2 things:
The result justifies the means.
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one.
The future will benefit if we just stop paying people to live. And people wouldn't be so sad about cutting welfare if we had never started it...
Sometimes I think that general love for all human beings isn't the best trait to have...
2 things:
Machiavellian methods are usually synonymous with acts that are considered ethically "wrong" meaning that people usually don't support them.
Utilitarianism usually depends on people having an almost complete separation from emotion, and for better or worse this is something exceedingly difficult for humans.
Because this suggestion is both of these, it will almost assuredly never be put into practice.
Machiavellian methods are usually synonymous with acts that are considered ethically "wrong" meaning that people usually don't support them.
The funny thing about calling it Machiavellian is that not even Machiavelli supported it. The work that people attribute "the end justifies the means" was a satire on the politics of the time; the people in charge would justify anything that furthered their own goals, including breaking his arms and exiling him for writing in support of republics.
We're not letting them die; we're just not making them live. That's what happened at every other time and is happening in a lot of other places. Is that wrong?
Since we didnt help them in the past, we shouldnt help them now?
If you havent noticed, the past of humanity hasnt been very saintly.
Since we didnt help them in the past, we shouldnt help them now?
If you havent noticed, the past of humanity hasnt been very saintly.
We're playing God. If people died in nature, people were meant to die. Know we're keeping them from dying, and that's a choice that we're making above nature and God.
I think it can be equated to murder. It wasn't their time to die, why should we kill them? Well, it wasn't they're time to live, why should we save them?
And no, I'm not heartless. That last sentence sounded really heartless, and I feel guilty about it. But I stand by it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you put Key West in Loch Ness, would it unloch? My DeviantArt
We're playing God. If people died in nature, people were meant to die. Know we're keeping them from dying, and that's a choice that we're making above nature and God.
I think it can be equated to murder. It wasn't their time to die, why should we kill them? Well, it wasn't they're time to live, why should we save them?
And no, I'm not heartless. That last sentence sounded really heartless, and I feel guilty about it. But I stand by it.
We should save them because we can.We would have saved someone who couldnt save themselves. How is that the wrong thing to do?
Uhh, arn't you the one that said the world would have been better if Hitler had succeeded? Sorry, I can't take this serious if so.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"...But don’t worry, you’re not alone, there are many men like you left in the world, and some of them even used to be your friends. After all, this is America, and we only kill our friends." - Immortal Technique
We're playing God. If people died in nature, people were meant to die. Know we're keeping them from dying, and that's a choice that we're making above nature and God.
Lets just disregard god. Why does it matter? The entire point is to make life good for us, and if we let some of us die, it defeats the purpose.
I think it can be equated to murder. It wasn't their time to die, why should we kill them? Well, it wasn't they're time to live, why should we save them?
Who are you to decide someone's time to live or die?
Uhh, arn't you the one that said the world would have been better if Hitler had succeeded? Sorry, I can't take this serious if so.
Again, the end justifies the means. Come on, the Third Reich had some awesome technology in the works, and I doubt that they wouldn't be able to efficiently run the entire world. A single world government doesn't sound that bad, does it? Why not take care of all of the war right then, rather than have constant war around the world between tiny countries?
Open your mind. There are pros and cons to everything, and sometimes when one side only consists of morals then it's quite debatable which outweighs the other.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you put Key West in Loch Ness, would it unloch? My DeviantArt
What if you became unable to work? Would you accept the fact that you will get no help from anyone if you didn't have any family or friends who are willing to help?
What if you became unable to work? Would you accept the fact that you will get no help from anyone if you didn't have any family or friends who are willing to help?
I mean genetic traits. You can't pass a broken neck on to your children.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you put Key West in Loch Ness, would it unloch? My DeviantArt
Again, the end justifies the means. Come on, the Third Reich had some awesome technology in the works, and I doubt that they wouldn't be able to efficiently run the entire world. A single world government doesn't sound that bad, does it? Why not take care of all of the war right then, rather than have constant war around the world between tiny countries?
Open your mind. There are pros and cons to everything, and sometimes when one side only consists of morals then it's quite debatable which outweighs the other.
So it would be good if murderers ruled the world? That wouldnt end war, people would still fight them.(remember the french reistance?)That shows me how screwed up your mind is. No wonder you think welfare is useless.
I mean genetic traits. You can't pass a broken neck on to your children.
So we should let them suffer because they just got a **** draw when getting born?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"...But don’t worry, you’re not alone, there are many men like you left in the world, and some of them even used to be your friends. After all, this is America, and we only kill our friends." - Immortal Technique
I mean genetic traits. You can't pass a broken neck on to your children.
Well, if we really wanted to stop it, letting them die would not be at all necessary. As long as they didn't have children, it wouldn't matter. I'm not supporting this idea, but still, that would be better than allowing people to die.
Traits like bad luck or circumstance? Or getting injured in a work-related accident?
You must be living under the delusion that anyone anywhere can just up and get a well-paying job if they just try. Sorry, that's a ******** fairy tale. We don't live in that world, we never have.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
There's nothing wrong with "playing God" when you're just using it as an attention grabber. It's part of human nature to go against the cruelties of nature.
There's nothing wrong with "playing God" when you're just using it as an attention grabber. It's part of human nature to go against the cruelties of nature.
There's definitely something wrong, though, when you're inventing cruelties of your own.
So it would be good if murderers ruled the world? That wouldnt end war, people would still fight them.(remember the french reistance?)That shows me how screwed up your mind is. No wonder you think welfare is useless.
The Holocaust was an awful, awful thing. But that wasn't the only thing they did, and Hitler wasn't the antichrist.
