The Best of All Possible Worlds

Originally posted by twhitehead
So if I invented a drug that made is more difficult to murder with no other side effects it would be equivalent wouldn't it? Would you object to prescribing it to everyone?

[b]AND THERE IS NO EVIL! Things are the way they are. DEAL WITH IT!
I don't remember claiming there was evil. But there is nothing wrong with me calling a particular action 'evil'. It does have a meaning.[/b]

If that's something that can be done, I have no problem with it. Things will happen, whether we like it or not. And please don't mistake this for complacency. Even though things will happen, we still have the option to fight it and strive for what makes us happiest.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You are trying to use a strawman. I did not say "genetically alter the humans to be more submissive", I specifically said a drug to stop people from murdering with [b]no other side effects.

And yes, the effect is the same and you know it or you wouldn't be trying on the strawman.[/b]

not familiar with the phrase but that is not important. and maybe the effect is the same. that isn't important either. what it matters is how you got to that effect. one could take the long road and educate people or they could simply pacify them by genetic alteration or "drugs with no side effects".

would you say that death penalty and life imprisonment achieve the same effect on a murderer? in a civilized society which one is more desirable? let's take it further: death penalty or lobotomy? if you reduce a murderer to the iq of a dog, maybe he will not murder again and then you will have a lot of cheap workforce to do all the work of not lobotomized citizens. Wait it gets better. The not lobotomized leaders of the "free world" decide that more and more "criminals"fit the profile so they lobotomize more and more until you have only an elite of rulers and lots of sheep, with no desire to commit crime or cause any problems for the regime: happy times indeed.

please understand that if two actions have the same outcome that doesn't mean they are morally equal.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
that isn't important either. what it matters is how you got to that effect.

please understand that if two actions have the same outcome that doesn't mean they are morally equal.

Why does it matter? Why are they not morally equal? You have intentionally given an example which does not fit the scenario. In fact the objections you raise using your scenario are based on the very fact that it does not fit. You are giving an example in which there side effects and then claiming that it is the side effects that are undesirable. But even that can be shown to be not what you believe. There are side effects to policing yet you support policing.
You have an understandable fear of medical methods of control and are allowing it to cloud your judgment of the argument in question. The fact is that you accept that some control is necessary (police, locks etc), but object to it being done via more advanced means because you believe it will result in lowering your intelligence - a totally unfounded belief.

And if you are interested:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Originally posted by twhitehead
Why does it matter? Why are they not morally equal? You have intentionally given an example which does not fit the scenario. In fact the objections you raise using your scenario are based on the very fact that it does not fit. You are giving an example in which there side effects and then claiming that it is the side effects that are undesirable. But even ...[text shortened]... totally unfounded belief.

And if you are interested:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

medical methods of control? you are talking about mengele type control on humans. we are not talking about women taking a birth control pill we are talking about altering the physiology of the human race to control it better. sure "it is for the greater good". who's good? what will you do with those refusing to take the pill? auschwitz? dachau?

so it is good to take the nice pill. and when someone without the pill comes and takes away more freedoms and instates a dictatorship, how will i be able to free myself? with kind words from the bible? because you cannot possibly be so naive to think that everyone will take the zombifier.

yes, i agree with police. except i know there are people controlling the police. and people controlling the people controlling the police. who will control the people giving me the zombifier pill?


putting aside the evil big brother society you have going on, who will kill my chikins or my cow to make me fried chikin and hamburgers. who will do surgery on me? who will mercifully kill me when i am in a irreversible coma? or being crushed by a truck with no chance of survival and in a considerable amount of pain. who will go to war if a country not on the zombifier invades us or hell, if aliens or whatever decide to invade us?
who will drive a car or operate heavy machinery because they will fear of killing other people?

what is wrong with you man? you really scare me

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
because we hadn't done anything wrong and we had and still have great potential to do good.

You didn't answer my question. You said that without evil, there cannot be good; that without
an evil way to do things, there can be no good way to do things, just the way to do things.

