The morality of being a soldier

[Sarevok]

Can kill again in the next life. The dying part is that people realize they don't like it to happen to them, something they did not take into consideration enough when they killed someone else.

Nice theory. Too bad it does not have a single shred of evidence to prove it.

Yet a person's immume system is stronger at some points and weaker at others. Some people can resist diseases due to their good immume system. And stress weakens one's immume system. Is this correct?

Immune system has nothing to do with karma. It is all about bio chemical reactions. Some people just have better systems then others.

Well I'm just making theories here. People asked for an explanation for innocents that died, so this could be a possiblilty how things work. I'm not god or anything, so I've no way of knowing it's true. And no I don't believe in a god as an individual being.

If you are making a theory back it up with evidence. By your logic I could devise a theory where good people go to a magical land filled with fairies and unicorns when they die. It has the same amount of evidence as your theory.

No, however that doesn't mean it automatically cannot be influenced by immaterial factors from time to time as well.

Cite an instance where this happened.

Well unfortunately spiritual matters usually cannot be scientifically proven... that's their nature.

Hey unicrons cant be proven. Thats their nature. They must exist by your logic.

As for the brain, even though the brain can hold knowlegde and experiences, that wouldn't automatically mean it's the ONLY thing that could contain knowledge and experiences.

Proof that other things have stored knowledge and experience ?

[Sarevok]

However, it only strives to prevent physical harm to persons belonging to one group, the so-called "good guys", "bad guys" are basically outlaws and may be harmed without consquences, as no-one has moral obligation to them for some reason. My system does not discriminate.

Even bad guys have rights in a modern society. Think restrictions on what the police can do or the geneva convention.

I don't consider that a direct advantage at this point.

How so ? If you dont act you cant stop the bad guys.

However in this comparison you forget the fact that Hitler has also got more flaws then the sharpshooter. Hitler also directly incited hate for instance, which contributed to the amounts of deaths he was responsible for. And there are many more of these flaws, while the sharpshooter only has one: the willingness to take a life. If Hitler had only this flaw, he wouldn't have caused the same amount of deaths.

So inciting hatred is worse than killing someone ?

[Gandalf]

However in this comparison you forget the fact that Hitler has also got more flaws then the sharpshooter. Hitler also directly incited hate for instance, which contributed to the amounts of deaths he was responsible for. And there are many more of these flaws, while the sharpshooter only has one: the willingness to take a life. If Hitler had only this flaw, he wouldn't have caused the same amount of deaths.

So inciting hatred is worse than killing someone ?

It would depend on how that hatred is received, like going out and creating the Holocaust as a result of it.

Also, hatred is enduring. We still have people acting violently because of Nazi actions.

[Sokartawi]

However, it only strives to prevent physical harm to persons belonging to one group, the so-called "good guys", "bad guys" are basically outlaws and may be harmed without consquences, as no-one has moral obligation to them for some reason. My system does not discriminate.

Even bad guys have rights in a modern society. Think restrictions on what the police can do or the geneva convention.

Some restrictions, yes, but they are not obligated to prevent physical harm to them in all cases, something that the 'good guys' do have.

I don't consider that a direct advantage at this point.

How so ? If you dont act you cant stop the bad guys.

Yes you can, but you're to obligated to.

However in this comparison you forget the fact that Hitler has also got more flaws then the sharpshooter. Hitler also directly incited hate for instance, which contributed to the amounts of deaths he was responsible for. And there are many more of these flaws, while the sharpshooter only has one: the willingness to take a life. If Hitler had only this flaw, he wouldn't have caused the same amount of deaths.

So inciting hatred is worse than killing someone ?

I did not say that. I said that Hitler BOTH was willing to kill AND incited hatred.

[Sokartawi]

Can kill again in the next life. The dying part is that people realize they don't like it to happen to them, something they did not take into consideration enough when they killed someone else.

Nice theory. Too bad it does not have a single shred of evidence to prove it.

Does not make it false.

Yet a person's immume system is stronger at some points and weaker at others. Some people can resist diseases due to their good immume system. And stress weakens one's immume system. Is this correct?

Immune system has nothing to do with karma. It is all about bio chemical reactions. Some people just have better systems then others.

That an immume system can work without karma does not mean karma cannot influence it.

Well I'm just making theories here. People asked for an explanation for innocents that died, so this could be a possiblilty how things work. I'm not god or anything, so I've no way of knowing it's true. And no I don't believe in a god as an individual being.

If you are making a theory back it up with evidence. By your logic I could devise a theory where good people go to a magical land filled with fairies and unicorns when they die. It has the same amount of evidence as your theory.

Yes you could, and I wouldn't mind if you believed that.

No, however that doesn't mean it automatically cannot be influenced by immaterial factors from time to time as well.

Cite an instance where this happened.

Not directly related, but how about that Fakir guy that didn't eat or drink for dozens of years and lived in a cave? Didn't they test him in a laboratory?

Well unfortunately spiritual matters usually cannot be scientifically proven... that's their nature.

Hey unicrons cant be proven. Thats their nature. They must exist by your logic.

That doesn't prove they exist, but it makes it POSSIBLE that unicorns exist.

As for the brain, even though the brain can hold knowlegde and experiences, that wouldn't automatically mean it's the ONLY thing that could contain knowledge and experiences.

Proof that other things have stored knowledge and experience ?

Computer harddrives.
If you say the brain IS the harddrive, RAM can hold data too, and the BIOS has stuff in there as well.

[Sokartawi]

I have attempted to split the tangent between Mrs. Kendell and Sokartawi. Carry on, everyone.

Thank you! Fresh air!

[Sokartawi]

Yet a person's immume system is stronger at some points and weaker at others. Some people can resist diseases due to their good immume system. And stress weakens one's immume system. Is this correct?

Morale does seem to be a factor in many health situations, but you would have to show how karma affects morale for your argument to hold weight. If a person does not feel their actions were wrong, they won't have any negative health consequences due to morale, regardless of any "bad karma" they've picked up, and we already know you can't show any real connection between behavior (negative karma) and health.

Normally a person gets nagged by his conscience if he does something which is bad. Of course you can hide this and tell it to STFU. However people that are traumatized sometimes do not know exactly what happened and why they at that moment react the way they do, or are afraid of something without directly knowing why. Can we then also assume that the nagging by the conscience continues at subconcious level, thus affecting the person although he's unaware of it?

Well I'm just making theories here. People asked for an explanation for innocents that died, so this could be a possiblilty how things work. I'm not god or anything, so I've no way of knowing it's true. And no I don't believe in a god as an individual being.

You're simply admitting that your code is useless.

Not at all. Using the moral code does not require belief in reincarnation.

Don't have much time and am certainly not in the mood now to reply to everything, I think I already spent over 10 hours straight replying to you guys yesterday, and even longer on the day before that.

I'll try to be brief, then. You're entire "moral code" seems to be nothing more than personal justification for your own behavior, whatever that may be. It doesn't really obligate you to do anything in any given situation.

I don't see how it would exist solely justify my behavour.

[spikenigma]

Not directly related, but how about that Fakir guy that didn't eat or drink for dozens of years and lived in a cave? Didn't they test him in a laboratory?

just for info guys...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3236118.stm

[Enforcer Talen]

Not directly related, but how about that Fakir guy that didn't eat or drink for dozens of years and lived in a cave? Didn't they test him in a laboratory?

just for info guys...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3236118.stm

fascinating stuff. I wonder if other humans can imitate it.

[Ted C]

I'll try to be brief, then. You're entire "moral code" seems to be nothing more than personal justification for your own behavior, whatever that may be. It doesn't really obligate you to do anything in any given situation.

I don't see how it would exist solely justify my behavour.

