There is no necrophilia unless you want to imagine so. My scenario is a surgery taking place, the girl is unconscious, and she gets raped there and murdered (painless injection) before she wakes up. The same thing will happen again unless you interfere. But the world will have more harm in it if you do because the doctor prevents harm, it's his job. Gary says let the man continue, he is allowed to do such harmless stuff. A rape and a murder is condoned and allowed to be repeated.
Human rights are not some abstract inconsequential idea. Personal autonomy is important, and any hypothetical abstract calculus claiming that it's OK to trash those rights for some "greater good" or to "eliminate suffering" doesn't understand why violations have deep significance. Here's something very close to your scenario if one of the orphan girls lived, regained consciousness and found her abuser: watch?v=1Ls3WG8kNvw
It doesn't matter what he does. What matters is the crime of using & taking someone's life for one's own selfish gratification. By negating the value of life itself and the right of the person to it (as per efilism) you shoot yourself in the foot. Gary is a "Justice Nihilist" because he is willing to condone crimes such as rape and murder if someone has somehow paid his way to it by being productive. This means that every productive doctor would be justified in raping and killing occasionally.
Before someone thinks that my example doesn't apply because the girl in my example was not unconsciousness, I would say to listen carefully to the real text of what Ben Kingley's character is saying. "They lay the people out. Fresh on the table in the florescent light...People lying totally helpless. And I didn't have to be nice..." The real issue in this is power not eliminating suffering. If you want to stop suffering, thought experiments don't do that. They brutalize our thought processes.
Well, Gary didn't accuse me of anything surprisingly, other than a kind of appeal to emotion with my thought experiment. I attempted to show that Gary is willing to let crimes happen if the person who does them is a productive being (prevents more harm than he creates). Gary agrees that I portrayed his views fairly and he agrees that we shouldn't get the doctor arrested. As such, Gary is a Justice Nihilist, Individuality/Autonomy Nihilist, Consent Nihilist and Social-Contract Nihilist.
For the sake of the thought experiment, there is always an orphan left. It's his reward for his productive work. Of course in reality people with such impulses go on to commit more crimes.
You are building an emotional argument, not a rational one. Yes, rape is bad if it results in suffering, no one is denying that. However, in your very own thought experiment there is no suffering endured by either the child or the doctor. The reason rape is illegal and unethical is, indeed, due to the potential misery caused by the act, and if you erase this negative constituent where is the real ethical crime? Life has no intrinsic value, states of well-being are a different matter.
I made the unwarranted assumption that you were an extreme efilist because some of your points so closely mirror theirs. I see now that I was mistaken. Thanks for the additional clarification. I apologize for not questioning you further before I made the assumption.
As for Inmendham...Sorry, yes, he does exactly this. Watch his second response to Tranquil, and you will see him saying that using Tranquil's thought experiment. He says that Tranquil's hypothetical doctor would and should be given special privileges to rape and murder if he does more good in the world world than evil.
Oops: My noun/verbs are not right in the above comment...Should have read Existential nihilism is a kind of axiological nihilism, and efilism share (not shares)...I think it's clear without the correction anyway.
"let crimes happen", wait, in the thought experiment there was no crime, unless you just mean "against the law" which most places don't have laws on the books regarding Necrophilia.
"a chain is only as strong as its weakest link" Bingo. Surprised that there are no "YOU'RE JUST COMPLICATING THINGS FOR NO REASON! SHUT UP!!" comments on here. Don't you know that you're messing with preciousness here? The nerve of people like you! I now have the unfortunate task of catching up on inmendham's last 4 videos, which amounts to 171 minutes and 92 seconds in total. Wish me luck.
Lastly, for those who think Gary was justified in blocking me for using his name, don't kid yourselves. He could have just deleted my comment. I think it was just an excuse to get rid of me and my comments. It is evident that I used his name with no such intent as the one he mentioned. I wrote his full name simply because I was speaking of him as a Wikipedia figure, & comparing him to the well known AN philosophers; and of course Wiki mentions their full name, so I mentioned his. Ridiculous.
I think the fact that this victim was unconscious & didn't feel anything is entirely immaterial. The fact is that the girl would be alive if not for this man's actions, therefore, he is responsible for her murder.
The point of the video is to point out that murder is not wrong as per inmendham's ethical theory. He places no value on autonomy - all of the value is placed solely on the experiences of a sentient being. One's life is not valuable in itself, only one's state of being is to be valued. Once you are unconscious, giving you a painless death against your consent is, as per inmendham, logically altruistic. Not only that, but as you hear inmendham say in this video, you have an obligation to do it (or let it happen, as in this thought experiment) if it can be done with a guarantee of net suffering reduction.
Your comment that human rights are abstractions. Of course in some literal sense they are abstractions. As I'm sure you're aware, a lot of moral philosophies make the claim that certain human rights are inalienable. I tend to think they have a strong point but it's also true I agree that, as you point out, these rights are the outgrowth of social norms, what you call "social consensus." In fact the concept of human rights grew out of the concept of natural rights inherent in natural law...
It's crap. We can find everything by just typing "inmendham" on Google because he has an encyclopediadramatica page... it's even the 1st result for me. I'm sorry if he has people harassing him but he's not going to get more from one comment of mine which he could have deleted a few hours after it was posted. To blocm e is to stop me from commenting and therefore defending myself which is straight up bs when the video concerns me & I don't do response vids.
I fail to see how Gary is a "Justice Nihilist" for starters. Or do you mean to imply the law is the objective mirror of justice? By this logic, homosexual acts were unethical when they were outlawed. All value related to autonomy and individuality derives from the fact that violations often result in suffering, which is an absolute negative, unless it compensates a larger negative. The doctor did something we consider taboo, surely, but is he really the bad guy considering all his productivity?
In his garbage slander video (vol #2 to me) Gary accuses me of a bunch of crap, insults real philosophers that he doesn't know and understand (again), and blocks me. This is when you know you've had enough. Since I can't comment anymore, I'm done. I'm not silly enough to make drama videos and waste my time like him. He has shown that he is willing to use people as a means to an end and condone horrendous crimes. His value system is monstrous and I feel really bad for those he indoctrinates.
Existential nihilism is a kind of axiological nihilism, and efilism shares many of the same core beliefs. Both claim that life has no purpose & there is no point to the universe. I won't ague about that. However, the problem comes when you try to base a moral code on these core beliefs. You simply cannot devise a coherent morality from them. You find yourself coming up against paradoxes. For example, in extreme efilism great wrongs are permitted, if they will prevent hypothetical greater wrongs
What is the purpose of life and what is the point of the universe? What are you 2bsirius. Do you have a philosophy. A pantheist is that what we should be
while I think the idea of comparing relative values of suffering is in principle a good one, you've got to know way too much information to make it work. you can only really see the impact of actions (under this system) AFTER the fact, which is troubling. Under that system, the guy who saved "young Hitler's" life out of compassion would be more guilty than the man who tortured and killed him. there are holes in legal systems but this idea isn't workable
Please reread my comment. I never made the claim that there was a purpose to life or the universe, and I'm not a pantheist. So I have no idea why you addressed this to me.
As for your last point: "Violations are felt badly by who can experience them. In the lack of such an experience being possible, the actual hurting has no substance." No...I disagree. If someone is unconscious and is raped, that does not negate the occurrence of the rape. (The recent Stubenville rape case should make that clear, I hope.) By your reasoning if someone is unconscious, it would then OK to kill them. After all, they are not conscious and cannot feel pain. Sorry flawed logic there.
Your gibberish has nothing to do with the actual content of this video, which is a direct rebuttal to the claims of efilism that we have an obligation to reduce net suffering at the expense of everything else. Also, your first comment stated that what the doctor did 'is right' - yet here you are preaching moral nihilism (it seems). You can't both say that morality is useless to speak about and then claim that an action was right.
Most of us can have reasonable expectations that, barring accidents or 'acts of god', we will have a number of years life ahead of us. To take our life without consent would constitute an unwarranted deprivation. A similar case can be made for unremembered rape. An individual owns the expectation that they will not be raped and if they are then, again, they have been violently robbed of that expectation. The issue of whether such an assault will be remembered later is irrelevant.
Oh give me a break. You are new to the internet I suppose? There are all sorts of fixations and preferences out there... Anyway, you are intellectually dishonest, because you speak of Inmendham "condoning rape" as in its normal form (which DOES cause suffering). No efilist I've heard approves of rape that hurts victims or jeopardizes their welfare. Cute ad hom, btw, I can play that game too, but I don't need to get on that level.
There is no necrophilia unless you want to imagine so. My scenario is a surgery taking place, the girl is unconscious, and she gets raped there and murdered (painless injection) before she wakes up. The same thing will happen again unless you interfere. But the world will have more harm in it if you do because the doctor prevents harm, it's his job. Gary says let the man continue, he is allowed to do such harmless stuff. A rape and a murder is condoned and allowed to be repeated.
Human rights are not some abstract inconsequential idea. Personal autonomy is important, and any hypothetical abstract calculus claiming that it's OK to trash those rights for some "greater good" or to "eliminate suffering" doesn't understand why violations have deep significance. Here's something very close to your scenario if one of the orphan girls lived, regained consciousness and found her abuser:
watch?v=1Ls3WG8kNvw
It doesn't matter what he does. What matters is the crime of using & taking someone's life for one's own selfish gratification. By negating the value of life itself and the right of the person to it (as per efilism) you shoot yourself in the foot. Gary is a "Justice Nihilist" because he is willing to condone crimes such as rape and murder if someone has somehow paid his way to it by being productive. This means that every productive doctor would be justified in raping and killing occasionally.
Before someone thinks that my example doesn't apply because the girl in my example was not unconsciousness, I would say to listen carefully to the real text of what Ben Kingley's character is saying. "They lay the people out. Fresh on the table in the florescent light...People lying totally helpless. And I didn't have to be nice..." The real issue in this is power not eliminating suffering. If you want to stop suffering, thought experiments don't do that. They brutalize our thought processes.
Well, Gary didn't accuse me of anything surprisingly, other than a kind of appeal to emotion with my thought experiment. I attempted to show that Gary is willing to let crimes happen if the person who does them is a productive being (prevents more harm than he creates). Gary agrees that I portrayed his views fairly and he agrees that we shouldn't get the doctor arrested. As such, Gary is a Justice Nihilist, Individuality/Autonomy Nihilist, Consent Nihilist and Social-Contract Nihilist.
Yes it's one of the big problems of this, we always act with incomplete information.
Yes, that's exactly one of the points I'm attempting to make. Thanks for making it more concisely than I was able to.
For the sake of the thought experiment, there is always an orphan left. It's his reward for his productive work. Of course in reality people with such impulses go on to commit more crimes.
You are building an emotional argument, not a rational one. Yes, rape is bad if it results in suffering, no one is denying that. However, in your very own thought experiment there is no suffering endured by either the child or the doctor. The reason rape is illegal and unethical is, indeed, due to the potential misery caused by the act, and if you erase this negative constituent where is the real ethical crime? Life has no intrinsic value, states of well-being are a different matter.
I made the unwarranted assumption that you were an extreme efilist because some of your points so closely mirror theirs. I see now that I was mistaken. Thanks for the additional clarification. I apologize for not questioning you further before I made the assumption.
As for Inmendham...Sorry, yes, he does exactly this. Watch his second response to Tranquil, and you will see him saying that using Tranquil's thought experiment. He says that Tranquil's hypothetical doctor would and should be given special privileges to rape and murder if he does more good in the world world than evil.
Oops:
My noun/verbs are not right in the above comment...Should have read
Existential nihilism is a kind of axiological nihilism, and efilism share (not shares)...I think it's clear without the correction anyway.
Errata -- I meant to say:
"extreme efilists have decided life has no value"
"let crimes happen", wait, in the thought experiment there was no crime, unless you just mean "against the law" which most places don't have laws on the books regarding Necrophilia.
"a chain is only as strong as its weakest link"
Bingo.
Surprised that there are no "YOU'RE JUST COMPLICATING THINGS FOR NO REASON! SHUT UP!!" comments on here. Don't you know that you're messing with preciousness here? The nerve of people like you!
I now have the unfortunate task of catching up on inmendham's last 4 videos, which amounts to 171 minutes and 92 seconds in total. Wish me luck.
Lastly, for those who think Gary was justified in blocking me for using his name, don't kid yourselves. He could have just deleted my comment. I think it was just an excuse to get rid of me and my comments. It is evident that I used his name with no such intent as the one he mentioned. I wrote his full name simply because I was speaking of him as a Wikipedia figure, & comparing him to the well known AN philosophers; and of course Wiki mentions their full name, so I mentioned his. Ridiculous.
love Mr. Petty.
I think the fact that this victim was unconscious & didn't feel anything is entirely immaterial. The fact is that the girl would be alive if not for this man's actions, therefore, he is responsible for her murder.
The point of the video is to point out that murder is not wrong as per inmendham's ethical theory. He places no value on autonomy - all of the value is placed solely on the experiences of a sentient being. One's life is not valuable in itself, only one's state of being is to be valued. Once you are unconscious, giving you a painless death against your consent is, as per inmendham, logically altruistic. Not only that, but as you hear inmendham say in this video, you have an obligation to do it (or let it happen, as in this thought experiment) if it can be done with a guarantee of net suffering reduction.
+Emil Sinclair Now I understand Gary's obsession with promoting genital mutilation.
Your comment that human rights are abstractions. Of course in some literal sense they are abstractions. As I'm sure you're aware, a lot of moral philosophies make the claim that certain human rights are inalienable. I tend to think they have a strong point but it's also true I agree that, as you point out, these rights are the outgrowth of social norms, what you call "social consensus." In fact the concept of human rights grew out of the concept of natural rights inherent in natural law...
It's crap. We can find everything by just typing "inmendham" on Google because he has an encyclopediadramatica page... it's even the 1st result for me.
I'm sorry if he has people harassing him but he's not going to get more from one comment of mine which he could have deleted a few hours after it was posted. To blocm e is to stop me from commenting and therefore defending myself which is straight up bs when the video concerns me & I don't do response vids.
I fail to see how Gary is a "Justice Nihilist" for starters. Or do you mean to imply the law is the objective mirror of justice? By this logic, homosexual acts were unethical when they were outlawed. All value related to autonomy and individuality derives from the fact that violations often result in suffering, which is an absolute negative, unless it compensates a larger negative. The doctor did something we consider taboo, surely, but is he really the bad guy considering all his productivity?
In his garbage slander video (vol #2 to me) Gary accuses me of a bunch of crap, insults real philosophers that he doesn't know and understand (again), and blocks me. This is when you know you've had enough.
Since I can't comment anymore, I'm done. I'm not silly enough to make drama videos and waste my time like him. He has shown that he is willing to use people as a means to an end and condone horrendous crimes. His value system is monstrous and I feel really bad for those he indoctrinates.
Existential nihilism is a kind of axiological nihilism, and efilism shares many of the same core beliefs. Both claim that life has no purpose & there is no point to the universe. I won't ague about that. However, the problem comes when you try to base a moral code on these core beliefs. You simply cannot devise a coherent morality from them. You find yourself coming up against paradoxes. For example, in extreme efilism great wrongs are permitted, if they will prevent hypothetical greater wrongs
what is your philosophy?
Thank you for the interesting exchange. I appreciated it.
What is the purpose of life and what is the point of the universe? What are you 2bsirius. Do you have a philosophy. A pantheist is that what we should be
while I think the idea of comparing relative values of suffering is in principle a good one, you've got to know way too much information to make it work. you can only really see the impact of actions (under this system) AFTER the fact, which is troubling. Under that system, the guy who saved "young Hitler's" life out of compassion would be more guilty than the man who tortured and killed him.
there are holes in legal systems but this idea isn't workable
Please reread my comment. I never made the claim that there was a purpose to life or the universe, and I'm not a pantheist. So I have no idea why you addressed this to me.
As for your last point: "Violations are felt badly by who can experience them. In the lack of such an experience being possible, the actual hurting has no substance." No...I disagree. If someone is unconscious and is raped, that does not negate the occurrence of the rape. (The recent Stubenville rape case should make that clear, I hope.) By your reasoning if someone is unconscious, it would then OK to kill them. After all, they are not conscious and cannot feel pain. Sorry flawed logic there.
trnq, it's called doc dropping regardless of your intent. Quit being so entitled.
Your gibberish has nothing to do with the actual content of this video, which is a direct rebuttal to the claims of efilism that we have an obligation to reduce net suffering at the expense of everything else.
Also, your first comment stated that what the doctor did 'is right' - yet here you are preaching moral nihilism (it seems). You can't both say that morality is useless to speak about and then claim that an action was right.
Most of us can have reasonable expectations that, barring accidents or 'acts of god', we will have a number of years life ahead of us. To take our life without consent would constitute an unwarranted deprivation. A similar case can be made for unremembered rape. An individual owns the expectation that they will not be raped and if they are then, again, they have been violently robbed of that expectation. The issue of whether such an assault will be remembered later is irrelevant.
Oh give me a break. You are new to the internet I suppose? There are all sorts of fixations and preferences out there... Anyway, you are intellectually dishonest, because you speak of Inmendham "condoning rape" as in its normal form (which DOES cause suffering). No efilist I've heard approves of rape that hurts victims or jeopardizes their welfare. Cute ad hom, btw, I can play that game too, but I don't need to get on that level.