I'm asking if God created the heavens and the earth on the first day and pronounced it good
(not morally good, just 'good'😉, how could He do so if there weren't something 'lousy' with which
to compare it?

Your contention is basically that would an antithesis, a thesis cannot be measured; if there is no
lying, then honesty does not exist, if there is no adultery, then faithfulness cannot exist.

If there was no 'crap' yet created, how could God pronounce something as 'good.'

Nemesio

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
medical methods of control? you are talking about mengele type control on humans. we are not talking about women taking a birth control pill we are talking about altering the physiology of the human race to control it better. sure "it is for the greater good". who's good? what will you do with those refusing to take the pill? auschwitz? dachau?

so it is ...[text shortened]... o will drive a car or operate heavy machinery because they will fear of killing other people?

So far you have totally failed to give a single argument against the concept I gave. Instead you have dodged all around the question with :
1. worries about implementation.
2. references to horror stories (auschwitz, dachau).
3. Intentional misrepresentation (zombifier)
4. Worries about control.
5. Fear of aliens? Where did that come from?
6. The heavy machinery part - do you honestly think that current operators of heavy machinery expect to commit murder, yet go ahead?

what is wrong with you man? you really scare me
I can see that you are scared. That explains your ridiculous inability to put up a reasonable argument.
Do you currently enjoy exercising your right to murder or is it just the knowledge that you can that you crave so much?

Originally posted by twhitehead
So far you have totally failed to give a single argument against the concept I gave. Instead you have dodged all around the question with :
1. worries about implementation.
2. references to horror stories (auschwitz, dachau).
3. Intentional misrepresentation (zombifier)
4. Worries about control.
5. Fear of aliens? Where did that come from?
6. The ...[text shortened]... exercising your right to murder or is it just the knowledge that you can that you crave so much?

err what other arguments other than taking away peoples right to choose and function properly do you need? all my references are supposed to show you what happens when you attempt to create a better,super race.
the nazi thought that by killing anyone not arian they were purging mankind and helping us achieve nietzsche's ubermensch. don't you see any resemblance to what you are proposing? who are you to say that humans should be zombified to sheep status? what next? take away the will to jaywalk? to sing funny songs about the government?

what about cases when there is necessary to kill? i am not saying that suicide is advisable but what about if you really want it? what about someone squashed by a truck, still alive, in horrible pain but with no hope of survival and nobody being able to give him some lethal injection to put him out of your misery.

by what right do you impose your morality on me? who are you to decide what the human race should and shouldn't do? and don't tell me we do that every time by imposing laws. laws can be changed to suit the needs.

you keep saying that i dodge your questions when in fact you are too. when will you answer what happens when(not if) the person administering the drug decides that some people(aka the big brothers) don't need the drug and they should rule the sheep? what happens when, like i said before, a situation arises that needs us to have the ability to kill?

what i find really annoying is your refusal to see merit in any opinion that doesn't agree with you. ridiculous ability to put up a reasonable argument? your opinion.

Originally posted by Nemesio
You didn't answer my question. You said that without evil, there cannot be good; that without
an evil way to do things, there can be no good way to do things, just the way to do things.

I'm asking if God created the heavens and the earth on the first day and pronounced it good
(not morally good, just 'good'😉, how could He do so if there weren't somethi ...[text shortened]... re was no 'crap' yet created, how could God pronounce something as 'good.'

Nemesio

the possibility of bad still existed. he saw the possibility that he could have made a crappier job so he pronounced it good. even if he isn't omniscient he could still have compared it with a possible, worse scenario.

what i am saying is that for degrees of comparison to exist, there must be at least two different states. good, bad, worse have no meaning if there is only one possibility.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
err what other arguments other than taking away peoples right to choose and function properly do you need?

