Canada bans assault-style weapons after its worst ever mass murder

[midnightpulp]

If you define good quan atively then it can be tied to empirical evidence. Example: It would be good if I had 200 dollars to pay my electricity bill.

I have 200 dollars

It's good that I have 200 dollars

If you define good based on how you feel about someone's actions, it's like taste - it can be described but not proven. Even if you taste the food I taste, you cannot prove or ever know we have the same response to it. We can, however, prove we ate the same food. Morality too is opinion based. Being as such, it's not based on fact even if facts do help shape it, and even if several people agree on the basic tenets of morality. We agree with what we collectively want for humanity based on rationality and empirical evidence. Killing freely is bad for society. This has be proven empirically. Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you - treat others how you want to be treated (therefore you stand a better chance of being treated well). Teaching that its morally wrong to murder serves to create a "better" society. In this sense, "better" means something different to different people however to each person it means something that serves their personal needs one way or another. The concept is to allow people to live and enjoy their lives because you want to live and enjoy yours. It can be shown empirically that cooperation can help achieve goals. We consider it good when we achieve a goal we have set, we get a feeling of accomplishment. I cannot prove to you that I get that feeling, but you probably get the same feeling so I don't need to prove it to you. We use this concept to teach our children to achieve goals. They achieve a goal, they feel good about it. They don't require proof that our feeling is the exact same as theirs - they experience it. That doesn't mean the feeling isn't a science based phenomena. Our morality can be whittled down to learned response and self preservation. That is science based as well. Sure, in the more nebulous viewpoint, I cannot prove or disprove we see the same colors, but it's not a problem we face to do so. Like morality, we learn what to like based on finite choices and associations. Those are science based concepts.

Religion is a tick behind the ear of philosophy. Because people have the ability and tendency to seek proof, the things that are not falsifiable can quite easily be shoved into the god box. Religion jumped on that and took ownership of it. This is why the god of the gaps concept continues along even today. Being non-falsifiable though doesn't give religion an out since religion makes a positive claim about the physical reality. Religion then has the burden of proof and because the concept is not falsifiable, it's really not worthy of much consideration.

Some might argue we best achieve everything by hastening the apocalypse. This is the problem with granting religion a philosophy degree - it is not satisfied with pondering "what if". Religion wants to tell us "what is". This is why religion is not a viable answer to philosophical questions. It sets itself up time and again for failure by crossing over into the scientific, falsifiable realm.

Exactly my point. Science is descriptive, not prescriptive.

No, killing people has not been empirically proven to be bad for society. Not because "we need more facts," but because "empiricism," by its strict definition deals with a posteriori knowledge. Empiricism can tell us that shoving a knife into someone's heart will kill them. But it can't tell us why that's bad. That's where rationality comes in. A key difference between rationality and empiricism.

The most prominent distinguishing characteristic between these two philosophies is that most rationalists will accept certain a priori truths, believing in some manner of innate knowledge or intuition.

"intuition." It's our collective intuition that murder is bad for society because we intuitively value society and life. But we can't "prove" life is valuable, because value isn't a physical fact of nature.

I think my latest reply to Random further answers that question.

I'm not talking about appealing to religion to attempt and verify something about the natural world (facts). I'm appealing to religion as a "useful" (in the pragmatic sense) moral and existential framework for specific situations and for specific people. I'll post this again, since it neatly sums up my position:

F.C.S. Schiller, on the other hand, clearly asserted beliefs could pass into and out of truth on a situational basis. Schiller held that truth was relative to specific problems.

You'll probably disagree with that pragmatic position, but it makes sense to me given how subjective personal experience is. As I said earlier in the thread, if believing in Heaven is the ONLY answer to help a person cope with grief, it has "truth" in solving that problem for that particular person. And yes, I know a few people like this, who experienced unspeakable tragedy who likely would not cope without faith. I'm not going to tell them, "Well, actually, you're being unempirical and deluding yourself. Science has not proven the existence of Heaven." Rationality can't be shoved into a neat little box like empiricism can. Empiricism basically has a single operating form, while rationality is more flexible. I'll refer to Weber again.

The advantage in Weber's interpretation of rationality is that it avoids a value-laden assessment, say, that certain kinds of beliefs are irrational.

Weber doesn't automatically kneejerk into defining a belief as "irrational." Much like the pragmatists, he defines rationality by its value for in providing certain needs for a person. He actually feared rationality was becoming "too efficient and calculating," much like empiricism.

This form of rationality becomes an hetical to individuals who have hearts, minds and feelings. We know that a cold, calculating rationality is not something we are particularly fond of in other individuals - and why should it be any different for our social order and organization? Yes, efficiency and rational calculation are beneficial, but at the expense of making human beings enslaved to the very social forms which they create? Would we desire to live in a world where decisions are devoid of emotions, empathy and sympathy?

You might disagree with that, that it's always better to be "cold and calculating" (not in the sociopathic sense, but in the discovering "facts" sense), that a Christian would be better served by renouncing their belief in Heaven and just "dealing" with the reality of death, but I wholeheartedly disagree with that, because we do not live in a world that is devoid of emotions... One answer doesn't fit all.

[midnightpulp]

Gotcha. Still reading, and there is a lot to unpack, sort of picking out things as I go. Sorry for the half-baked take then.

I agree with you here. Science just allows us to model the universe accurately in our minds.

What we do with that model.. is on us.

If you want a shortcut, my latest reply to you sums up my position much more succinctly. And the Schiller position of "truth is relative to specific situations" also sums me up. Note, I'm making a distinction between "truth" and "facts." Facts are proven observations about nature, i.e. hydrogen and oxygen combine to create water. "Truth" is more mutable and subjective, ex. It's a fact we watched the same movie, but the "truth" is that you liked it and I didn't. That's what Schiller was getting at. Relative to specific situations. I think that's where a lot of confusion of whom I've been talking to comes from, that they conflate facts and truth, and when I say, "Christianity/Faith is truthful in specific situations or has answers to questions science can't answer," they think I'm trying to say Christianity or Faith can provide answers to "empirical" questions. Not at all. But it can provide "truthful" answers to personal questions (meaning of life) or situations (coping mechanism in the face tragedy). Just like the movie example. Maybe the movie inspired me to become a better person. That would be a "truthful" statement.

[midnightpulp]

Some might argue we best achieve everything by hastening the apocalypse. This is the problem with granting religion a philosophy degree - it is not satisfied with pondering "what if". Religion wants to tell us "what is". This is why religion is not a viable answer to philosophical questions. It sets itself up time and again for failure by crossing over into the scientific, falsifiable realm.

I want to address this in a bit more detail. Philosophy just doesn't deal with "what if" questions. There's many philosophical positions that attempt to tell us "what is." Not necessarily about empirical facts, but about truths. Utilitarianism claims, definitively, that maximizing "happiness" is the greatest moral aim, even at the expense of making some people unhappy. As long as the happiness calculus is maximized, it's justified. Many moral philosophies are just as intractable as religion, and some are even more dangerous. I find utilitarianism probably the most dangerous mainstream moral framework, which includes mainstream religions. Justifying murder or torture is pretty much baked into utilitarianism's framework, while the mainstream religions at least hold life to be sacred (though, not sure about Islam. That's a religion I'm actually not very familiar with). And I find fringe moral philosophies, like antinatalism, primitivism, and accelerationism also much more dangerous than most religions.

[Blake]

It's not.



I'm not talking about someone trying to prove the existence of God. I'm examining what utility belief in God has in specific situations. Please become more familiar with pragmatic philosophy. What is most "useful" is most "rational."



The specific problem in this case (parents losing child) is coping with grief. If belief in an afterlife solves that problem better than the "cold, hard truth" then the former is actually more "truthful" in the pragmatic sense.

What if you say "they're in heaven" and the person kills him/herself to be in heaven too?
Now your "belief in god" lie has a negative value.

Unless you absolutely know the outcome, there's nothing rational about telling a sugar coated lie. It's absolutely rational to admit "I/we don't know".

[midnightpulp]

What if you say "they're in heaven" and the person kills him/herself to be in heaven too?
Now your "belief in god" lie has a negative value.

Unless you absolutely know the outcome, there's nothing rational about telling a sugar coated lie. It's absolutely rational to admit "I/we don't know".

I can flip this around and say what if me telling them they're never seeing their child again prompts a suicide out of despair. Now the empirical facts have a negative value and were, for this situation, "irrationally" applied.

That said, you're onto my point. I'm suggesting that a doctor, friend, acquaintance, whoever say nothing about what might've happened to the child following death. It's not their place to try and impose their "truth" on the parents. In coping with grief, the parents are free to handle it in their own way. My contention here is that a non-believer might consider them comforting themselves by believing their child is in Heaven as an 'irrational' belief because it's not factual. I'm sure you understand what I'm getting it when I refer to the pragmatic position of "the truth being relative to specific situations." Faith in the afterlife helped the best in this specific situation and was thus a 'rational' response (and remember, rational and empirical are not the same thing).

Now you might not like the pragmatic position, and fair enough. This wouldn't be the first nor the last that there was disagreement about what philosophical positions are "best" to employ. We've been debating this for thousands of years. But pragmatism makes perfect sense to me.

[Blake]

I can flip this around and say what if me telling them they're never seeing their child again prompts a suicide out of despair. Now the empirical facts have a negative value and were, for this situation, "irrationally" applied.

Who says "you will never see your child again"?

All a doctor usually says is "I'm sorry, there's nothing more we can do"

There's nothing rational about guessing what other people will do or won't do if you lie to them.

[Blake]

What if you think a kid might commit suicide if he finds out Santa Claus isn't real? What are you gonna do?

[midnightpulp]

Who says "you will never see your child again"?

All a doctor usually says is "I'm sorry, there's nothing more we can do"

There's nothing rational about guessing what other people will do or won't do if you lie to them.

Yes, that's the rational response. What I'm challenging is the idea (from Nono) that "sugarcoated lies" are always the worse choice over telling someone the facts. There's really no justification for that position beyond, "Facts are good because, um, they're good because they can be proven." Why are facts always good? There's many situations where facts might not provide "net value."

Thought experiment. You have the ability to see into the future. Your best friend suspects their spouse of cheating. They ask you what you think. Option A: You tell them the cold, hard facts with no sugarcoating and you see that results in him killing his wife. Option B: You sugarcoat. Your opinion is reassuring to your friend and the couple lives happily ever after.

Or how about situation in the real world where there's a scientific discovery that 100 percent proves a race/ethnic group is inherently less intelligent than others (no, I don't believe this will ever be the case, but it's a thought experiment). Given humanity's tendency toward bigotry and discrimination, this is a fact that should probably be suppressed. Humanity isn't yet collectively compassionate enough to treat these citizens with dignity and respect, especially given our narrow definition of "intelligence" that links it to how well you perform in a capitalist society. There's a considerable amount of more wrongs that can emerge from broadcasting those facts than there are rights.

[midnightpulp]

What if you think a kid might commit suicide if he finds out Santa Claus isn't real? What are you gonna do?

Heh. I just laid out a similar thought experiment, but involving a cheating spouse.

And to answer this question, of course I'd tell the kid Santa Claus is real. 100 percent of the time. Any other response would sociopathic, in my opinion.

[DMC]

Read the thread. I'm not talking about facts about nature discovered through empirical investigation. Trust me, I already know the God of Gaps argument backwards, forwards, up, and down. I wouldn't appeal to that if we were talking about unsolved "mysteries" in science. The questions that science can't answer concern morality, meaning, aesthetics, and the like. What we'd define as subjective phenomena. And whatever framework is used to answer those questions is just as valid in solving what William James called "specific situations." Or:

Lack of an answer is still lack of an answer. In that case there is a gap, and in that gap it might be parsimonious to apply religious explanations but it's most likely incorrect. Even with sensory perception, there are truths. Value judgments do not have true or false attached, except whether or not the person giving the judgment is being honest (not talking about money). To say life is precious is to not cause anyone to raise an eyebrow, because almost everyone agrees. What they don't agree with is which life is more precious than which other life. Still, there's no way to know that life is precious, unless you consider the amount of panic you feel when someone you love is about to lose theirs, or they have already died. At that point you can say that you valued that individual, but that doesn't make that person universally valuable. Guess what though, never does saying "God says everyone is precious".

[DMC]

Yes, that's the rational response. What I'm challenging is the idea (from Nono) that "sugarcoated lies" are always the worse choice over telling someone the facts. There's really no justification for that position beyond, "Facts are good because, um, they're good because they can be proven." Why are facts always good? There's many situations where facts might not provide "net value."

Thought experiment. You have the ability to see into the future. Your best friend suspects their spouse of cheating. They ask you what you think. Option A: You tell them the cold, hard facts with no sugarcoating and you see that results in him killing his wife. Option B: You sugarcoat. Your opinion is reassuring to your friend and the couple lives happily ever after.

Or how about situation in the real world where there's a scientific discovery that 100 percent proves a race/ethnic group is inherently less intelligent than others (no, I don't believe this will ever be the case, but it's a thought experiment). Given humanity's tendency toward bigotry and discrimination, this is a fact that should probably be suppressed. Humanity isn't yet collectively compassionate enough to treat these citizens with dignity and respect, especially given our narrow definition of "intelligence" that links it to how well you perform in a capitalist society. There's a considerable amount of more wrongs that can emerge from broadcasting those facts than there are rights.

You're slipping into a solipsism argument that's pointless. Who says innate value exists? Who says it's bad to rape a small animal? We have to be able to agree to basic tenets before we can discuss anything rationally.

Basic tenet 1: Truth is the desired outcome to a question, who am I, why am I here, is there a Santa Claus?
Basic tenet 2: Lying to someone for the sake of preservation of life doesn't negate basic tenet 1 because the one lying isn't the one seeking the truth.

Even in this discussion the truth is being sought. If there is a question, there is a truth, even if we don't agree on it.

There's a difference between truth and candidness. In truth you want the best outcome, but you're not the one asking the question. The person asking the question wants the truth. If they want to be lied to then they aren't really asking a question, they are only prompting an exchange for other reasons.

I'd take option A. I'd rather have a dead friend than cuck friend.

[spurraider21]

Heh. I just laid out a similar thought experiment, but involving a cheating spouse.

And to answer this question, of course I'd tell the kid Santa Claus is real. 100 percent of the time. Any other response would sociopathic, in my opinion.

while not a direct a parallel, analogues can be drawn to the trans community, who have a very high suicide rate

while there's a whole conversation to be had about how people incorrectly conflate sex and gender, i dont think its helpful when folks who listen to ben shapiro go to a trans woman and constantly tell them that they're wrong and they're still male.

im not saying trans people are suffering delusions in the same way that a child believing in santa clause does, but if somebody is thought to be suicidal, it is irresponsible to push them towards that just in the interest of trying to be brutally honest

[spurraider21]

You're slipping into a solipsism argument that's pointless. Who says innate value exists? Who says it's bad to rape a small animal? We have to be able to agree to basic tenets before we can discuss anything rationally.

Basic tenet 1: Truth is the desired outcome to a question, who am I, why am I here, is there a Santa Claus?
Basic tenet 2: Lying to someone for the sake of preservation of life doesn't negate basic tenet 1 because the one lying isn't the one seeking the truth.

Even in this discussion the truth is being sought. If there is a question, there is a truth, even if we don't agree on it.

There's a difference between truth and candidness. In truth you want the best outcome, but you're not the one asking the question. The person asking the question wants the truth. If they want to be lied to then they aren't really asking a question, they are only prompting an exchange for other reasons.

I'd take option A. I'd rather have a dead friend than cuck friend.

im not even sure tenet #1 can be agreed upon given the hypothetical at hand, a child who is suicidal at the thought of santa being imaginary. why are we simply assuming truth is the desired outcome to their question, if their question is "is santa claus real"

i dont know that mid is really veering towards solopsism (we cant prove that reality, or anything beyond our minds, exists), but rather that objective morality isn't a thing.

[DMC]

im not even sure tenet #1 can be agreed upon given the hypothetical at hand, a child who is suicidal at the thought of santa being imaginary. why are we simply assuming truth is the desired outcome to their question, if their question is "is santa claus real"

It's not for you to assume. It's for the person asking which is what I said "If they don't want the truth, they aren't asking a question, they are only prompting an exchange" ... like "Do I look fat in these shorts?" isn't really a question you should truthfully answer if asked by your wife.. and she does. She doesn't want to know if she looks fat, she wants to know if you're going to say she looks fat. So the question in her mind (not in her mouth) is "what is this bas going to say?"

[DMC]

while not a direct a parallel, analogues can be drawn to the trans community, who have a very high suicide rate

while there's a whole conversation to be had about how people incorrectly conflate sex and gender, i dont think its helpful when folks who listen to ben shapiro go to a trans woman and constantly tell them that they're wrong and they're still male.

im not saying trans people are suffering delusions in the same way that a child believing in santa clause does, but if somebody is thought to be suicidal, it is irresponsible to push them towards that just in the interest of trying to be brutally honest

You're looking at truth from the wrong end. The truth is the situation you just revealed as a remote viewer. The responses to questions aren't truths or falsehoods. They are only responses geared toward subjectively good or bad intentions.

Truth: Child will commit suicide if Santa isn't real (that's one ed up kid). This requires knowledge of the supernatural since you can see into the future. So at best, kid might commit suicide if the kid learns Santa doesn't exist.

What is this person really asking? "Should I kill myself?"

Response to that truth: You do not volunteer information to hasten the suicide. "I don't know" is an acceptable answer. Technically it's true.

[midnightpulp]

Lack of an answer is still lack of an answer. In that case there is a gap, and in that gap it might be parsimonious to apply religious explanations but it's most likely incorrect. Even with sensory perception, there are truths. Value judgments do not have true or false attached, except whether or not the person giving the judgment is being honest (not talking about money). To say life is precious is to not cause anyone to raise an eyebrow, because almost everyone agrees. What they don't agree with is which life is more precious than which other life. Still, there's no way to know that life is precious, unless you consider the amount of panic you feel when someone you love is about to lose theirs, or they have already died. At that point you can say that you valued that individual, but that doesn't make that person universally valuable. Guess what though, never does saying "God says everyone is precious".

But there isn't a lack of answer. I don't see how you can call a Christian who consults the Bible on advice about charity and then acts on the advice "incorrect." That makes zero sense. The action is correct per that framework. A hardcore Capitalist working within his framework who chooses not to give anything to charity because he believes they should all get jobs is also correct similarly. From here, we can move on to what is more socially correct (rather than personally correct) relative to societal consensus. In some societies, the asshole Capitalist position might be correct (it's sure trending that way in the US). And vice versa. Religion in this scenario isn't trying to explain something, it's suggesting an answer to a dilemma (should I give to charity or not).

There's no "gaps." God of the gaps attempts to explain away scientific mysteries by appealing to "God did it." This is easily challenged from the skeptical point-of-view by asking the Christian to "prove God did it." He can't, so ergo gap fallacy. There's no gap in the Bible urging a person to a positive moral action because we can prove the person indeed performed that action after reading the Bible. It's "empirical fact" that the person gave to charity.

[spurraider21]

You're looking at truth from the wrong end. The truth is the situation you just revealed as a remote viewer. The responses to questions aren't truths or falsehoods. They are only responses geared toward subjectively good or bad intentions.

Truth: Child will commit suicide if Santa isn't real (that's one ed up kid). This requires knowledge of the supernatural since you can see into the future. So at best, kid might commit suicide if the kid learns Santa doesn't exist.

i was sloppy with my wording, but the discussion was based on a hypothetical child who is suicidal over the thought of santa not existing... not necessarily that his suicide is a certainty. but the point remains.

What is this person really asking? "Should I kill myself?"

Response to that truth: You do not volunteer information to hasten the suicide. "I don't know" is an acceptable answer. Technically it's true.

i mean...

its true that we cannot prove he doesn't exist, but it's true that he was made up (asserted to exist without any good reason... or even a good faith belief that he does exist)

[DMC]

But there isn't a lack of answer. I don't see how you can call a Christian who consults the Bible on advice about charity and then acts on the advice "incorrect." That makes zero sense. The action is correct per that framework. A hardcore Capitalist working within his framework who chooses not to give anything to charity because he believes they should all get jobs is also correct similarly. From here, we can move on to what is more socially correct (rather than personally correct) relative to societal consensus. In some societies, the asshole Capitalist position might be correct (it's sure trending that way in the US). And vice versa. Religion in this scenario isn't trying to explain something, it's suggesting an answer to a dilemma (should I give to charity or not).

There's no "gaps." God of the gaps attempts to explain away scientific mysteries by appealing to "God did it." This is easily challenged from the skeptical point-of-view by asking the Christian to "prove God did it." He can't, so ergo gap fallacy. There's no gap in the Bible urging a person to a positive moral action because we can prove the person indeed performed that action after reading the Bible. It's "empirical fact" that the person gave to charity.

They would be correct if their goal was to mimic the words in the bible. What of the person who seeks advice from the bible about being attracted to the same sex? Religion isn't just about charity. It's also about confinement and restriction. Is there a positive and moral action here?

The person consulting the bible for advice wants to be a christian. That's the goal, to be pleasant before the eyes of your god. Giving to charity isn't the goal, because you don't need the bible to know that charity is universally considered "good".

[midnightpulp]

You're slipping into a solipsism argument that's pointless. Who says innate value exists? Who says it's bad to rape a small animal? We have to be able to agree to basic tenets before we can discuss anything rationally.

Basic tenet 1: Truth is the desired outcome to a question, who am I, why am I here, is there a Santa Claus?
Basic tenet 2: Lying to someone for the sake of preservation of life doesn't negate basic tenet 1 because the one lying isn't the one seeking the truth.

Even in this discussion the truth is being sought. If there is a question, there is a truth, even if we don't agree on it.

There's a difference between truth and candidness. In truth you want the best outcome, but you're not the one asking the question. The person asking the question wants the truth. If they want to be lied to then they aren't really asking a question, they are only prompting an exchange for other reasons.

I'd take option A. I'd rather have a dead friend than cuck friend.

The basic tenet that humanity operates by with regard to life is that it's valuable and worth preserving. From this tenet, we can conclude that lying to preserve life is better than the bitter truth. The bolded is exactly right. They don't really want the facts, they want reassurance, and I believe it's your moral duty to offer that reassurance to preserve life.

I find that hard to believe. And there's no justification for it, because your friend would never know he's not a "cuck." So you're okay with ruining multiple lives (his, his children's, other loved ones) for what? To appeal to some kind of pride? And ironically, he died "a cuck," so you actually didn't solve the problem. Oh wait, the friend doesn't commit suicide, he kills his wife. So dead wife better than being a cuck now? If you believe that, you should argue for the legality of punishing infidelity by death, which I think is popular in the undeveloped Muslim world.

[DMC]

i was sloppy with my wording, but the discussion was based on a hypothetical child who is suicidal over the thought of santa not existing... not necessarily that his suicide is a certainty. but the point remains.


i mean...

What do you mean? It's true that you don't know.

[DMC]

The basic tenet that humanity operates by with regard to life is that it's valuable and worth preserving. From this tenet, we can conclude that lying to preserve life is better than the bitter truth. The bolded is exactly right. They don't really want the facts, they want reassurance, and I believe it's your moral duty to offer that reassurance to preserve life.

I find that hard to believe. And there's no justification for it, because your friend would never know he's not a "cuck." So you're okay with ruining multiple lives (his, his children's, other loved ones) for what? To appeal to some kind of pride? And ironically, he died "a cuck," so you actually didn't solve the problem. Oh wait, the friend doesn't commit suicide, he kills his wife. So dead wife better than being a cuck now? If you believe that, you should argue for the legality of punishing infidelity by death, which I think is popular in the undeveloped Muslim world.

