The Logic of Consequence: A Metaphysical(?)Approach
 

Firstly, you'll probably avoid reading this, I realise how scary all this text seems. I 'unno, save it for when you're bored?
It's simplified english, as I've made it. So if you feel it's too complicated for you to comphrehend just because of it's language, it shouldn't be a concern.
If this religiously offends you, my apologies.
This was initially a discussion me and a friend had regarding the dilemma of a murder and it's consequences. This is what I concluded and (sort of) documented.

To understand my theory it is very important that you know what the term life defines.
Life as I see it, is the will to exist individually, to grow and reproduce. The word 'will' here is used very literally. It is cruel to it's meaning that you understand what this means.
______________________

-Does the human life carry any essential value?
We all know we do matter, as an entity. But it is very important to understand why and what conditions needs to be satisfied in order for us to carry any significance.

For instance:
For the sake of argument, a man who spends his own life in solitary confinement and dies, (practically speaking) never mattered at all. No one had to shed tears, and even though materialisticly his absence would've been noticed, that was where it ended. "If a tree fell in the woods and non one heard it, did it make a sound?" That concept is being applied here.

On the contrary, if that man leads a normal life and meets people, interacts and relates to them, his death would now matter. His death would create new emotions and influence everyone he has known just as his life did.

From this we can conclude that life has no 'essential' value. An individual within itself carries no influence without another entity it could influence, which happens to be one of the conditions that have to be satisfied for something to carry value. Hence my life as a person carries no value but our lives as people do. So life holds a 'relative' value. We are important to others is why we are important to ourselves.

___________________________________________


-Now here's where it gets complicated. To define anything to begin with, something of contrast should be established.

For example:
One cannot know what how small something is until he has seen something bigger. There has to be difference, something of an opposing value to define one. Life would carry no meaning if death wasn't an inevitable fact. Hence we say that death is the absence of life.

So to define the value of a human life, we need something of comparison.

-What does carry true value?
The Big Bang Theory states that the universe started from a 1-dimensional point the size of an atom, so there had to be 'will' present for it to disperse and then infinitely expand. Which would mean, if we ever decided to travel towards the edge or the center of the universe, we'll always be infinitely distant from it.. eh?
Now think of life, it's value is nothing because it started from nothing and to balance the equation, it would have to end in nothing. With me so far?

-But the universe started from something, we we are almost certain of. So the universe does carry value. So far:
Our lives don't carry value individually
The universe does carry a value
And 'we' constitute(make up) the universe.

________________________________________

-So yes, individual life carries no value. But when two lives relate, as in a relationship.. that has value. And all relations, material and non-material (physical and spiritual) eventually constitute the universal value.

-Hence when a murder kills someone, he has caused something of negative value to happen. In order to counter this, a positive value has to be formed, to keep balance. So a living being somewhere else is born (not necessairily human) and since the universe which could be taken to have the value '1', it is infinitely and exponentially expanding, as in.. 1X1X1X1 no matter how may times you multiply it, the 'essential' value which the universe carries is inaffected. Sine the amount of matter never changes as it all started from the same 1-dimensional point. Everything has 'expanded' rather than increasing.

So the value stays the same no matter what. But when a person dies, in a sense value has been in that particular place lost.
Here's the dilemma, do we imprison/execute (punish) the killer?

Ofcourse, this is all just my theory, hardly even strong basis for an ethical paradox. And as a friend of mine did, most of you would impulsively answer 'yes'. But the execution (the killers death) doesn't directly bring positive value to the situation so for the person who died, it really changes nothing at all.


-Now Metaphysically, all humans should be able to go around killing each other without consequences, the strongest survive and form a most efficient and positive community till they eventually die out an somewhere out there in the billion stars, an alien specie replaces us. But that would be an eugenic concept and that is ethically wrong.
-Ethically speaking, taking another life is a crime, a sin, it's not against human nature but it's against the natural law that governs the human nature. That nature should left alone to do it's own job, eventually and naturally kill this human. (although some would consider murder that too)
Ofcourse they need to be punished for them to 'learn' a lesson but there is no gurantee to this, so we end up ruining another human life so other's can feel safer.. a selfish motive? Is that ethical? I'm quite honestly ambivalent.


Here, do you side (support) physics or ethics?

__________________________________________________ _________________________

FAQ's

-No matter what happens, this universal value is unaffected?
Infinity square root 2 is till infinity, but you couldn't say it hasn't lost value, right?

-Does material relationship affect value?
Yes, but the subject is living human beings, lets keep it spiritual.

-How does this value end?
A loves B, B loves A. They both die and with it their memories which carried the value of their relationship hence that value is now lost. If only one of them dies, 'some' value is lost.
It would result similarly if they both lost their memories. So memory plays a part, and death does end it since the neurons and philotes in your brain decompose into simpler substances and information is lost.

-Aren't everyday values 'feelings'?
No, values are mere numbers to lay the basics of a metaphysical argument. Values aren't classified (or catagorized) as feelings are, hence they are different.

__________________________________________________ ____________________________

Please point out any flaws, opinions, criticism. This is metaphysics, not religion. So please refrain from dragging in the inaccuracies of the Big Bang theory... since I'll be at a faliure to answer.

Neither, I support practical approach. If we allow people to go around killing each other civilization will collapse or at the very least progress would be slowed. Further the murder of an individual is the loss of a potentally productive resource. As such even if you attach no value to the life of an individual, it's still more efficent to forbid murder.

I think considering the value of the system as a whole, in this case the universe, is flawed reasoning. While the value of the system is unchanged apon someone's death, that does not mean that individual's life did not have value. That value, relative to the system as a whole is irrelevent, however, on the scale we live on, it is most certainly signifigant.

I do agree somewhat that the value is not in the life itself, but in the connections we make to others though. It works fine in daily life, but does lead to some problems when you view things on a large scale.

As to your man in solitary confinement, even if he never comes into contact with another human being, his life might still have value. He could have spent all his time thinking, and come up with unique ideas on the nature of the universe. That his life passed without those ideas becoming known is most certainly a loss, even if the world never knows it. However, if he wrote then down, and one day those works are discovered, his value may be revealed.

Though that last sentence probably violates the spirit of your case. :heh:

Um.. by saying he never made contact means he never learned to speak or read or write or to this. And his work will never be published if there was any. And he died without anyone ever having the knowledge that he existed, now does he matter?

Also,

We kill people to punish them or make them incapable of murdering ever again, on the assumption that they will go around killing more people eh? Isn't that unethical in itself? To trust our 'reasonable' assumption to end a persons life in one way or another? It would be at the 'risk' of other lives but we don't know what the risk is until we've taken it.

The concept of eugenics, the survival of the strongest also comes into play. Ofcourse we'll try and reach perfection, and we'll all end up dying and in death shall we find the perfection we were looking for. So we'll be replaced by another specie elsewhere, that's my theory. It's just ignorant of us to think aliens don't exist :/ So as our population increases, some other species on a different planet unknowingly pays the price. So the value isn't increased or decreased.

I agree with you that on our individual lives, the scale is different and that it does matter and hold value. And only because we exist around others. If both loves die, their love has died. It may inspire new relationships but those will be form different patterns. Either less or more complicated. So while it matters to us, in a generalization it doesn't make much difference. So we could punish our little killer for what he did either for the sake of revenge or gratification (selfish) or on the assumption that he'll make our lives less safe (selfish) both being somewhat unethical.

It's almost a circular paradox ethically, so I tend to support metaphysics :/ it's a little confusing even for myself I guess. But you had some strong arguments.

As short as I can possibly be ... when someone is murdered.... not only has a consciousness been snuffed but the *bonds* with every single other consciousness has been violated/nullified.

Its an entanglement issue, neither can exist without the other - each is created by the other in some way.

Interesting thread :)

For me I believe your individuality means nothing and it has no value if you cannot contribute anything to society in any kind of forward progression. With you example of the man in the basement that does nothing, his life for me has no value. For very few would even remember him when his death come, and few would even mourn his death and it doesn't affect much at all. If you include Kamui assumption that he did do some studies but never got the chance distribute his ideas to the world but maybe found later on, then his life/value would have some significance after his discovery would be found.

This is possible, but this only survived because there was no governing body to rule the others. The entity of supreme being would happen to be the strongest living body, mostly being the largest person with the most bulk, thus reverting us back to a uncivilized world.

Yes, we are only important if we are needed, other than that, a single life holds no value. But that doesn't mean this life should be eliminated or restrained.

Each individual is affect by those around him/her. Much like the celestial bodies revolves around each other. The sun is the center of our galaxy with the earth, the moon, and the little space debris spins around the sun. While each holds not too much value by themselves, the sun is the center creating valuable energy in the form of light converted to heat for the earth, the heat is transferred into energy to sucrose in the means of photosynthesis and just follow the food chain up and this example is completed.

While the Earth itself holds little value, it "can" hold life, which creates a "significant" force for itself. Well... in the spiritual sense.

So we are saying death and life negate each others? Vice versa too.

Ahhhh!!!! It's logical thinking!!! Run!!!!!

Jk. The metaphysics approach is of nature. Y'know, survival of the fittest? If you are a lion, and you can't competitively hunt, you will starve, and die. Technically, us humans should be following this rule, as we also are animals, and born of this planet naturally.

But somehow us humans have worked our way to the top, and we are following the ethics rule. But we still keep animals in battery farms, feed them diets which will lead them to maximum profit, and most value for money.

Yet within our (human) society, we are using the ethics approach. Mentally, and physically handicapped individuals are supported by the society, since we consider it unethical to leave them to die. The people who (nearly always) work harder and longer get paid less (e.g. factory workers)

God, my brain hurts. I support a hybrid of ethics and metaphysics. Metaphysics can be applied to business, economics, work, etc where efficiency is the most important. Ethics can be applied to our human society.

This thread is damn interesting. Cookie for Bornsatin for creating this.

I agree with Vexx, an interesting thread. You've approached a classically existentialist question in a rather unusual way. I can't quite tell what inspired your particular chain of "metaphysical" ideas, but I strongly suggest that you read up on existentialist philosophy to help shape your thoughts.

To answer your first question directly, I'll first assume that you're essentially agnostic. In the first place, no self-respecting theist would have suggested the premises you have proposed. To be sure, your ideas sound rather heretical from an existentialist viewpoint as well. :p

From there, I'll tell you quite simply what I believe: essence precedes meaning. We are hurled into existence (Kierkegaard), not out of any prior choice nor with any accompanying instructions. And for as long as we live, we'll never really know why we came into existence in the first place.

Meaning comes later, as an act of Will. Through our will, we impose meaning on our surroundings (Schopenhaur). We detect patterns, interpret signs, in the vain-glorious hope of making some sense out of our transient existence. That's one reason why artistic experession is the noblest form of human endeavour - it is a conscious act of human will, to impose order on our lives, and to create beauty in the process (Schopenhaur, and to a certain extent, Nietzsche). Beauty makes our otherwise miserable existence tolerable.

I have no idea where you derived your "metaphysical relativity" from. It sounds a bit like a very confused interpretation of Taoist dualism. Without a clear understanding of your context, it's rather difficult to comment further on what you've suggested. If you ask me, it sounds like a sure recipe for suicidal depression. :heh:

Very simply, life matters, because this is the only one existence you'll ever have. No second chances. No after-life to look forward to. You die, that's it. You become nothing.

What remains are the memories that people have of you. You don't have to be famous, unless you want to. All it takes is for at least one person who cares to remember you. The Great Gatsby had at least one true friend to see him off at his funeral. It was a pathetic way to go, but at least he wasn't completely forgotten.

So, in this sense, at least one part of your ideas sound reasonable. Yes, it's true that part of the value of a human life is made up of the relationships he forms.

But you can't ignore the idea that all human lives have intrinsic value. It's utterly depressing to think it doesn't. I mean, if that were so, what's stopping you from jumping off a cliff right now?

So, yeah, live long and prosper. Don't think too hard. ;)

Well..Say you got put away in prision in Highschool, and you die like 50 years later in there...You've learned to speak, read, write, etc....And eventually you'll probably be forgotten..I mean, If you know someone in the 10th grade you you move and don't see them or keep in contact for 20 years..chances are they wont remember you. So just because you have made contact with people, does not excuse the fact that you could be forgotten and you die with out meaning. It's really a thing like this..The beginning of your life had meaning, but towards the end that meaning was lost.

Now...What I believe is that "No good deed is done with out a bad after effect, and vise-versa." Meaning, every good deed you do, will always have a bad outcome, and every bad deed done will have a good outcome. Which is where my argument on good and evil comes in. I do not belive in good nor evil...We are all neutral. We all are good and evil. So, when someone dies to keep the balance another child is born? I say that this is true. Then you have someone who kills someone...Then they are tried and punished. That goes with my belif. So, someone kills someone- Most would think it's a bad deed commited yes? So, they are tried and and lets say they get the death sentence. So bassically by kiling this guy, they are just taking another life to make up for the other one. So they are murdering them, which like you said is ussually for a selfishness. Again that is a bad deed is it not? So lets look at the chain shall we....Someone kills someone-Bad---Person is then given a punishment for what he has done- Good---IS killed for what he is done---Bad.....So it goes, Bad, Good, Bad...So by doing a bad deed, a good deed was caused, but that good deed cause another bad deed.

Now, you theroy on this is very logical and something that I would possible to believe is true. Now with what thousands of other people belive, to them your theory has many flaws.

Now, as for the human life having value. I believe that every human life has value, it's just some tends to loose it's value eventually. Say, two parents have a child and then that child dies...The value of that was it gave the parents hope (or what ever else you could get.). Every life has value, wheather or not it's acknowleded or known. When you are born, you have value...It's just if you tend to be anti-socible and never interact with people, you your self are lowering the value of your life.

Well according to your theory, in the long run life has no value whatsoever (as eventually every life will end and therefore any impression any life has had will end) which is really depressing when you think about it. I don't agree with this model, I prefer the magical number 2 model (the number 2 is not a material thing and therefore cannot be destroyed. The essence [consciousness, soul, spirit, whatever you prefer] of any human is also not a material thing and therefore also cannot be destroyed and will always exist.)

To me every life has some intrinsic value just by existing.

Now on to the killing of a murderer. In your theory it doesn't matter, as whether or not it is a good or bad deed to kill the murderer has no impact in the grand scheme of things. Also you can look at it purely metaphysically; the murderer is "weak" enough to get caught and therefore deserves to die for not being "strong" enough to escape.

What I meant from 'value' was nothing but 'influence'. You influence something either with a relationship/feeling or with an act. So saying something had 'relative metaphysical value' means that anything the solitary man did to himself didn't change anything. As we see ourselves, we are nothing. But if we look at ourselves as a friend or an enemy would look at us, suddenly we gain importance because we've somehow influenced them. So while we are nothing important within ourselves, relatively we might be. That is how I would define the value I've used to base the whole theory on. So I would say it really is as simple as it sounds, but I'll definitely consider your arguments, they're all plausible.

I'm glad you comprehend things the way had intended. The murderer is weak if he got caught, but he shouldn't be killed by even weaker beings who're afraid of him. Ofcourse it's far too late to implement eugenics successfully now, now that we're around 10 thousand years into the (somewhat) civilized human history. But as I've said, it would've been a natural and ideal way to first grow to our biotic potential and then elimiate with eugenics. It's what we've essentially been doing all along, to reach a eutopia. A 'perfect' world and at the epitome of efficiency. We'll go on to try and being perfect with better products, and less 'waste' in every sense of the word. So just as we get closer to perfection, we get further from humanity and eventually we do find perfection, but only in utter extinction and death. Death is quite perfect unless you believe in reincarnation.

Let us now bow our heads in silence for Bob. Bob was a simple man, who had no real connection to our world besides living in it. However, because of one moment in time, he avoided a traffic accident by making a turn before he was supposed to, and set off a chain of events that made our world the way it is today.

Everyone who lives knows someone who died. We pause and remember them for how they affected our lives. We rarely pause and reflect on those we don't know, who died, and influenced our lives without us knowing.


Humans would not be the top of the chain today if we weren't strong. In our species view, the murderer is the weak one. He does not help our society, he disrupts it.

Death is imperfect. What's the point of life if death is all that awaits you? Sure, you can look at life as the most basic terms - consume, excrete, sleep. Humans are more than that. We also create, destroy, question, improve. We're far more complex than the circle of life. So what's the point of being human and having all of this "baggage" if we're simply meant to be animals and die quietly?

It's hard for me to accept that we'll move beyond humanity when one of our most basic and enduring questions is what it means to *be* human.

Lets call my abnormally reclusive buddy Jack ^_^'

Humans would not be the top of the chain today if we weren't strong. In our species view, the murderer is the weak one. He does not help our society, he disrupts it.

The murderer has simply acted upon what he thought was 'free will' as he didn't see himself bound by ethical or religious boundries while he was committing the 'crime'. I'm not defending murder but rather giving it a different, less cruel perspective.

By death I meant extinction, you are right.. a human life does have more to it. But once you are dead, you are over. Another memory, without sentience or another 'shadow' of an entity that existed. Ofcourse I'm an Atheist to not look forward to a heaven or hell :/ but I warned about that earlier.
Life isn't perfect because you can be half dead even while you live, and life can be changed and improved and lived. Death is the absence of everything. Everything has imperfections thus the absence of everything would leave nothing to bear any flaws. To put it in another context, it's as perfect as an imaginary friend, a friend you created to perfectly fit your needs?
Though that won't apply to this situation, since Jack has never known a friend or anyone, so his feelings would be just as unreal as anything else and although you might think he has created value by loving this creature, he has influenced no enteties :/

Please point out any errors, I'm almost making this up as I go :/ improvising.

Well, murder happens for many reasons. Sometimes it's a fit of emotional rage or passion. Sometimes it's because of money. Sometimes it's because you just want to do it. The need/want to lash out does manifest in many ways. And I agree that one moral standpoint doesn't cancel out another, but something has to give, both views need to compromise. It's either that and function as a society or be unwilling to compromise and eat each other alive.

Some people just like to watch the world burn.

Heaven and hell are constructs of the mind. I'm not much of a religious person, but I believe that it's impossible to state "when you die that's it", because truthfully even our best experts know not even a drop in the bucket about the universe we live in.

Glass is half full here: Can't you be half alive when dead? No zombie jokes here. :p Merely suggesting that the state can be transient. If everything else is a grey area, why does life and death have to be decisive?

Humans are weird.

You know, we could all be the figment of someones imagination. Doesn't change the fact that we are still here, fake or not.

Meh, that's the best way to do it. :heh:

Thank you, actually. The whole point of this is to refine my idea's as much as possible ^_^
Life and death have to be decisive because we were nothing before we were born and to 'balance the equation' it has to end that way, o.o in my humble opinion

You're right, it doesn't. But metaphysically, I'd say it has atleast a little affect on the conclusions we might get to.

I disagree. One might call it destiny, or fate, that we are who we are. That nagging question people ask themselves everyday..."why am I here?" "what is the point of my existence?"....I think the equation is balanced by the times you are somewhere or doing something. I don't think life is measured by why, so much as when. When are you going to die? Your choices determine when things happen around you and when they'll affect others as a result.

The why is important, but the when matters more. Unfortunately you can't predict the when. So we all just blunder through our lives making the best of it we can until our time comes to leave. How we choose to spend that time is really the only thing that matters in life, in my opinion.

If you imagine the universe as a giant chain of events, things *have* to happen in order to give rise to new events. So to say someone is nothing before they were born and consequently are nothing when they die sounds negative, if not fatalistic. That's not to say you are powerless to choose your own destiny, but things will play out unforseen no matter what you do. The destination might not change, but the path is yours to travel.

If you want a circle of life kind of answer, you can also reflect upon existence in this manner: Action and reaction. You are born, therefore you must die. But why do you have to be born? You, specifically. What couldn't it have been one of thousands of eggs and millions of sperm, across billions of males and females coupling that produced a different person. Why you?

The balance of life is that you have to die to make sure the system is never overburdened with constant new lives and older lives that never expire. There are many built in safeties, but man is slowly overcoming them. It's safe to say that the system nature built is being eroded by mans ability to move beyond it. The only safety nature could create to keep this in check would be something so fatal the species would be wiped out.

So again, balance is subjective. Life and death are transient stages of existence. Knowing only what your time is like during your life holds little value before or after this existence as you are now. At least, to you personally. To those who are still living, your value is only decided upon by them.

Yes, perhaps a bit philosophical, but it's some of the reflections I've been pondering for a few years now.

True. And people have tapped into that thinking. There are tons of fiction and nonfiction on the subject. The result most make is, where does the rabbit hole end? Suppose you wake up from this reality, like a dream. Is that reality also fake? How far down does it go?

You end up thinking in circles. Perhaps that's where reincarnation originates from. For example - creating a new account/name on a message board you frequent. You're still "you", but to everyone else you're not the same person. Even if someone was keen enough to recognize some of your traits from your previous persona, it would be impossible for them to know without you either a.) making it blatently obvious, or b.) a higher source telling them, like a moderator.

My brain hurts. :heh:

I couldn't read every single post but here's what I had in mind, quite random thoughts, not refering to any other post except maybe the first:

Yes, if someone who absolutely had no contact with anyone, his existance would be useless to the society. But his existance still carried something, because when he dies, he will decompose and 'return to nature'. He contributes to the carbon cycle, grows some fungi, algae and other micro organisms, maybe his corpse will also feed some larger scavenger or something lol

Its very hard to deem an existance completely meaningless and useless. Though I'm someone who thinks that our (human) existance is near insignificant, for now. Until we can leave our planet and cross several light years, humans are probably going to end up as nothing, just like the murder example in the original post.

I like to view things at a bigger scale:

Our planet is just one planet among the trillions of solar systems of stars in our galaxy, which is among even more galaxies.

When the Sun goes into a red giant, our human existance for a mere 15000 years or so would become nothing, even the Earth's 4.5 billion years is nothing.

Unless Voyager 2 actually ended up in someone elses scope/camera view, computer screen or even crashed into their planet.

If we still aren't able to make ourselves 'known to the universe', our existance would be useless in the first place. But of course, we may have already been known, by aliens that really are observing our planet.

An existance can only be insignificant at most, but can't completely have no value.

To deem a human existance useless, the planet must be destroyed, but then we may have already affected something in our galaxy. So to deem the planet useless we must destroy the galaxy. Next we have to destroy the galaxy itself, but at such a large scale, the destruction is sure to leave behind alot and cause alot more, so we must destroy the local galaxy cluster. Then we will have to destroy the universe itself and so on.

Quick notes:
Bornsatin:
- you haven't explained what what you call "will" is, or its relationship with the Big Bang.
- You haven't explained why "value" changes as in a zero-sum game.
- The quantity of matter in the universe isn't constant.
- Your murderer isn't strong. He got caught and turned the environment that supported him into something hostile.
- Eugenism presupposes you know what it means to be strong, what it takes to come out on top. It's arrogant and stupid. A society that can build tanks and planes will beat a society of musclemen who can't use anything more elaborate than clubs, but ten thousand years ago, did we know that?

Solace: interesting. I'm more of a "what" person, myself. You are here and this now. What do you do?

I'm afraid I might be underthinking things but I really have to disagree with your statement This is by how you got to this point. In your view a person doesn't have value unless they are involved in a relationship of any kind with another person. This however ignores the fact that people have relationships with different parts of themselves.
As far as we know all aware beings are multi faced. As an example a part of me doesn't want to post this because it fears scrutiny and the possible rejection which that may cause. It can also be assumed that if the universe is sentinent or aware it is also made up of parts. This all simply means that if relationships create value then aware beings which as far as we know have internal relationships should have value. I would also like to point out that things that don't exist, while not having value also have no need of value and thus don't suffer for it.

Now I'm going on to a part I know I'm underthinking. In the case of the murder, punishment occurs for four reasons
1. To cause suffering to the murderer. Ie revenge
2. To show would be murderers that they will suffer if they murder. Ie dissuation
3. To stop possible repeat offenders from repeating crimes. Ie isolation
4. To force them to engage in behaviour to help them reintergrate into society Ie redemption
Out of these 2 and 3 cause further negative value to not come into existence. While 4 directly causes positive value and even in the case of an execution 3 is at least always invoked with 2 usually invoked as well. Most other forms of punishment at least invoke one of 2,3 and 4 as well.

So then your saying that everything is already pre-planed then? I might be reading it wrong (probably am..got like 1 hour of sleep last night studying for my finals, just got done with algebra finals and am supposed to be doing a project on the computer :heh: so please excuse my mis-interpitation if i'm wrong).

If you ask me, your life is pre-determined by the choices you make...Your life is not completely set, you are set on a path in which you must take, it's just the choices along the way will effect the outcome....So, makeing your life have value or not would be entierly up to you....So your life is not pre-determined, just the path you walk on is....

Ah ha, perfectly stated. Every word you said I can agree with 100%. Like you I believe we are just set here set to walk straight forward for your life and those detours you take will affect how you end up in the finish line. You can either walk straight ahead and nothing will affect you but time, or you can either take left or right but never walk backward.

I majored in Philosophy and the opening post was pretty hard to understand, one of the reasons being that "metaphysical" is being used in the wrong way. I certainly have wrapped myself up in similar convoluted thoughts after chasing my own shadows so seeing this thread was a minor delight.. Now to engage in some discourse.

Well, if you have any sort of trust in our science and statistics, you will know that such "assumptions" may very well be justified. Criminal offenders are often, and often will be, repeat offenders, for many reasons. The issue is more complicated than that..


This "assumption" thing you have going on is abit jarring. We live our lives by assumptions. We assume we're going to have a tomorrow, that the sun will rise again, that the bus will come every 3 minutes, that your loved one is real and not an illusion, that your life is real and not a dream etc.

Using the word "assumption" is inappropriate to the situation because the language really makes it seem like it's unfair or unjustified. Taking a purely metaphysical (by your usage) or two-dimensional ethical approach does not really help flesh out the details. We need to know more about criminal psychology - are murderers repeat offenders? How often? Are there a sub-type of murderers that are repeat offenders and others who are not? How do we differentiate them?

Then there is the social aspect, how do we handle criminals? Do we jail them, and continue to feed them and provide them with accomodation? Do we rehabilitate those which can be rehabilitated? Should society bear the cost of feeding and housing its criminals? (Note that prison cells in the US are often full to the brim -- such that offenders scheduled to be jailed are sometimes let free.)



I guess I've come across as abit confusing, mainly because I think the original shape of your point was confusing as well.. I don't quite know where to start. But in all I would suppose that by isolating factors to just being metaphysical and ethical in this problem, it doesn't help to answer the questions that you have because bringing in other concepts like "selfish" and "assumption" far exceed the boundaries of the metaphysical and ethical into the social and so forth.

Your value system is also abit weird. Wouldn't killing every single sentient living thing in the world then be something that completely ruins the value system? Since value is relative and subjective; and in a universe without subjects there would be no value.. Oh well.

The explanation of the big bang was to explain how the universal value stays the same even if it's infinitely expanding.
The quantity of matter is constant, it is only it's relationship and expansion of space that stretches it. 6_6
My murderer didn't wish for the consequence, it was imposed on him. So he's stronger than the imposers but they outnumber him, i.e. democracy. :/ the rule of the common (often stupid) creatures who hold the majority ^__^
Eugenism isn't necessairily strength oriented.


The purpose that is gained from their punishment is what I go against. Even if they were to repeat their acts, I don't see much wrong with it by my thought pattern since life elsewhere will ultimately replace it.


What I've called 'selfish' is what I understand to be ethically wrong and quite often biased. : ) Since I do believe the metaphysical side of it, I don't support punishment to begin with. It becomes selfish because in death, we only think of ourselves even in thinking for others. It's not that social from the perspective this thread enlightens. Individuality is only genetic code and upbringing acting together to make us who we are, and self-centricism the value is lost. ^__^ Ironically, I'm selfishly arguing.

It would 'eventually' ruin the value system only for it to be replaced by a different one elsewhere in the universe. Our society's unity or chaos is a miniature of the universe itself, it begins it expands and eventually it'll come to an end. Or so I believe anyway :/


I'm sorry if I couldn't satisfy your hunger for something intriguing, but it was just a thought I felt like projecting for some response. To correct myself in the process. And if you are as qualified as you say you are, this'll be more of a learning experience for me than it'll be a debate or a discussion. ^__^Touché

So... It was a simile, rather than something to do with the actual value? Is that what you mean? And the quantity of matter in the universe isn't a constant.

And do you believe matter is the only measure of value? That if I cut you in twain, in doesn't matter, because we'll still have two halves, equal to the whole?
That's what makes him a failure. He choose an action that ultimately had bad consequences. It means he lacked of foresight, ability, or luck.

Murder isn't illegal only in democracies. And I don't get your point. A lone man is stronger for killing others, but if several people do it they're not? How does that work?

Not physical strength, no. But you didn't get my point: what's desirable today, what we'll naturally breed ourselves for... In ten thousand years, it may well prove largely meaningless.


So I can take your money, because it won't be lost for everyone? I can kill you, because hey, new babies are born all the time?

Besides, you entirely fail to grasp the notions of choice, responsibility, and consequences. We, all of us, make choices hoping to get more good consequences than bad. If those choices include putting murderers in jail, hoping it'll be good for us, well, tough for the murderers, but they certainly can't come crying that they just chose to kill someone and since we all have free will, it's fine. By the same logic, imprisoning them is fine too.


What ethics are you using? Those that say that nothing matters? How can anything be wrong there?

What the heck are you saying?
I can't even begin to understand how your value system works.

Matter is governed by space, if space were stretched, matter would too. I suppose it's quantity would remain constant but not to an observer, it has expanded. Quantity is how we define something taking more or less space :/ this obviously isn't the physical explanation

I was referring to democracies to simply what i was trying to say, this wasn't really political at all. If several people kill 1 man, the whole point of the eugenic concept is defeated ^_^

By 'ultimate replacement' i meant a different specie would replace us, not a new baby for every death.. since even today more babies are being born and the population would never inrease eh.

What you call 'choice' is a somewhat unjust decision nonetheless. When you put them in jail hoping it'll make your lives better/safer, you only end up retaliating, ruining 2 lives. Ethics aren't logical at all, so as I said.. 'metaphysically, we should be able to go around killing each other' and it wasn't an argument rather a discussion. You've only made it clear you side ethics and morality ^_^ But being the first one to actually entirely stick to the topic, I commend you.


It was in response to what Arias said. Jack is self-centered because he's never had anything but his self to be the center of his thought. That is what made him so valueless, in a way that's all we accomplish when we're being selfish x) nothing at all.

Well, it's a little vauge which was why I posted this in order to clarify my own thoughts. Before the bigbang, the 1 dimensional point was in complete unity within itself, hence the ultimate bond/relationship even though it's only physical. x)So we take it as reference. Now as the bond grows weaker in the universe, among ourselves (humans) we still carry some relationships which effectively govern our lives to a great extent even if we are sentient and capable of individuality. This relationship of anything/everything is what I call value, or whatever carries importance to another because it influences or controls it's course of life or existence.

I'm pretty sure you're still unclear, and so am I or I wouldn't post this for dicussion but rather as a definite article somewhere. It's a hypothesis for a hypothesis. ^__^''

The amount of matter isn't always the same, the amount of information is.

Eventually all life in the entire universe will cease.

While I do not agree with you on a person who does nothing with their life is worthless, this thread is still interesting.

Can you give me your reasoning on this? If it is just personal belief, there's no need to explain, if not I'm just curious how your mind works ^^

I explained it a bit earlier using the magical number 2.
It is impossible to destroy/kill a 2 because it is not a physical item.
The essence of a human (their consciousness, spirit, soul, whatever you prefer) is also not a physical item and cannot be destroyed likewise.
Every person has some intrinsic value because of this.

Just my way of thinking about it, but it very easily could be the fact that I don't like the idea of death being the end of it all.

Uh.. we all have intrisic instincts and likes and dislikes but for those to be established, we atleast have to be exposed to things for it to come out :^__^

No, the outcome is still the same. Unless you find some magical elixir that grants immortality, you are going to die someday. That's the fate of every living thing and there is nothing anyone can do to change that.

So your life is predetermined, leading to what I said in my post that you quoted....

Well of course your going to die...That's obivously pre-determined ((Off topic, but is "Pre-determined" hiphinated or no?)). What I'm saying is that you have a path along the way that you take...Say.....The start of the path is when you are born...The end of the path is when you die. So along that path in which you are on, along the way you have choices to make...to make it with the example, detours....Temptations, etc...Every choice you make will effect the outcome as you get further along the path. So, if you walk all the way on the path avoiding everything, and making as little choices as possible, ((Just so you know..This is kinda off your quote..just giving more explinations to my belife xD)) then your life has little value. The more choices you make, the more value your life gains...It's a matter of a value that you want or don't want. Now, ironically, always making the choices that you are for sure are the right thing can be bad as an outcome. In life, you are tempted to make wrong choices, and sometimes you take them which can give you a better outcome. This temptations can make life more fun, filling, profitable, etc...So, to make your life have more value, you take more dangerous choices..This is because by taking these choices you will meet new people, gain more respect in some areas, etc....More this happens, more value you have because the more people you know, the more people will remember you when you reach the end of your path. So in a technical sense, everyones life has value. It starts off small, and it's your choices that will make it grow. ((and I should state that I love this thread ^_^

I highly recommend you study what Schopenhaur wrote about “the World as Will and Representation.”