Your "moral code" does not oblige you to behave in any particular way in any situation. It is therefore useless except as a justification for whatever decision you actually make.

Examples:

• If you witness a murder about to take place, you have no obligation to take action to protect the victim. The victim is either getting payback for bad karma or advancing to another incarnation that can take advantage of good karma. You could try to intervene without harming the attacker if you want to earn "good karma", but you have no moral obligation.
• If a tidal wave is approaching a town and you can warn the populace, you have no obligation to do so. "Good karma" will protect good members of the population, and the others are getting payback for "bad karma". You could warn the people in order to score some "good karma" for yourself, but you have no duty to do so.

So far, the only real duty imposed by your code is that you're not allowed to kill anyone yourself. Your code justifies complete indifference to other people's problems on your part, as well as zero risk-taking on your part. It is totally self-centered, accepting no responsibility to assist or protect other members of society. It is built on cowardice, apathy, and self-interest.

[Lagmonster]

Not directly related, but how about that Fakir guy that didn't eat or drink for dozens of years and lived in a cave? Didn't they test him in a laboratory?

just for info guys...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3236118.stm

fascinating stuff. I wonder if other humans can imitate it.

Don't believe everything you read. These claims of people who can survive without food and water are a dime a dozen - and all of them up till now have been lying. They are more common in areas of the world where doctors lack the ability to properly test these subjects, but westerners who are used to different standards of medicine see the words 'tested' and 'doctors' and immediately assume that they recieved excellent and objective observation.

More than a few of these 'don't need to eat' folk, for example, consumed their own waste to squeeze past tests; others cheated outright, and still others don't eat or drink...except for little 'magic potions' they consume...for entirely spiritual reasons, of course.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Plus he spent a whole 10 days without any nourishment. Woah, really impressive, if not for the fact that most of Africa does that all the time.

Keep him locked up for a year, no food, no drink and then see what happens.

I guarantee he'll die. He needs to repair cells somehow and you ain't doing that by recycling air.

[Robert Walper]

Nice theory. Too bad it does not have a single shred of evidence to prove it.

Does not make it false.

You maam, are in fact, a three eyed purple alien residing on Mars. You've hacked into our internet communications system with a primitive computer you coupled together with dirt, water and some ice crystals.

Your computer uses "Bionic Unidirectional Linking Language" and a "Sophisticated Hacker Interface Transmitter". More commonly referrred to as "B.U.L.L. S.H.I.T.".

Now, I don't have a shred of evidence to prove this, but according to you, this "theory" cannot be dismissed as false regardless of the lack of evidence or plausibility. Therefore, I'm sure you'd agree everyone should seriously consider it.

[General Zod]

Can kill again in the next life. The dying part is that people realize they don't like it to happen to them, something they did not take into consideration enough when they killed someone else.

Nice theory. Too bad it does not have a single shred of evidence to prove it.

Does not make it false.

oh look, the standard fundie argument: "You can't prove it's false!!1111!!1"

let me ask you this - if you go into a bar, ask the bartender for a drink, and he says cough up some proof you're over 21, what're you going to do? stand there with your fingers in your ears and go "you can't prove i'm under 21, lalalalalala!" or are you going to pony up an ID to show that you're old enough?

same basic situation. you have to provide evidence to support your theory. others do not have to disprove it.

[Enforcer Talen]

just for info guys...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3236118.stm

fascinating stuff. I wonder if other humans can imitate it.

Don't believe everything you read. These claims of people who can survive without food and water are a dime a dozen - and all of them up till now have been lying. They are more common in areas of the world where doctors lack the ability to properly test these subjects, but westerners who are used to different standards of medicine see the words 'tested' and 'doctors' and immediately assume that they recieved excellent and objective observation.

More than a few of these 'don't need to eat' folk, for example, consumed their own waste to squeeze past tests; others cheated outright, and still others don't eat or drink...except for little 'magic potions' they consume...for entirely spiritual reasons, of course.

true. silly me, expecting doctors to have degrees.