If you call choosing to murder "functioning properly" then I give up.

the nazi thought that by killing anyone not arian they were purging mankind and helping us achieve nietzsche's ubermensch. don't you see any resemblance to what you are proposing?
Yes I do. Does that make me wrong? Just because the Nazi's did something does not render anything that even remotely resembles what they did wrong.

who are you to say that humans should be zombified to sheep status?
Who proposed that? From the very beginning I have asked you to support your claim that removal of one right guarantees progression to removal of all rights yet instead of doing so you simply repeat the strawman over and over.

what next? take away the will to jaywalk? to sing funny songs about the government?
Yet you don't make the same 'progression' when it comes to the police. You restrict your phobia to medical methods. Unless you can show that there is an actual difference, your argument is nothing more than a phobia.

what about cases when there is necessary to kill? i am not saying that suicide is advisable but what about if you really want it? what about someone squashed by a truck, still alive, in horrible pain but with no hope of survival and nobody being able to give him some lethal injection to put him out of your misery.
As far as I know that is still defined as murder. If it wasn't then my drug would not have a problem with it.

by what right do you impose your morality on me? who are you to decide what the human race should and shouldn't do? and don't tell me we do that every time by imposing laws. laws can be changed to suit the needs.
Laws can be changed but they are nevertheless imposed on you.

you keep saying that i dodge your questions when in fact you are too. when will you answer what happens when(not if) the person administering the drug decides that some people(aka the big brothers) don't need the drug and they should rule the sheep?
That irrelevant to the argument. In case you have forgotten we are discussing God as the drug administrator here. I don't think he would have a problem making sure that everyone takes it.

what happens when, like i said before, a situation arises that needs us to have the ability to kill?
Name one and I will answer it. I know of no reasonable situation in which killing is necessary.

what i find really annoying is your refusal to see merit in any opinion that doesn't agree with you. ridiculous ability to put up a reasonable argument? your opinion.
I do see merit in your opinion. I too do not want anyone handing out mind controlling drugs. However, you have not raised a good argument against doing so and persist in attacking the concept with nothing more than fear mongering.
Also, since the initial argument was about whether or not God should implement such a program, all your fears about the management side of it would not apply in such a situation. I did qualify my statements from the very beginning with the requirement that there be no other side effects yet you insist on ignoring that.

Originally posted by twhitehead
If you call choosing to murder "functioning properly" then I give up.

[b]the nazi thought that by killing anyone not arian they were purging mankind and helping us achieve nietzsche's ubermensch. don't you see any resemblance to what you are proposing?
Yes I do. Does that make me wrong? Just because the Nazi's did something does not render anythin e requirement that there be no other side effects yet you insist on ignoring that.[/b]

In case you have forgotten we are discussing God as the drug administrator here.
Actually we are not. at least from my side of the argument, that would be pointless. why discuss if god should give us the pill or not? if he wants to do it how could we stop him? we were discussing you saying that if you had the pill and there were no side effects(other than the indirect ones) you would give it to the population

As far as I know that is still defined as murder. If it wasn't then my drug would not have a problem with it.

oh so your drug only prevents murder. but who defines murder? maybe some have a broader(or narrower) understanding. i thought we were discussing a drug to inhibit violent behavior. to which i ask again, is it ok to impose ones view of the world on another?

Laws can be changed but they are nevertheless imposed on you.
exactly. but with your drug in action, i would have no desire or possibility to change them even if i wouldn't agree with them. there would be a kind of big brother society.

Who proposed that? From the very beginning I have asked you to support your claim that removal of one right guarantees progression to removal of all rights yet instead of doing so you simply repeat the strawman over and over.
no, it doesn't guarantees. unless you take into account the human nature. in which case it is a safe gamble to assume that a group will not take the drug and elect themselves rulers of a peaceful docile population.
and then they will take away more and more freedom because there would be no accountability. nobody will riot, nobody will make demands


Edit: i was busy at work so i didnt have the time to respond earlier

Originally posted by twhitehead
Many people would argue that freedom is better than slavery even if the actual living conditions are significantly worse when free, or life is considerably shorter.
Some people use a similar argument to claim that free will with the attendant likelihood of bad choices is better than forced good choices.
In other words some bad decisions are a necessary ...[text shortened]... e if they knew which choice was best? So God must keep us ignorant to preserve our free will.

That was a well-thought-out response.