So we should let them suffer because they just got a **** draw when getting born?
We shouldn't make them pass it on to their children.
And we're paying for some basically useless people to have basically useless children and live with all sorts of luxuries (most of the stuff us Americans have is luxuries), while we could be giving that money to the poor and starving across the world. That would end just as much, if not more suffering, while not supporting bad genes.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you put Key West in Loch Ness, would it unloch? My DeviantArt
We shouldn't make them pass it on to their children.
And we're paying for some basically useless people to have basically useless children and live with all sorts of luxuries (most of the stuff us Americans have is luxuries), while we could be giving that money to the poor and starving across the world. That would end just as much, if not more suffering, while not supporting bad genes.
What do you mean "useless." Like, actually mentally-handicapped? Like special class and helmet and ****? Something tells me they won't have many children. And plenty of "Poor and Starving" could be in Africa, which suffers from huge problems like AIDs. Should we not help them, since we arn't helping others with genetic diseases?
And believe me, I personally may or may not suffer from a genetic disease that runs through out my family (I don't know, I havn't gotten tested yet,) and I really don't give a **** if I DO have it. Should I have just not been born because you deemed my parent useless, or that their genetic disease shouldn't be passed to their children?
"...But don’t worry, you’re not alone, there are many men like you left in the world, and some of them even used to be your friends. After all, this is America, and we only kill our friends." - Immortal Technique
The Holocaust was an awful, awful thing. But that wasn't the only thing they did, and Hitler wasn't the antichrist.
It was probably our one shot left at world peace.
We shouldn't make them pass it on to their children.
And we're paying for some basically useless people to have basically useless children and live with all sorts of luxuries (most of the stuff us Americans have is luxuries), while we could be giving that money to the poor and starving across the world. That would end just as much, if not more suffering, while not supporting bad genes.
1. If you understood human nature, you would know world peace is impossible
2. Considering them useless is different form saying all life is equal, which you said is true.
2 things:
Machiavellian methods are usually synonymous with acts that are considered ethically "wrong" meaning that people usually don't support them.
Utilitarianism usually depends on people having an almost complete separation from emotion, and for better or worse this is something exceedingly difficult for humans.
Because this suggestion is both of these, it will almost assuredly never be put into practice.
Quite frankly I'm happy it won't.
The funny thing about calling it Machiavellian is that not even Machiavelli supported it. The work that people attribute "the end justifies the means" was a satire on the politics of the time; the people in charge would justify anything that furthered their own goals, including breaking his arms and exiling him for writing in support of republics.
You heard that, green and red.
Since we didnt help them in the past, we shouldnt help them now?
If you havent noticed, the past of humanity hasnt been very saintly.
We're playing God. If people died in nature, people were meant to die. Know we're keeping them from dying, and that's a choice that we're making above nature and God.
I think it can be equated to murder. It wasn't their time to die, why should we kill them? Well, it wasn't they're time to live, why should we save them?
And no, I'm not heartless. That last sentence sounded really heartless, and I feel guilty about it. But I stand by it.
My DeviantArt
We should save them because we can.We would have saved someone who couldnt save themselves. How is that the wrong thing to do?
Lets just disregard god. Why does it matter? The entire point is to make life good for us, and if we let some of us die, it defeats the purpose.
Who are you to decide someone's time to live or die?
WUT?
Again, the end justifies the means. Come on, the Third Reich had some awesome technology in the works, and I doubt that they wouldn't be able to efficiently run the entire world. A single world government doesn't sound that bad, does it? Why not take care of all of the war right then, rather than have constant war around the world between tiny countries?
Open your mind. There are pros and cons to everything, and sometimes when one side only consists of morals then it's quite debatable which outweighs the other.
My DeviantArt
I mean genetic traits. You can't pass a broken neck on to your children.
My DeviantArt
So it would be good if murderers ruled the world? That wouldnt end war, people would still fight them.(remember the french reistance?)That shows me how screwed up your mind is. No wonder you think welfare is useless.
So we should let them suffer because they just got a **** draw when getting born?
Well, if we really wanted to stop it, letting them die would not be at all necessary. As long as they didn't have children, it wouldn't matter. I'm not supporting this idea, but still, that would be better than allowing people to die.
Traits like bad luck or circumstance? Or getting injured in a work-related accident?
You must be living under the delusion that anyone anywhere can just up and get a well-paying job if they just try. Sorry, that's a ******** fairy tale. We don't live in that world, we never have.
What if you did have one of those genetic traits that prevented you from working?
There's definitely something wrong, though, when you're inventing cruelties of your own.
You heard that, green and red.
The Holocaust was an awful, awful thing. But that wasn't the only thing they did, and Hitler wasn't the antichrist.
It was probably our one shot left at world peace.
We shouldn't make them pass it on to their children.
And we're paying for some basically useless people to have basically useless children and live with all sorts of luxuries (most of the stuff us Americans have is luxuries), while we could be giving that money to the poor and starving across the world. That would end just as much, if not more suffering, while not supporting bad genes.
My DeviantArt
What do you mean "useless." Like, actually mentally-handicapped? Like special class and helmet and ****? Something tells me they won't have many children. And plenty of "Poor and Starving" could be in Africa, which suffers from huge problems like AIDs. Should we not help them, since we arn't helping others with genetic diseases?
And believe me, I personally may or may not suffer from a genetic disease that runs through out my family (I don't know, I havn't gotten tested yet,) and I really don't give a **** if I DO have it. Should I have just not been born because you deemed my parent useless, or that their genetic disease shouldn't be passed to their children?
1. If you understood human nature, you would know world peace is impossible
2. Considering them useless is different form saying all life is equal, which you said is true.