/l/ - The Lounge

Off-topic discussion

[Make a Post]
[X]





Nanonymous No.10705 [D][U][F][S][L][A][C] >>10730 >>10743
File: 6d879a121555cd3704065eb7f21b3deee3b4c71bcae5549c85903a5ea8f8fa83.jpg (dl) (50.25 KiB)

If I save someone's life and then kill him one year later, is this morally justifiable?
One argument I can think of is
>If you could do that, it implies that his life belongs to you after you save him. But what if someone else saves his life again later? Who does his life belong to then? This is a paradox, since the two life-savers are both required to ensure the life of the person.
Another is
>That person was going to die anyway. After saving his life, you have extended his life, and even if you kill him immediately afterwards, you have not done any net negative to him. Therefore, it is justified.
Whatcha thunk bowt it?

Nanonymous No.10706 [D][U][F] >>10707
File: 600d3b648e9684754b3329327885bba7257979e532c732c2a919b8ece975678f.gif (dl) (40.24 KiB)

>Whatcha thunk bowt it?
Well…
>If you could do that, it implies that his life belongs to you
This is wrong.
>if you kill him immediately afterwards, you have not done any net negative to him.
And so is this.

Hope this helps.

Nanonymous No.10707 [D][U][F] >>10708
File: cfa0759f9eec06a2833c86586e037a1d2b224d60cff58102cf3c59ee29ef6871.png (dl) (1.55 MiB)

>>10706
>This is wrong.
No. Actually, you are wrong. Your opinions compose the biggest, most intensely steaming, most gigantic, supermassive planetoid-sized pile of turbo nigger gorilla liquid shit I have ever seen on the internet. And that's saying a lot. You are so wrong that you have literally redefined the meaning of the word "wrong": when I search up the word "wrong" in the dictionary, there's a picture of your face beside it. What you have said is beyond the potential limits of human wrongness. Nobody has ever been as wrong as you, and now that this level of wrongness has been surpassed, every sentient being in the whole wide universe collectively cringes as half of their IQ is violently and roughly ripped from their brain by the massive intelligence vacuum left by your astronomical level of wrongness. Not only that, the sheer, incomprehensible level of wrongness emananating from your current location threatens to morph into a black hole of stupidity, sucking in trillions of IQ points like your mom sucks my cock. Everyone in the universe is dumber for having existed at the same time as your WRONG opinions, and my only advice to you is to fucking kill yourself, since your actions are irredeemable and are classified as War Crimes by the United Nations.

Nanonymous No.10708 [D][U][F] >>10709
File: 00b630b205fb55764a24979a21d1595735c74363fd64abfcb1a2e2d484856838.jpg (dl) (911.92 KiB)

>>10707
Did you actually type all that?

Nanonymous No.10709 [D][U][F] >>10713
File: 40fe2b27d26b255a5a507eccdf4b77d1a185800f7dc5d33c5b5cf0a81f03cd35.jpg (dl) (289.81 KiB)

>>10708
what, you think I use pleb shit like copypastas? I manually write all my shitposts tyvm.
it would have been moar epik if all you replied to that post was "no u" but guess you're too WRONG to do that eh?

Nanonymous No.10710 [D]

>Whatcha thunk bowt it?
Take your pills

Nanonymous No.10713 [D][U][F] >>10714
File: 6b304c1e6996d05b325db7c4d9a34ff6bc85b2927bbbd4b6cacfbdb0efe5eff4.jpg (dl) (562.01 KiB)

>>10709
I feel like "no u" is pre-2005, and I like to think that I'm not that much of a boomer.
>I manually write all my shitposts tyvm.
Well-well-well, good sir, at this point you're likely the OP, and regardless of whether you actually are, this is the confession of first-degree crime here. SHITposts belong in /t/oilet now, by the decree from 07.05.2018 by the Hakase Almighty. I will look the other way on this issue, but only this once.

Nanonymous No.10714 [D] >>10728

>>10713
>implying hapase follows her own rules
>implying that asuka-poster isn't hapase
Everyone, I have an announcement to make.
STAWP BULLYING

Nanonymous No.10722 [D] >>10731

no u is post 2008 IIRC

Nanonymous No.10728 [D]

>>10714
t. hakase

Nanonymous No.10730 [D]

>>10705
Only hard determinism sees moral as deterministic. Traditionally, what is moral is non-deterministic by definition. If you are doing something for the reason of X, you are not acting morally, you are doing something for some reason. When you are doing good because it is good, it is moral.

A robot that is doing good things because of its algorithm is not moral, a man who doesn't know moral from immoral is not moral, a man who is playing by the (good) rules is not moral, a man who is forced to do good by fear is not moral, etc.

I hope previous paragraph made you scratch your head and caused some “but”s to come to mind.

Nanonymous No.10731 [D]

>>10722
I recall it being exactly the opposite, 2008, 2007, or earlier.

Nanonymous No.10743 [D]

>>10705
>If I save someone's life and then kill him one year later, is this morally justifiable?
no

Nanonymous No.10744 [D]

actually yes, according to reddit philosophy. they think cars should be made illegal and we should be placed in autonomous cars that crash into shit for no reason and kill you, as long as the total number of deaths is less than the number of deaths from drunks and moron drivers in current statistics. you would fit in with them

Nanonymous No.10746 [D]

Everything is morally justifiable.

Nanonymous No.10749 [D][U][F]
File: 815545516c6bcce4928fcd903a40b230ee6884ffc922ca73635fa89fc4bf7c7f.png (dl) (190.98 KiB)

>>If you could do that, it implies that his life belongs to you
>This is wrong.
>>if you kill him immediately afterwards, you have not done any net negative to him.
>And so is this.
Though I guess one could elaborate on this.

The first argument requires some system where saving one's life makes the savior the owner of such life. We don't live in such a system, so it's not morally justifiable for us.

The second argument implies that in such a system saving life is equal to taking life as a counterpart, and that playing a zero-sum game is acceptable, i.e. not gaining anything overall is just fine. While the former is definitely not the case in our world, the latter might look like it, but in general it's also frowned down upon, since it is the source of stagnation and indifference, and indifference is kinda evil actually, believe it or not.

Nanonymous No.10766 [D] >>10795

Retard.

When you give someone 10 Shekels you can't take back 10 Shekels as you please because they are no longer yours.Saving ones life is a gift like 10 Shekels.

Nanonymous No.10795 [D]

>>10766
Thanks nanon, that clears it up.

Nanonymous No.10796 [D] >>10929

>10766
I always thought. that if you give someone 10 Shekels, you have to take back 12 Shekels.

Nanonymous No.10929 [D]

>>10796
t. literally the jew mind at work