that harm through non-physical action (i.e. suicide) is the same as harm through physical (e.g. stabbing) action. Stabbing will produce a standard physical response in another, suicide will not. It is up to the other to decide how they will deal with it.

If someone can decide how they feel about losing their child or their friend to suicide, then they didn't really care about that person.

Geneviev wrote:

Jean-Paul Sartre wrote:You seem to be thinking that harm through non-physical action (i.e. suicide) is the same as harm through physical (e.g. stabbing) action. Stabbing will produce a standard physical response in another, suicide will not. It is up to the other to decide how they will deal with it.

If someone can decide how they feel about losing their child or their friend to suicide, then they didn't really care about that person.

It’s not that they can decide to feel, it’s that it’s not an attack.

Jean-Paul Sartre wrote:

Al Mumtahanah wrote:I don't consider His morality human anymore than His Face. A praying mantis is moral to eat her mate. God and humans and bugs are different.

Then what does it mean to follow his moral code if he himself can’t follow it?

His here means the one He set out for us. Which is different than that for bugs (bugs are Muslims too in Islam but in their own way).

Al Mumtahanah wrote:

Jean-Paul Sartre wrote:Yet it seems he does. He’s either not omnipotent or not good if he creates depressed people who will eventually commit suicide. allah is a moral monster. Do better than him.

I don't consider His morality human anymore than His Face. A praying mantis is moral to eat her mate. God and humans and bugs are different.

Praying mantises don't have advanced enough cognitive abilities to develop ethics and morality (that's the job of their sister clade). And for someone with higher cognitive abilities than humans (i.e., god). they should at least be held to our standards of ethics. Much like how we are also expected to not eat our partners.

Al Mumtahanah wrote:

Jean-Paul Sartre wrote:Then what does it mean to follow his moral code if he himself can’t follow it?

His here means the one He set out for us. Which is different than that for bugs (bugs are Muslims too in Islam but in their own way).

Why should we consider him good or worth following, then?

Jean-Paul Sartre wrote:

Geneviev wrote:If someone can decide how they feel about losing their child or their friend to suicide, then they didn't really care about that person.

It’s not that they can decide to feel, it’s that it’s not an attack.

It's not an attack, but it is definitely immoral. It's not God's will.

Geneviev wrote:

Jean-Paul Sartre wrote:It’s not that they can decide to feel, it’s that it’s not an attack.

It's not an attack, but it is definitely immoral. It's not God's will.

We’ve talked for long enough that you know why that isn’t an answer.

Jean-Paul Sartre wrote:

Geneviev wrote:It's not an attack, but it is definitely immoral. It's not God's will.

We’ve talked for long enough that you know why that isn’t an answer.

Yes, but that's why it's wrong. People shouldn't allow things that are wrong.

Cekoviu wrote:

Al Mumtahanah wrote:I don't consider His morality human anymore than His Face. A praying mantis is moral to eat her mate. God and humans and bugs are different.

Praying mantises don't have advanced enough cognitive abilities to develop ethics and morality (that's the job of their sister clade). And for someone with higher cognitive abilities than humans (i.e., god). they should at least be held to our standards of ethics. Much like how we are also expected to not eat our partners.

You're talking about a neurological or psychological definition of morality, I am talking about the Islamic definition.

Geneviev wrote:

Jean-Paul Sartre wrote:We’ve talked for long enough that you know why that isn’t an answer.

Yes, but that's why it's wrong. People shouldn't allow things that are wrong.

Something presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. I’m willing to grant you that it’s immoral if you can tell me a substantiated reason why.

Al Mumtahanah wrote:

Cekoviu wrote:Praying mantises don't have advanced enough cognitive abilities to develop ethics and morality (that's the job of their sister clade). And for someone with higher cognitive abilities than humans (i.e., god). they should at least be held to our standards of ethics. Much like how we are also expected to not eat our partners.

You're talking about a neurological or psychological definition of morality, I am talking about the Islamic definition.

Is there any scientific basis to the Islamic definition? Islam in general seems pretty lame-brained when it comes to science.

Geneviev wrote:

Jean-Paul Sartre wrote:We’ve talked for long enough that you know why that isn’t an answer.

Yes, but that's why it's wrong. People shouldn't allow things that are wrong.

Only if you assume that God is actually an autonomous entity whose 'existence' is not based upon centuries of people bolstering the memetic construct based upon the human psyche that is commonly called the One True God by many religions.

Jean-Paul Sartre wrote:

Geneviev wrote:Yes, but that's why it's wrong. People shouldn't allow things that are wrong.

Something presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. I’m willing to grant you that it’s immoral if you can tell me a substantiated reason why.

I did. God doesn't allow it, and it's harming people.

Geneviev wrote:

Jean-Paul Sartre wrote:Something presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. I’m willing to grant you that it’s immoral if you can tell me a substantiated reason why.

I did. God doesn't allow it, and it's harming people.

We both know the Christian God doesn’t exist. Even if he did, where can you support this in the Bible?

Geneviev wrote:

Jean-Paul Sartre wrote:Something presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. I’m willing to grant you that it’s immoral if you can tell me a substantiated reason why.

I did. God doesn't allow it, and it's harming people.

If God doesn't allow it, why does it happen? A simple question, really. Also: is it not true that nothing happens without God willing it?

Jean-Paul Sartre wrote:We both know the Christian God doesn’t exist. Even if he did, where can you support this in the Bible?

"We both know"

No, please stop. That's really obnoxious, especially to a Christian.

Jack Thomas Lang wrote:

Jean-Paul Sartre wrote:We both know the Christian God doesn’t exist. Even if he did, where can you support this in the Bible?

"We both know"

No, please stop. That's really obnoxious, especially to a Christian.

There’s a context of conversation over DMs behind this.

Jean-Paul Sartre wrote:

Geneviev wrote:I did. God doesn't allow it, and it's harming people.

We both know the Christian God doesn’t exist. Even if he did, where can you support this in the Bible?

“Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body.” 1 Corinthians 6:19-20

Hurdergaryp wrote:

Geneviev wrote:I did. God doesn't allow it, and it's harming people.

If God doesn't allow it, why does it happen? A simple question, really. Also: is it not true that nothing happens without God willing it?

There is sin in the world.

Jack Thomas Lang wrote:

Jean-Paul Sartre wrote:We both know the Christian God doesn’t exist. Even if he did, where can you support this in the Bible?

"We both know"

No, please stop. That's really obnoxious, especially to a Christian.

No, I know what they mean.