[brianeyci]

Consider the following,

Statement A
Statement B

Construct Truth Table

A B
T T
T F
F T
F F

So logically, Sokartawi is right. Because you know that some wierd shit B happened, it can either be as a result of A being true, or A not being true.

However, since this is a debating board, we aren't talking about "possibilities". It is possible that aliens came and created the Earth and made it impossible for us to find this out for ourselves. It is possible that the wierd shit from my ass caused me to eat Bran Flakes. It is also possible that the motivation to eat caused me to eat Bran Flakes. Therefore, when you have two hypothesis like this Sokartawi, apply Occam's Razor. You know that people eat because you are hungry. Therefore, the reason why I ate Bran Flakes, if there is no other data or evidence, is because I was hungry. If more data came in such as you knowing that I like Bran Flakes, then perhaps you could conlude that I ate Bran Flakes because I like them.

You do not introduce other unnecessary unobserved unknowns to explain something when you can explain it with an easier hypothesis. That is the mistake you are making Sok. You being able to write medieval calligraphy does not mean that reincarnation is true, which would introduce an unobserved unknown. It means that you have a natural talent, which does not necessarily have to be because reincarnation happens.

Brian

[CmdrWilkens]

That would mean I have to do exaclty what I'm trying to prevent, someone being killed. Saying it's bad for him to kill while being a murderer myself is hypocritical.

You aren't being a murderer excpet in your own twisted moral world where the alternative is to consent to murer thus absolving the killer of most of his moral guilt and making you partially responsible for your own murder.

That's because you're using a different definition of murder.

I'll snip out the second part of our little chat to focus on the inherent mistake you keep making with your own logic. Let me try to spell this out in succession:

1) Your claim is that killing anyone against their will is a murder.
2) You claim that you will never kill another person in self defense
sub a) A person deranged enough to attack you is likely to only be stopped by what is defined as deadly force. If you resist you are most likely going to be forced either to resist with deadly force (kill/attempt to kill) or cease to resist.

3) If you cease to resist then you have made a conscious choice
4) This choice is to not resist and therfore you CONSENT to being killed (so as not to use deadly force on your own part)
5) If you consent to being killed then killing you no longer fits the definition of murder given under point #1

Since the attacker is now no longer committing a murder we are left with one dead person and someone must be assigned responsibility. Since you have (under your own moral terms) absolved the attacker by consent the only other person who made a conscious choice in this scenario is YOU.

You must realize that the legal definition (and I agree with it) of murder is action or inaction which directly or indirectly causes the death of another. You action directly or indirectly resulted in your death. Which makes this a suicide on your part or you murdering yourself. Either one is not a paticularly happy scenario but it is the logical end of the theoretical structure of morality which you have espoused.

[Kamakazie Sith]

That's because you're using a different definition of murder.

Whos definition?

Murder is defined as the unlawful killing of one human by another.

Society determines the laws, therefore, since society says you can use deadly force to defend your life then it is not murder. So, who's using a different definition of murder again? It seems you're the only one.

[CmdrWilkens]

That's because you're using a different definition of murder.

Whos definition?

Murder is defined as the unlawful killing of one human by another.

Society determines the laws, therefore, since society says you can use deadly force to defend your life then it is not murder. So, who's using a different definition of murder again? It seems you're the only one.

The funny thing was all the points I made were using HER definition (its just stupid instead of fucked up with the more prevailing definition)

[Kamakazie Sith]

The funny thing was all the points I made were using HER definition (its just stupid instead of fucked up with the more prevailing definition)

I find it amusing when people attempt to give new meanings to dictionary definitions. I mean think of what the world would be like if you could actually do that and get away with it.

Well, to me it means this!! You'd have utter chaos.....

No society could function like that....period.

[Robert Walper]

I find it amusing when people attempt to give new meanings to dictionary definitions. I mean think of what the world would be like if you could actually do that and get away with it.