You contaminated the experiment by having extraordinary knowledge of the future in one instance but not in the other.

It doesn't matter if he's my friend or not if life is valuable. So we don't know 100% what he will do, it's impossible to know. We never know what people will do with information. If I was ing her, I'd not tell him for 6 months after they split up. If he's suicidal he'd probably kill me.

[midnightpulp]

They would be correct if their goal was to mimic the words in the bible. What of the person who seeks advice from the bible about being attracted to the same sex? Religion isn't just about charity. It's also about confinement and restriction. Is there a positive and moral action here?

The person consulting the bible for advice wants to be a christian. That's the goal, to be pleasant before the eyes of your god. Giving to charity isn't the goal, because you don't need the bible to know that charity is universally considered "good".

People give to charity based on ulterior motives all the time. For public relations purposes, to feel more virtuous than another person so they lord self-righteousness over them (i.e. virtue signaling), for tax breaks. That still doesn't invalidate the utility of the action. Also, you're generalizing too much. You forget that people need to be taught to do things. If my parents teach me to give to charity and show compassion to the less fortunate, I'm not necessarily doing it "please them," but because they taught me that charity and compassion are "universal good things." It's a cynical point of view to say all Christians do good things because they simply want to get to Heaven. Just like I learned from parents to be compassionate, Christians have learned from the Bible to be compassionate for its own sake, not just to please God and get into Heaven.

[DMC]

i was sloppy with my wording, but the discussion was based on a hypothetical child who is suicidal over the thought of santa not existing... not necessarily that his suicide is a certainty. but the point remains.


i mean...

its true that we cannot prove he doesn't exist, but it's true that he was made up (asserted to exist without any good reason... or even a good faith belief that he does exist)

Universal negatives and all. If lying to someone to save their life is being used to say truth isn't paramount, you don't need to go that far. Truth is paramount if you're looking for it. Not everyone is looking for it.

[DMC]

People give to charity based on ulterior motives all the time. For public relations purposes, to feel more virtuous than another person so they lord self-righteousness over them (i.e. virtue signaling), for tax breaks. That still doesn't invalidate the utility of the action. Also, you're generalizing too much. You forget that people need to be taught to do things. If my parents teach me to give to charity and show compassion to the less fortunate, I'm not necessarily doing it "please them," but because they taught me that charity and compassion are "universal good things." It's a cynical point of view to say all Christians do good things because they simply want to get to Heaven. Just like I learned from parents to be compassionate, Christians have learned from the Bible to be compassionate for its own sake, not just to please God and get into Heaven.

I didn't mention heaven. I said "pleasant before the eyes of God". They want to mimic Christ. It's what defines a Christian. If Christ did things to save the world, Christians want to do things to save the world. You cannot however dismiss the concept of eternal reward of divine totalitarianism for all of eternity - cannot even die and get away from it. You don't say "be of good heart and give and oh, by the way, there's this mansion and eternal happiness awaiting, but don't do it for those reasons... but if you don't do it... well"

[midnightpulp]

You contaminated the experiment by having extraordinary knowledge of the future in one instance but not in the other.

It doesn't matter if he's my friend or not if life is valuable. So we don't know 100% what he will do, it's impossible to know. We never know what people will do with information. If I was ing her, I'd not tell him for 6 months after they split up. If he's suicidal he'd probably kill me.

Lol, no I didn't. It's a thought experiment. "Extraordinary" examples are common in thought experiments to evaluate the tenability of a position. A common thought experiment in examining utilitarianism is asking if it's justify to torture someone for eternity if it guaranteed eternal happiness for everyone else. That's an extraordinary situation that will never come true, but it shows the pitfalls of utilitarianism. My thought experiment is trying to show the pitfalls in thinking "telling the truth" is always inherently good. However, yes, this does depend on your personal value system. If you value truth/facts no matter what over life, there's no much I can say. That's your opinion and it is valid, even though it's unlikely to be societal consensus.