A Simple Question on Permanence

Oso · Post Post #15 (isolation #0) » Mon Feb 11, 2019 5:01 am

In post 13, u r a person 2 wrote:If you execute a wrongly convicted man with 40 years left on his life, that's a lesser injustice than if he had a million years left on his life

Justify that statement, please.

Oso · Post Post #19 (isolation #1) » Mon Feb 11, 2019 5:25 am

In post 16, u r a person 2 wrote:Does it need justifying? Life is valuable. More life is more valuable. Intuitively, is it not more of a tragedy when a child dies than when an old man dies?

We prioritize rescuing children over old people "Women and children first"

Also women, but that's old fashioned chivalry (sexism)

There is a lot tied up in those statements beside the values of life. PvtUrist's comments on that that are one of them. There is also the long held belief that you are not a 'man' if you put yourself over the well being over women and children. Also, the fact (opinion maybe) that adults (using my own anecdotal life experiences) value a child's life over their own through empathy. "What if this were my child and I wasn't here."

The view I take is this. Murder takes it all. Doesn't matter if the victim has one day or an infinite amount of days, it all gets taken away and therefore both are equally tragic.

Oso · Post Post #21 (isolation #2) » Mon Feb 11, 2019 5:51 am

How about do no harm and not try to quantify the amount the amount of harm you are doing. I'd say that line of thinking is only valid in a situation like say, a wildland fire where they destroy [X] amount of forest or property in order to keep from having the whole thing destroyed. A case could be made for doing that on a societal level but that is something I personally don't want to explore outside (or maybe even inside) an experiment.

Consider this: Through medicine and scientific advancement we, today, find a way to vastly increase (or even not so vastly) lifespan and quality of living. Granted we have no way to deal with the eventual population pressure on earth (no way to get significant population off planet, which may or may not be possible in the future, I'm not a scientist so I have no way to know). The OP scenario would break down as I'm guessing that ALL crimes would be punished by death and the list of 'crimes' would extend to ridiculous extremes. Along with that there would be euthanasia at a certain age based completely on the thinking you put forth.

Even if life were infinite, to control population there would be a limit set in place because logically, if you were born after me and a population reduction were needed I'd get the axe before you simply because I was born first. Even with infinite life the thinking would be 'X was born before Y so even though it is infinite Y must have more left'.

[Note] I'm using the generic you. Not the u r a person 2 you.

Oso · Post Post #23 (isolation #3) » Mon Feb 11, 2019 6:00 am

In post 22, u r a person 2 wrote:I'm not looking to do anyone harm....

You did see the note at the bottom right?

Oso · Post Post #25 (isolation #4) » Mon Feb 11, 2019 6:04 am

In post 22, u r a person 2 wrote:If you want to discuss the point you originally asked me to explain, I would be happy to join you. Otherwise, I wish you luck in finding someone to discuss your ideas with.

That is what I was trying to do. The life of a person cannot be equated with anything else. Not money, not houses not how your day is going. Even in an experiment the idea of 'quality of a life' rather than 'the quality (comfortableness) of a life' has no equivalency with anything else.

Oso · Post Post #27 (isolation #5) » Mon Feb 11, 2019 6:16 am

I'm against the death penalty as well.

And I guess you are right, we are at an impasse.