Well, to me it means this!! You'd have utter chaos.....

No society could function like that....period.

Of course it could. You simply change the dictionary definition of chaos to mean "calm, orderly, etc".

[Sokartawi]

Plus he spent a whole 10 days without any nourishment. Woah, really impressive, if not for the fact that most of Africa does that all the time.

Keep him locked up for a year, no food, no drink and then see what happens.

I guarantee he'll die. He needs to repair cells somehow and you ain't doing that by recycling air.

Well 10 days without drinking is kinda impressive I'd say.

[Sokartawi]

You aren't being a murderer excpet in your own twisted moral world where the alternative is to consent to murer thus absolving the killer of most of his moral guilt and making you partially responsible for your own murder.

That's because you're using a different definition of murder.

I'll snip out the second part of our little chat to focus on the inherent mistake you keep making with your own logic. Let me try to spell this out in succession:

1) Your claim is that killing anyone against their will is a murder.
2) You claim that you will never kill another person in self defense
sub a) A person deranged enough to attack you is likely to only be stopped by what is defined as deadly force. If you resist you are most likely going to be forced either to resist with deadly force (kill/attempt to kill) or cease to resist.

3) If you cease to resist then you have made a conscious choice
4) This choice is to not resist and therfore you CONSENT to being killed (so as not to use deadly force on your own part)
5) If you consent to being killed then killing you no longer fits the definition of murder given under point #1

Since the attacker is now no longer committing a murder we are left with one dead person and someone must be assigned responsibility. Since you have (under your own moral terms) absolved the attacker by consent the only other person who made a conscious choice in this scenario is YOU.

You must realize that the legal definition (and I agree with it) of murder is action or inaction which directly or indirectly causes the death of another. You action directly or indirectly resulted in your death. Which makes this a suicide on your part or you murdering yourself. Either one is not a paticularly happy scenario but it is the logical end of the theoretical structure of morality which you have espoused.

You're making mistakes in part 2 and 4 here.

In part 2 because people can still put up resistance that's likely NOT to work, but they try it anyway, so they're still resisting hoping to get lucky.

In part 4 because giving up does not mean you agree with what's happening, it only means you do not have the means to stop it, which doesn't mean you like it.

[Sokartawi]

Nice theory. Too bad it does not have a single shred of evidence to prove it.

Does not make it false.

You maam, are in fact, a three eyed purple alien residing on Mars. You've hacked into our internet communications system with a primitive computer you coupled together with dirt, water and some ice crystals.

Your computer uses "Bionic Unidirectional Linking Language" and a "Sophisticated Hacker Interface Transmitter". More commonly referrred to as "B.U.L.L. S.H.I.T.".

Now, I don't have a shred of evidence to prove this, but according to you, this "theory" cannot be dismissed as false regardless of the lack of evidence or plausibility. Therefore, I'm sure you'd agree everyone should seriously consider it.

However you do not honestly believe this. If you would I'd say you have seen enought things for yourself that made you believe that, and we have to take it seriously yes.

[Sokartawi]

It is possible that the wierd shit from my ass caused me to eat Bran Flakes. It is also possible that the motivation to eat caused me to eat Bran Flakes. Therefore, when you have two hypothesis like this Sokartawi, apply Occam's Razor. You know that people eat because you are hungry. Therefore, the reason why I ate Bran Flakes, if there is no other data or evidence, is because I was hungry. If more data came in such as you knowing that I like Bran Flakes, then perhaps you could conlude that I ate Bran Flakes because I like them.

You do not introduce other unnecessary unobserved unknowns to explain something when you can explain it with an easier hypothesis. That is the mistake you are making Sok. You being able to write medieval calligraphy does not mean that reincarnation is true, which would introduce an unobserved unknown. It means that you have a natural talent, which does not necessarily have to be because reincarnation happens.

Brian

I think occam's razor is a very flawed instrument, which only encourages the individual to be close-minded. By itself, it does not prove or disprove anything.