The moral issues of killing

[krazykidd]

Well i'm horribly biased , so don't quote me on being a horrible person . But age is an important factor for me . Kid vs 35+year old , i choose the kid . Kid vs 34-year old , i choose the adult .Taking that into account ( yes i'm still a horrible person ) if, one is female and the other is male i choose the female . If both are male or both or female , i take the adult assuming they are under their mid 30s.

So to recap in order of importance .

Kid > 35+ year old
Female > male
Kid < less than 35 years old

EDIT: That's assuming both are in perfect health , god help them if either one has so much as a cold .

 

[Jonluw]

Fundamentally, I'm okay with killing fetuses in the early stages no matter how little justification is given for it. This particular segment of my moral code didn't function with my "potential"-argument for saving babies, which meant I had to add another factor into my calculating of the morality of killing, namely "brain complexity" (or rather, mind complexity).
Their capabilities, as I explained to Hagi, don't really factor into the ethics of it to me.

And evidently you didn't get my point, which is that unless you're the one who's actually deciding on the abortion, i.e. the pregnant female, then your opinion doesn't matter a damn, nor do you have any right to express any opinion on the matter without becoming a bully trying to inflict your moral framework on someone who is in a very vulnerable position.

Aside from the pregnancy and the birth itself (and potentially breastfeeding), the father's life is equally affected by the birth of a child as the mother's.
Yes, the mother is affected a significant deal more, but that doesn't mean the father isn't affected at all.

Nor are my morals irrelevant. Just because my life isn't affected by Joseph Fritzl torturing his family, that doesn't mean I can't make the judgement that what he did was morally reprehensible.

I need to establish a code of morals that I operate from, and this includes what forms of life I consider acceptable to kill.

But the question was, what rights fetuses should have. According to your logic, they have a 'mind', and that definition of a 'mind' you gave applies to flatworms too.

But now you're bringing in how good the mind is forming abstract thoughts.

I don't get where you got the question "what rights fetuses should have" from, but okay.
They do have a mind.
As do flatworms.
Neither are very complex, but fetuses have a potential to develop that flatworms do not, so their minds are worth more to me.

I just explained to you that I don't think having a mind in any way gives you a particular sturdy right to life.

 

[White Lightning]

I think it depends on what mood I'm in. I mean I fucking hate kids, but on some occasions I see one and go "Well that's kind of cute".

On the Other hand adults are assholes... but then again kids grow up to be assholes...

Hell I say kill em both, and laugh while you do it!

 

[Hagi]

I guess what I don't understand is why you believe capability has anything to do with how deserving someone is of being rescued when this capability does not factor into them being able to escape their fate.
The way I see it, how capable someone is only matters to my decision on whether to save them or not if their capability somehow provides some sort of probability that they will get out of it on their own. Otherwise, in my mind, capability means nothing to or fro'.

I guess there's a point where things boil down to personal beliefs. I'm not claiming some sort of intellectual superiority on this issue, but this is what I believe. I think the capability to understand, accept and come to terms with a given disastrous situation is relevant. Certainly not the only relevant factor but still important.

But I'm not sure I can give some sort of scientific substantiation for it, I think it's best to simply say that it's what I believe in.

So could we put it like this:
You do not wish to cause harm to a mind of your own species with potential to become a greater mind.
Before the point where the mind is sentient, terminating the mind's existence doesn't really cause it any displeasure and doesn't remove anything particularly meaningful from our species at all, so it isn't particularly bad to kill it?

Something like that yeah, although I don't think I'd have phrased it quite like that.

I don't really wish to cause harm to any mind though without reason. And I would harm any mind given sufficient reason. But the amount of reason needed is very much dependent on where it ranks on the spectrum of sentience and sapience and the potential is has.

A human being ranks at the top. Unless they're actively trying to kill someone else they shouldn't be killed.
A fetus somewhere in the middle. Unless it can reasonably be argued that they'd be a detriment to the mother's own life they shouldn't be killed.
A mosquito near the bottom. Unless it's being annoying it shouldn't be killed.

You know, I've been thinking, and it seems to me that sentience simply can be reduced to "a mind's ability to pick up information from its surroundings", i.e., "having senses" and sapience is simply a measure of how good you are at problem solving and logical reasoning.
While sentient vs. non-sentient seems a distinction that's possible to make, sapient vs. non-sapient I don't think makes any sense at all since the purpose of a brain in the first place is to analyze, and control its body accordingly, i.e., I'd say sapience might be an inherent quality in all minds, simply to differing degrees.
'Sapient' to me, means simply "what a mind is".
The way we use the word 'sapient' commonly though, strikes me as actually meaning "has a decent amount of sapience". Considering that there is no offical definition of what "a decent amount" of sapience is, that means something being defined as sapient or not is simply up to the observer's definition of how much a decent amount is.

I don't think it's just analyzing and controlling accordingly for sapience. There's a requirement for there to be abstract thinking of some level, of association of those abstract concepts with real ones etc. There has to be an internal representation of the outside world if that makes sense. It can be extremely simple but it should still be there.

I know that that's terribly vague and I fully agree that it's completely dependent on the observer's definition but I think it's all we have. So we should engage in civil discussion with one another and research the topic as much as we're able to come to the best conclusion we're capable of. I can't really make any more out of it than that.

 

[Lieju]

But the question was, what rights fetuses should have. According to your logic, they have a 'mind', and that definition of a 'mind' you gave applies to flatworms too.

But now you're bringing in how good the mind is forming abstract thoughts.

I don't get where you got the question "what rights fetuses should have" from, but okay.
They do have a mind.
As do flatworms.
Neither are very complex, but fetuses have a potential to develop that flatworms do not, so their minds are worth more to me.

I just explained to you that I don't think having a mind in any way gives you a particular sturdy right to life.

The whole issue with abortion is the question that what rights a fetus should have. Should it be considered a human? Or not?

And now you're bringing up the argument about potential again.

 

[The Night Angel]

I don't think there is any universally acceptable way of identifying whether one life has more value than another. I think that most people's codes would hit a wall somewhere, and it would come down to some subconscious reason they can't express, as to why they would choose one life over another. But as a general guideline, potential and brain development seem like solid enough measurements, I suppose....

 

[Jonluw]

I guess there's a point where things boil down to personal beliefs. I'm not claiming some sort of intellectual superiority on this issue, but this is what I believe. I think the capability to understand, accept and come to terms with a given disastrous situation is relevant. Certainly not the only relevant factor but still important.

But I'm not sure I can give some sort of scientific substantiation for it, I think it's best to simply say that it's what I believe in.

I see what you're saying. I don't work from that basis myself though.

Something like that yeah, although I don't think I'd have phrased it quite like that.

I don't really wish to cause harm to any mind though without reason. And I would harm any mind given sufficient reason. But the amount of reason needed is very much dependent on where it ranks on the spectrum of sentience and sapience and the potential is has.

A human being ranks at the top. Unless they're actively trying to kill someone else they shouldn't be killed.
A fetus somewhere in the middle. Unless it can reasonably be argued that they'd be a detriment to the mother's own life they shouldn't be killed.
A mosquito near the bottom. Unless it's being annoying it shouldn't be killed.

Seems we're reaching some sort of agreement here.

You know, I've been thinking, and it seems to me that sentience simply can be reduced to "a mind's ability to pick up information from its surroundings", i.e., "having senses" and sapience is simply a measure of how good you are at problem solving and logical reasoning.
While sentient vs. non-sentient seems a distinction that's possible to make, sapient vs. non-sapient I don't think makes any sense at all since the purpose of a brain in the first place is to analyze, and control its body accordingly, i.e., I'd say sapience might be an inherent quality in all minds, simply to differing degrees.
'Sapient' to me, means simply "what a mind is".
The way we use the word 'sapient' commonly though, strikes me as actually meaning "has a decent amount of sapience". Considering that there is no offical definition of what "a decent amount" of sapience is, that means something being defined as sapient or not is simply up to the observer's definition of how much a decent amount is.

I don't think it's just analyzing and controlling accordingly for sapience. There's a requirement for there to be abstract thinking of some level, of association of those abstract concepts with real ones etc. There has to be an internal representation of the outside world if that makes sense. It can be extremely simple but it should still be there.

That's sort of what I mean though: I think all thinking, fundamentally, might be abstract. All processing of sensory input relies on the brain performing calculations independent from the world outside. I'm thinking all thougths may be abstract, no matter how primitive. Things like being able to make a connection between a certain symbol and a certain sound might just be a characteristic of minds that can perform a certain amount of calculations and draw the calculations fairly far without needing sensory input to assist the calculations along the way.
I imagine all brain calculations are abstract, but while something like a flatworm may only be able to perform a very small and short calculation originating in a sensory input; the abstract thought being nothing more complicated than "thing there, move in other direction" and existing for only a moment, we humans have brains of extraordinary calculating power, enabling us to perform a long string of calculations from a single point of sensory input, these calculations taking the form of long, stretched-out, and detailed abstract thought in our minds.

 

[Jonluw]

But the question was, what rights fetuses should have. According to your logic, they have a 'mind', and that definition of a 'mind' you gave applies to flatworms too.

But now you're bringing in how good the mind is forming abstract thoughts.

I don't get where you got the question "what rights fetuses should have" from, but okay.
They do have a mind.
As do flatworms.
Neither are very complex, but fetuses have a potential to develop that flatworms do not, so their minds are worth more to me.

I just explained to you that I don't think having a mind in any way gives you a particular sturdy right to life.

The whole issue with abortion is the question that what rights a fetus should have. Should it be considered a human? Or not?

And now you're bringing up the argument about potential again.

Yes, potential is also an aspect in determining how morally wrong it is to kill a fetus.

 

[Frungy]

Aside from the pregnancy and the birth itself (and potentially breastfeeding), the father's life is equally affected by the birth of a child as the mother's.
Yes, the mother is affected a significant deal more, but that doesn't mean the father isn't affected at all.

Nor are my morals irrelevant. Just because my life isn't affected by Joseph Fritzl torturing his family, that doesn't mean I can't make the judgement that what he did was morally reprehensible.

Oy vey! Look, just choose a question and stick with it, okay? Moving from murder, with your example as murder, to torture... you're clearly a very fuzzy thinker.

 

[Lieju]

But the question was, what rights fetuses should have. According to your logic, they have a 'mind', and that definition of a 'mind' you gave applies to flatworms too.

But now you're bringing in how good the mind is forming abstract thoughts.

I don't get where you got the question "what rights fetuses should have" from, but okay.
They do have a mind.
As do flatworms.
Neither are very complex, but fetuses have a potential to develop that flatworms do not, so their minds are worth more to me.

I just explained to you that I don't think having a mind in any way gives you a particular sturdy right to life.

The whole issue with abortion is the question that what rights a fetus should have. Should it be considered a human? Or not?

And now you're bringing up the argument about potential again.

Yes, potential is also an aspect in determining how morally wrong it is to kill a fetus.

But, like I argued before, the egg also has potential to become a person.
And you have the potential to be a killer.
If a fetus should be treated as a person because of that, then should you be treated as a killer?

 

[Hagi]

That's sort of what I mean though: I think all thinking, fundamentally, might be abstract. All processing of sensory input relies on the brain performing calculations independent from the world outside. I'm thinking all thougths may be abstract, no matter how primitive. Things like being able to make a connection between a certain symbol and a certain sound might just be a characteristic of minds that can perform a certain amount of calculations and draw the calculations fairly far without needing sensory input to assist the calculations along the way.
I imagine all brain calculations are abstract, but while something like a flatworm may only be able to perform a very small and short calculation originating in a sensory input; the abstract thought being nothing more complicated than "thing there, move in other direction" and existing for only a moment, we humans have brains of extraordinary calculating power, enabling us to perform a long string of calculations from a single point of sensory input, these calculations taking the form of long, stretched-out, and detailed abstract thought in our minds.

I think it might be possible to put it more concretely in that a sapient mind is a mind which has itself as the most major input.

Such a simple mind as you're describing simply takes sensory input, processes it and possibly remembers some minor things and then provides muscular output. The most important thing to such a mind is the sensory input.

When it comes to human minds though the most important thing, I believe, is the mind itself. Most actions we perform can't be directly traced back to sensory input, there's much, much more at work. There are convictions, beliefs, memories, assumptions, impressions, knowledge etc. etc. that make up a large factor in our behavior.

When most of a mind's processing is entirely internal then I think a reasonable argument can be made to say that that mind is sapient. Whereas if most of a mind's processing is directly related to the external then such an argument would be very difficult to make. And yeah, I'm being terribly vague again, afraid it comes with the subject though.

I think that's what you're saying as well in the difference between the flatworm and the human mind. So yeah, seems we're reaching an agreement.

 

[Jonluw]

But the question was, what rights fetuses should have. According to your logic, they have a 'mind', and that definition of a 'mind' you gave applies to flatworms too.

But now you're bringing in how good the mind is forming abstract thoughts.

I don't get where you got the question "what rights fetuses should have" from, but okay.
They do have a mind.
As do flatworms.
Neither are very complex, but fetuses have a potential to develop that flatworms do not, so their minds are worth more to me.

I just explained to you that I don't think having a mind in any way gives you a particular sturdy right to life.

The whole issue with abortion is the question that what rights a fetus should have. Should it be considered a human? Or not?

And now you're bringing up the argument about potential again.

Yes, potential is also an aspect in determining how morally wrong it is to kill a fetus.

But, like I argued before, the egg also has potential to become a person.
And you have the potential to be a killer.
If a fetus should be treated as a person because of that, then should you be treated as a killer?

Are you paying attention at all?
I'm telling you the fetus shouldn't be treated as a person.

 

[Jonluw]

That's sort of what I mean though: I think all thinking, fundamentally, might be abstract. All processing of sensory input relies on the brain performing calculations independent from the world outside. I'm thinking all thougths may be abstract, no matter how primitive. Things like being able to make a connection between a certain symbol and a certain sound might just be a characteristic of minds that can perform a certain amount of calculations and draw the calculations fairly far without needing sensory input to assist the calculations along the way.
I imagine all brain calculations are abstract, but while something like a flatworm may only be able to perform a very small and short calculation originating in a sensory input; the abstract thought being nothing more complicated than "thing there, move in other direction" and existing for only a moment, we humans have brains of extraordinary calculating power, enabling us to perform a long string of calculations from a single point of sensory input, these calculations taking the form of long, stretched-out, and detailed abstract thought in our minds.

I think it might be possible to put it more concretely in that a sapient mind is a mind which has itself as the most major input.

Such a simple mind as you're describing simply takes sensory input, processes it and possibly remembers some minor things and then provides muscular output. The most important thing to such a mind is the sensory input.

When it comes to human minds though the most important thing, I believe, is the mind itself. Most actions we perform can't be directly traced back to sensory input, there's much, much more at work. There are convictions, beliefs, memories, assumptions, impressions, knowledge etc. etc. that make up a large factor in our behavior.

I consider all of the above to be results of sensory input though.
Just because we are able to recall old sensory input and process it, that still doesn't mean the processing isn't based on sensory input.

I believe all brain activity that isn't genetically pre-programmed - i.e., instincts, the most animalistic part of a mind - is a result of sensory input. We are simply capable of performing such long calculations that we may lose track of the original input.

 

[Hagi]

I consider all of the above to be results of sensory input though.
Just because we are able to recall old sensory input and process it, that still doesn't mean the processing isn't based on sensory input.

I believe all brain activity that isn't genetically pre-programmed - i.e., instincts, the most animalistic part of a mind - is a result of sensory input. We are simply capable of performing such long calculations that we may lose track of the original input.

In the end, sure. Nothing comes out of nothing so it has to originate somewhere.

But it's not simply recalling old sensory inputs. There's much more at play than that. Those inputs interact with each other to form new internal inputs, which again interact with each other to form new concepts that in turn interact etc. In the end new concepts and inputs are formed that are uniquely internal.

Take learning mathematics for example. Sure, there was sensory input at some point when you learned what division was but every time you're dividing you're not recalling that moment. You're thinking of something else entirely. Not to mention the first time humanity came up with the concept of division, there was never any direct sensory input for that.

There's no constantly on-going calculation of what division is from the time we learned it and we simply lost track of the original input. It's an uniquely internal concept that might have it's roots in sensory input but through understanding and learning it become something purely internal. Same for many other abstract concepts like it.

 

[Baron von Blitztank]

I just use this to sum it up my priorities on life:

People I know/People I love > People I don't know/People I know and hate
Humans > Animals
Sentient Life > Unborn
Healthy > Sick
Adults > Children
Young > Elderly
Loyalty to Work > Welfare of strangers (I.E- If my job demands I kill someone I don't know, then I will)

Naturally I'll be missing out a tonne of factors, but that's the basic gist.

 

[Hagi]

I just use this to sum it up my priorities on life:

People I know/People I love > People I don't know/People I know and hate
Humans > Animals
Sentient Life > Unborn
Healthy > Sick
Adults > Children
Young > Elderly
Loyalty to Work > Welfare of strangers (I.E- If my job demands I kill someone I don't know, then I will)

Naturally I'll be missing out a tonne of factors, but that's the basic gist.

Wait...

So right at the division between adult and child someone switches from being the least important (an elder child) to the most important (a young adult)? Seems kinda contradictory in regards to age... young is good but being a child is bad whilst old is bad but being an adult is good?

 

[Subscriptism]

The mathematician in me is screaming "Label the fucking vertical axis!"

 

[Lieju]

But the question was, what rights fetuses should have. According to your logic, they have a 'mind', and that definition of a 'mind' you gave applies to flatworms too.

But now you're bringing in how good the mind is forming abstract thoughts.

I don't get where you got the question "what rights fetuses should have" from, but okay.
They do have a mind.
As do flatworms.
Neither are very complex, but fetuses have a potential to develop that flatworms do not, so their minds are worth more to me.

I just explained to you that I don't think having a mind in any way gives you a particular sturdy right to life.

The whole issue with abortion is the question that what rights a fetus should have. Should it be considered a human? Or not?

And now you're bringing up the argument about potential again.

Yes, potential is also an aspect in determining how morally wrong it is to kill a fetus.

But, like I argued before, the egg also has potential to become a person.
And you have the potential to be a killer.
If a fetus should be treated as a person because of that, then should you be treated as a killer?

Are you paying attention at all?
I'm telling you the fetus shouldn't be treated as a person.

I'll admit, I'm a bit feverish at the moment, so I'm probably confused.
What was your whole point about the definition of a mind about, then?

 

[Ashadowpie]

i dunno, children are really expendable, a baby dies? yah its sad but it was useless in society at the moment, just make another one. personally i think its when they're teens when they're almost fully developed and know who they are is when they're not "expendable" anymore. it would take 17 years to Make a new one, as to 1 or 2 years if a baby dies. its like a morbid machine in a sense. blunt but true.

so if i had to save an adult or a child/baby? i'd choose the adult.


people need to be more blunt. the world would be a better place in the end.