elzoog Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 In regular economics, if something is damaged to the point where repairing it would be more expensive than replacing it, you replace it.So, given that, what if you are damaged to the point where fixing yourself, or self-help, or whatever, would cost more than it's worth? Or maybe you are damaged to the point you can't be repaired? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RCali Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 Simple. Replace yourself. Oh wait... I guess we're kind of stuck with ourselves... Seems like you're going to have to keep trying. I don't know how to continue anymore on this, with only abstracts being presented. Do you want to speak about something in particular? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elzoog Posted February 9, 2016 Author Share Posted February 9, 2016 Simple. Replace yourself. Oh wait... I guess we're kind of stuck with ourselves... Seems like you're going to have to keep trying. I don't know how to continue anymore on this, with only abstracts being presented. Do you want to speak about something in particular? If you are damaged beyond repair, then wouldn't your existence be immoral? In other words, you would be a burden on others to maintain since you can't offer anything of value yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RCali Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 Innaction isn't moral or immoral. Receiving help from others while offering nothing in return isn't moral or immoral, either. You may be kind of a douchebag, for doing that, but that's not encompassed in morality. Over here, at FDR, the general guideline on morality is: if it doesn't break the non agression principle, it's not immoral. So if a person doesn't initiate the use of force against someone else, there's no immorality. But, again, you're speaking in abstracts. Is there a story you'd like to share? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shirgall Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 The majority of human effort has been dedicated to overcoming one shortcoming or another in ourselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danske Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 I think you can always offer something of value. It's merely a case of whether happiness is attainable for you. I really believe there are some people who cannot recover their emotional natures, and not just because they've done something terrible. Sometimes the pain is too great to revisit. Thus leaving behind a life of robotic dissociation. Even in that state however. There is still the chance to offer value. There just won't be the emotional impetus behind it on your part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elzoog Posted February 10, 2016 Author Share Posted February 10, 2016 Even in that state however. There is still the chance to offer value. There just won't be the emotional impetus behind it on your part. Sure, a broken clock might still tell the correct time once in awhile. But wouldn't it be better to buy another clock? In other words, maybe a person is so broken that checking out (dying) might be the best option. That way, whatever needs to get done in terms of value, can be done by someone who will do a better job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsayers Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 In other words, maybe a person is so broken that checking out (dying) might be the best option. Best compared to what? Getting ourselves to tomorrow is biological imperative #1. You will not be able to override it with rational thought/calculation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elzoog Posted February 10, 2016 Author Share Posted February 10, 2016 Best compared to what? Getting ourselves to tomorrow is biological imperative #1. You will not be able to override it with rational thought/calculation. Yes, but is that moral? Maybe it's more moral to let someone else who can do a better job do it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsayers Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Yes, but is that moral? Maybe it's more moral to let someone else who can do a better job do it? Define your terms please. For moral consideration, a behavior has to be voluntary and binding upon another person. I did not choose to be born and my persistence is not binding upon anybody. It's also not transferable. So you'll have to explain how person X's life could be better lived by somebody else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elzoog Posted February 10, 2016 Author Share Posted February 10, 2016 Define your terms please. For moral consideration, a behavior has to be voluntary and binding upon another person. I did not choose to be born and my persistence is not binding upon anybody. It's also not transferable. So you'll have to explain how person X's life could be better lived by somebody else. How can something be both voluntary and binding? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsayers Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 How can something be both voluntary and binding? Is this intellectual sloth? It doesn't appear as if you've made any effort to demonstrate how these two descriptors are mutually exclusive. Is this taking the piss? It doesn't appear as if you've made any effort to demonstrate how remaining alive has any moral component. Suppose you lock me in a basement. Clearly your behavior was both voluntary and binding upon another person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elzoog Posted February 10, 2016 Author Share Posted February 10, 2016 Is this intellectual sloth? It doesn't appear as if you've made any effort to demonstrate how these two descriptors are mutually exclusive. Is this taking the piss? It doesn't appear as if you've made any effort to demonstrate how remaining alive has any moral component. Suppose you lock me in a basement. Clearly your behavior was both voluntary and binding upon another person. So since locking you in a basement is both voluntary and binding, that makes it moral? What if I give you a pen on the condition that you give me 50 cents in exchange? You have the choice of accepting or refusing such a deal right. Since there is no binding aspect to it, does that make the deal amoral? If I decide to give a homeless guy $10, that was voluntary on my part. Also, there is no binding on what the homeless person does with the money. He could burn it so that he can light his cigarette more efficiently, or buy booze or a porn magazine with it. Since there's nothing binding in giving him the $10, does that mean that giving him the $10 is also amoral? Is giving a poor person food without binding him to anything amoral, whereas giving him food under the condition that he listens to a 1 hour sermon about Jesus (i.e. he is BOUND by that) moral? I really don't see how "voluntary and binding on another person" works as a moral system. Please explain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsayers Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Well since you refuse to qualify how just remaining alive has a moral component, I guess that means we're even Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elzoog Posted February 10, 2016 Author Share Posted February 10, 2016 Well since you refuse to qualify how just remaining alive has a moral component, I guess that means we're even If you think it doesn't, then that answers my question doesn't it? So there is no moral component to deciding to stay alive, or deciding to exit out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RCali Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Your body and your life are your own property. You can morally do whatever you please with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts