I'm starting to doubt that the first poster is going to come back to respond to any of us...

Well that worries me.

Thanks so much for responses and for giving honest feedback instead of platitudes.

The post was made before ideation, but I wouldn't call it an attempt as I didn't actually perform any action. I speculate there are many people who would take their lives if there were options which weren't so confrontational.

An interesting point that I took from this thread was that simply because one individual desires to take their life doesn't necessitate that others need to assist. Not only do others have a right to make whatever claims they wish about your state, they have a right not to be associated with an action they might find disturbing. It is interesting to know that Switzerland allows euthanisia for tourists. I had done research on Belgium but realized it wasn't going to work for me.

Less important issues-

A few asked about agnosticism in my definiton. My definiton of agnosticism is very unpopular; I lack knowledge (or belief) about God. I do believe that atheism is the positive claim that God does not exist and I realize that is not popular amongst atheists. I respect the right of people to call themselves what they wish and I don't enjoy debating semantics (although the distinction does come up in debate for reasons you are all well aware of regarding burden of proof). I believe it is possible to disprove things; like the existence of a openly Islamic senator, although the stipulations regarding God make it much more problematic.

Regarding evolution, I would invite criticism of incorrect claims made about it. I made some claims without showing how I got there. I recognize evolution itself makes no moral claims or philosophic claims although an individual might derive some from evolution, but is just a theory of origins. (I suppose by virtue of being a theory of origins it would have to rule out other theories of origins like Creationism). If there is no value to human life, as the Mulsim poster described, which is objective then eugenics as I understand it would be totally valid. Why should the mentally ill pass on their genetics, or addictive personalities or those with limited mental capacity? I suppose the idea that these people should not live is in itself a value judgment and would be unfounded, but personally I find it valid and can thus only apply it to myself.

I contended that Hedonism (or whatever term you want to give it) would be the only reason to live and I find this to be most often the response. I like the feeling I get with family, I like video games, I like vegetable soup. I'm not judging it, I find it absolutely valid for an individual to make that distinction. I just don't understand it personally and I find it ridiculous from my perspective. Something else that I would take away from this thread is a new idea, that of legacy or accomplishment. One can accomplish something that is meaningful to pass down to other individuals which can enhance their lives. This perspective is much more fulfilling than what I perceive as pleasure seeking.

(November 14, 2015 at 4:00 pm)prmptuscerus Wrote: Regarding evolution, I would invite criticism of incorrect claims made about it. I made some claims without showing how I got there. I recognize evolution itself makes no moral claims or philosophic claims although an individual might derive some from evolution, but is  just a theory of origins. (I suppose by virtue of being a theory of origins it would have to rule out other theories of origins like Creationism).

In the section below, it's almost as if you never wrote the section above......

Quote:If there is no value to human life, as the Mulsim poster described, which is objective then eugenics as I understand it would be totally valid. Why should the mentally ill pass on their genetics, or addictive personalities or those with limited mental capacity? I suppose the idea that these people should not live is in itself a value judgment and would be unfounded, but personally I find it  valid and can thus only apply it to myself.

You "find" it valid, despite being unfounded?  Why mental illness?  Why shouldn't everyone without my specific eye color be prevented from passing on their genetics?  No, no, better...why not everyone except me...because I'm clearly the pinnacle of human evolutionary development and despite that statement being entirely unfounded...I "find" it to be valid..........

You're being silly.

Personally, I live for legacy, achievement, good vegetable soup with my family, and crushing newbs in LOL. It's not a "pick one" question.

My thinking was very black and white when I was depressed too.

Although I never succumbed to thinking social Darwinism was anything but abhorrent and irrational.

Still though, we don't think clearly when we're severely depressed.

(November 14, 2015 at 4:10 pm)Rhythm Wrote:

(November 14, 2015 at 4:00 pm)prmptuscerus Wrote: Regarding evolution, I would invite criticism of incorrect claims made about it. I made some claims without showing how I got there. I recognize evolution itself makes no moral claims or philosophic claims although an individual might derive some from evolution, but is  just a theory of origins. (I suppose by virtue of being a theory of origins it would have to rule out other theories of origins like Creationism).

In the section below, it's almost as if you never wrote the section above......

Quote:If there is no value to human life, as the Mulsim poster described, which is objective then eugenics as I understand it would be totally valid. Why should the mentally ill pass on their genetics, or addictive personalities or those with limited mental capacity? I suppose the idea that these people should not live is in itself a value judgment and would be unfounded, but personally I find it  valid and can thus only apply it to myself.

You "find" it valid, despite being unfounded?  Why mental illness?  Why shouldn't everyone without my specific eye color be prevented from passing on their genetics?  No, no, better...why not everyone except me...because I'm clearly the pinnacle of human evolutionary development and despite that statement being entirely unfounded...I "find" it to be valid..........

You're being silly.

Personally, I live for legacy, achievement, good vegetable soup with my family, and crushing newbs in LOL.  It's not a "pick one" questio

Yes, I find. Allow me to unpack 'find'. If value is entirely subjective, then the only way any kind of value relevant to me which .. could exist would be if it originated from my own self; my own subjective opinion. If I deem subjectively, that is in a personal way which is not binding to any other individual but matters only to my self that people with degenerate traits, (people who would embody traits which we would consider less than healthy or that lead to profound suffering) should not reproduce, I would 'find' it that way.


If an individual 'finds' that suffering is valuable (in the suffering we come close to God, everything happens for a reason, etc.) than I can certainly understand a belief system which allows for reproductive rights for all. However, if one 'finds' that suffering is not necessary and is not valuable, then it could follow that perhaps those with traits which would lead to profound suffering should withhold their reproduction and should be encouraged to do so. Again, I say this as someone who would put myself in the category of one whose right to reproduce should not be allowed. Or, at least in my opinion, due to health issues and mental illness. I believe, subjectively, that these traits (mental illness, severe physical defects) are more important than things like eye color or hair color and to compare them is not make an adequate comparison. You can find otherwise


Lesser point, I never claimed one must have only one reason to live. May you find a hundred.

(November 15, 2015 at 2:53 am)prmptuscerus Wrote: Yes, I find. Allow me to unpack 'find'. If value is entirely subjective, then the only way any kind of value relevant to me which .. could exist would be if it originated from my own self; my own subjective opinion. If I deem subjectively, that is in a personal way which is not binding to any other individual but matters only to my self that people with degenerate traits, (people who would embody traits which we would consider less than healthy or that lead to profound suffering) should not reproduce, I would 'find' it that way.


If an individual 'finds' that suffering is valuable (in the suffering we come close to God, everything happens for a reason, etc.) than I can certainly understand a belief system which allows for reproductive rights for all. However, if one 'finds' that suffering is not necessary and is not valuable, then it could follow that perhaps those with traits which would lead to profound suffering should withhold their reproduction and should be encouraged to do so. Again, I say this as someone who would put myself in the category of one whose right to reproduce should not be allowed. Or, at least in my opinion, due to health issues and mental illness. I believe, subjectively, that these traits (mental illness, severe physical defects) are more important than things like eye color or hair color and to compare them is not make an adequate comparison. You can find otherwise


Lesser point, I never claimed one must have only one reason to live. May you find a hundred.

One problem there is that neurological traits like depression are not solely due to genetics. Except maybe in rare cases, genetics can only predispose us to psychological issues, and it's actually our environment that determines the severity of those issues. If a person such as myself is worried about passing a trait like depression on, I'm not stuck simply refraining from reproducing. There are ways to minimze the effects, and I'm certain that given the right knoweldge, we could be capable of eliminating them all. The brain is a reactive organ, so we can help determine its development by controlling what it is exposed to.

That's evolution, though. We've evolved complex brains to manipulate our environment, which leads us to overcome certain issues. Perhaps even our next step in evolution is to overcome neurological issues altogether, and by not passing on your genes for our species to have more experience with those issues, you may be hindering us from taking that next step.

You're misapplying evolution as a whole, and it's actually quite hubris to claim to know what direction it is going. Unlike a non-existant god, evolution actually does work in mysterious ways. And hell, it's not called natural selection for no reason. By going and making your own decisions, you may be moving in the opposite direction as evolution needs to go.