[helene_t]

mike777, on Mar 21 2007, 10:56 PM, said:

helene_t, on Mar 21 2007, 06:24 AM, said:

mike777, on Mar 21 2007, 06:38 AM, said:

A more important question will be what does human mean?

I disagree. To me, that's an utterly boring question. You can define the word "human" whichever way you please. Sematics, seschmantics. Just like other boring discussions about the meaning of "terrorism", "war", "objective moral" etc etc etc. Yawn.

But fortunately, interests are there to differ, just like tastes. I suppose some would say what I spent my life doing is utterly boring.

Incidently, I do find Justin's questions interesting. Whether they are important, I'm less sure.

Helene, the question of what is human maybe boring to you but obviously it is not to many people even today. Just look at the heated abortion discussion and debate.

Abortion is a down-to-Earth problem. I'm not sure if I'd call it "interesting" but it's certainly important (unless one lives in Europe in which case the debate is mood).

What is boring is semantics. Or rather: mixing up semantics and real issues in some kind of ratatouille discussion which nobody knows what is about.

Pure semantic discussions (when appreciated as such and not confused with real issues) can be nice intelectual chalenges.

[helene_t]

Codo, on Mar 22 2007, 12:01 AM, said:

4. If you are an atheist, who not even believe in ethical standards, you must choose your own fate.

(Edit: I misunderstood what Roland said. The below is not so relevant to this discussion, then)

Everybody has some limited influence on their own fate. Fatalists may perceive not to have it, and the slave may have less influence on his own fate than Robinson Cruso has on his, but this has nothing to do with ethical standards, or with atheism for that matter.

The word "even" suggests (to me) that atheists are less ethical than religious people. I have no idea why that would be so in general. You may live in a region dominated by religious communities with high ethical standards and atheists with lower standards, but it may be the opposite in other areas.

The filosopher Soeren Kirkegaard argued that ethical thinking was something opposed to religious thinking. You may disagree, or you may think that such ivory-tower filosophy is irelevant to practical moral judgement, but Kirkegaard happens to be one of the most-cited scholars on Christian morality. And he was a devote Christian himself.

The word "ethics" actually does have meaning, or at least it should have or otherwise it'll better be scrapped from dictionaries. But very often it's used as a kind of buzz-word: if you lack arguments against something, you just call it unethical.

By the same token, you might say:
"If you're a string theory proponent who desn't even believe in ethical standards ...."
"If you're a Keynesian who desn't even believe in ethical standards ...."
"If you're an NFB player who desn't even believe in ethical standards ...."
"If you're an (insert some belief which you happen not to have yourself) who desn't even believe in ethical standards ...."

This post has been edited by helene_t: 2007-March-22, 06:01

[helene_t]

Jlall, on Mar 22 2007, 12:58 AM, said:

For those who say for whatever reason they wouldn't want to live forever if possible even without deteriorating due to aging (most common reason seemed to be boredom), what if someone told you they were bored with life and ready to die? What if this person was 100 years old? What if they were 50? What if they were a teenager? Would you be willing to accept that this could be possible as it would be for you were your age to approach infinity? Presumably it is personal at what point in life you decide you're too bored to live it or too tired of losing loved ones and are ready to call it quits.

This is obviously not adressed to me. Anyway, I'll give my 2 Eurocents (which is almost three dolarcents so you'd better listen, lol)

There's the fairness issue, that when I'm 90 YO I've had my share of life. Given that the World doesn't have capacity for all future generations to live forever, it's only fair if I give place for someone else.

Young people are more dynamic than old people. If a teenager says "I've been bored for several minutes, I'd obviously remain bored for the rest of my life. I'd better jump out of the window" it sounds less credible than a 90-YO saying "I've been bored for several decades, ......"

Maybe (but now I'm speculating) there's a Darwinian explanation for the idea that we "ought" to be more selfish when we're young. A 15-YO girl has plenty of reproductory capacity left and it makes sense for her to make the best of that, without priority to the reproductive success of her relatives. A 40-YO woman has some capacity left, but given her stakes in all the potential grandchildren and grandnieces/grandnefews she'd better think of the interests of the clan as a whole and not only of her own survival and reproduction. And for a 70-YO woman with no reproductive capacity left, her own survival only makes (Darwinian) sense as long as she can help young relatives reproducing. When she becomes a burden to the clan she might as well commit suicide.

To me, the boredom argument sounds strange. Boredom troubles me less and less the older I get. Besides, as society makes progress there's less and less reason to be borred. How can one be bored when internet is readily available, and flight tickets to many destinations cost less than the hourly income of most people in developed countries?

[jtfanclub]

Jlall, on Mar 21 2007, 05:58 PM, said:

Good discussion so far...

A followup question...

For those who say for whatever reason they wouldn't want to live forever if possible even without deteriorating due to aging (most common reason seemed to be boredom), what if someone told you they were bored with life and ready to die?

I'd do my best to talk them out of it, regardless of age, except under extreme circumstances (everybody starving after a plane crash or suchlike), but if they weren't a minor or I wasn't somehow responsible for them, I wouldn't use force or call the police or something. Same as if a friend told me they were going to use heroin or have an abortion. Their life, their choice, but I would hope I could change their mind.

Age doesn't matter, except for minors.

[Codo]

pbleighton, on Mar 22 2007, 07:53 AM, said:

"If you are an atheist, who not even believe in ethical standards"

This is ignorant and offensive.

Peter

My apologisze, obviously my translation did not meet what I wanted to say:

I tried to say: If you are an atheist AND if you don´t believe in ethical standards then you have no guidance and must trust in your own fate.

I never wanted to say that all atheist have no ethical standards. That would be sheer nonsense and surely ignorant an offensive.

I am ignorant and offensive sometimes but this was not at all meant as it was understood. My apologiszes for that.

[Fluffy]

I accept anyone as he is, if he wants to die at 10 since he is young enough to learn and listen I will try to convince him, but I won't put myself on his way to 'freedom' (Even when I am sure that is not the way)

For anyone above 30 I'll just leave them alone.

[pbleighton]

"I am ignorant and offensive sometimes but this was not at all meant as it was understood. My apologiszes for that."

I accept your apology. I probably overreacted, but I hear and read this kind of thing a lot.

Peter

[h2osmom]

Interesting discussion here. There are a lot of reasons for mortality. Without it, there wouldn't necessarily be as much reason for pushing oneself; afterall, there is always tomorrow. Also, life wouldn't be as precious as it is. We take for granted what has always been and will always be. These considerations are separate from benefits of new people coming to take our places. Also, it's hard for me to imagine an ideal age. Every age is ideal for what is supposed to happen at that age. Do the people on here who have passed their 20's and 30's not feel that they have gained something that younger people have yet to realize? And if one lived without the effects of aging, I question whether all those gains would be made. I don't see boredom as an issue; we choose whether or not to be bored. But, there are different focuses as we progress through life, and these would change if we lived forever. The whole maslow thing of progressing to self actualization.............

As far as how long a person should live, I have spent my adult life working with critically ill children and their families. I have come to believe that although it is sad when a child dies, it's not necessarily wrong. Of course families are devastated, and I think it's worse for them than for the person who loses their life. But every life has what it has, and it's vital and precious as long as it is. I see the advances being made on a daily basis; children who would have died just 10 years ago are thriving today, and that's as it should be. We will always strive to prolong life; that's a testament to how precious it is. But there is no entitlement to a particular lifespan, and no age that is more or less ideal than all the other ones, in my opinion. The knowledge that each part of our lives is finite pushes us to use that part more fully.

I know I took this in a different direction than it had been taken previously, hope I addressed the questions asked.

[mike777]

Hmm this discussion seems to have evolved into a discussion of the ethics of killing himself in 2007 of someone who is bored.

I thought we were discussing someone living forever and what they will do or what they are(human/homo sapien?) in a thousand or a million years

[pbleighton]

"Hmm this discussion seems to have evolved into a discussion of the ethics of killing himself in 2007 of someone who is bored.

I thought we were discussing someone living forever and what they will do or what they are(human/homo sapien?) in a thousand or a million years"

Mike, here's the original post:

"1) Would you want to live forever if you could stop the effects of aging at whatever your ideal age is? If not why not, and what would determine when you would want to die?

2) Most would agree that they would want to die if they had some horrifyingly painful terminal disease for instance. What if the disease was not terminal but you were in constant pain? If you would at any point want to die if you had a non terminal disease this would imply that if your quality of life sunk below some level you would want to die. What level would this have to be on a scale of a cold to horrifying everlasting pain?

3) If there were no other considerations (ie, friends and family being sad if you died) would this change your answers to 1 or 2?

4) Would you ever be willing to accept it could be rational for someone to kill themselves if their line in question #2 was lower than yours? What if it was much lower? Is this line a personal decision?"


Peter