Wrong, or rather not necessarily. Life has “no essential value” only from your particular point of view. Which is why I’ve commented earlier that this is not a particularly fruitful philosophy, as it seems to me to be a sure-fire recipe for suicidal depression.

This is where I think you’re getting very confused. You’re talking about something derived possibly from the Taoist concept of dualism, ie, yin-yang, the empirical observation of how every natural phenomenom has an opposite.

But dualism does not in any way suggest that life has no inherent, universal value of its own. It merely proposes the view that where there is life, there is death. Where there is beauty, there is ugliness. Where there is kindness, there is cruelty. One does not define the other. It merely is.

To put it another way, before you can truly “live”, you need to accept death. To understand beauty, you need to know what is ugly. So on and so forth. This by no means imply that your life is meaningless. It’s merely a suggestion of how to live in acceptance of the Way (Tao).

I think you’ve completely misunderstood what it means to be “metaphysical”.

Quoting from Wikipedia:
“Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that investigates principles of reality transcending those of any particular science.”

In other words, metaphysics is what happens before physics. It’s when philosophers try to think about the rules that existed prior to physical reality.

Epistemology, the philosophy of knowledge, is required for almost any discussion on metaphysics. Basically, epistemology is that branch of philosphy where we study what we can know.

There is one view that there are concepts that exist outside of our reality (absolute rules), and that we can “know” some of these concepts through rational thought alone. There is the opposing view that it is ultimately pointless to ask about these concepts, because it is humanly impossible for us to “know” these concepts. That’s because these phenomena lie outside of human experience (what we cannot verify through our physical senses, we cannot know).

What you’ve described about “humans should be able to go around killing each other without consequences” has nothing to do with metaphysics at all. Instead, you’re talking about Ethics. Or, to put it more directly, you’ve merely expressed one out of many possible ethical systems, based on your subjective opinion that life is essentially meaningless (which I strongly disagree).

======

So, back to square one. What you’ve been wanting to discuss all along is really about Ethics, not Metaphysics. You’re looking for a way to think about “meaning” in life. And you’ve got yourself horribly confused in the process.

As I’ve suggested earlier, read more. As someone else has already commented, you’re chasing shadows.

You’re clearly someone who is interested in such matters of philosophy, but you’ll get nowhere by thinking in isolation — other thinkers have explored the same issues you’re thinking about, and they’ve covered the ground in far greater detail than I can possibly explain. You’ll make a lot more progress by doing further research on your own.

Good luck. I think you have potential, but you need to work at it. No one else can help clear up your thoughts for you. :)

Uh.. your references are almost irrelevant to me, since I have never formally approached philosophy. If you feel everything I've said is a syncratic product of everything you've learned, you're mistken ^_^' I'll definitely look into it, even though this understanding is not my struggle to understand who I am but rather interest for more knowledge, it has countless benefits besides the ones you've pointed out x)

I suppose I'm content with the rest, but could you please explain the 'essence' of a 'life' and it's 'value' as you understand it? I originally thought of classifying it as epistemology myself but metaphysics seemed more plausible, an error in judgement I guess.

I'm not mistaken. ;)

I do suggest you try my references. You'll be surprised to find that you're ideas aren't actually very original. (Heck, none of us on Earth are truly that original -- if we can think of something, chances are, somebody else has already thought of it before, and quite possibly wrote about it far more eloquently than I can.)

"Essence" is very hard to explain, not least because everyone has a subjective opinion of what makes "essence". In my case, I use the word to refer to concepts, in particular, physical phenomena that we can experience and measure empirically. I would also use it to refer to intangible phenomena. For something to have "essence" it necessarily means that it "exists".

"Life" is probably even harder to define. You have religious, medical or philosophical definitions to choose and adapt from. But one thing is for sure, "life" is not just the "absence of death", as you might have put it. To say that would almost be like saying a coin is defined by its two sides, heads and tails.

Well sure, every coin has two sides, but I suppose you can see from this analogy that this explanation alone does not define a coin. In the same way, "life" and "death" are simply two sides of an "existence". One does not define the other.

Within the context of this thread, I suppose I can describe "life" simply as the ability to "have experience". You don't have to be consciously aware of the experience -- as far as we know, only humans are self-aware, but that doesn't make animals or plants less "alive" than we are.

It follows that the collection of "experiences" is what gives life value. Every experience, however trivial, adds value to life, not least because every life approaches "existence" from a perspective that is uniquely its own. Your relationships with other people are a subset of these "experiences". You also have your memories, your own thoughts, your biological needs, and your sensory perceptions. Together, these are all a part of what makes you a unique individual.

Which is why, from a narrow point of view, it would be morally wrong to take a life. Because every life is a unique instance that may never occur again. It has inherent value of its own.

But, when it comes to ethical systems, we realise that there are endless exceptions to that moral proposition, "Thou shalt not kill." That is what makes moral philosophy interesting (or frustrating) to study. ;)

Ok. Head hurts from the block of text but I think I get what you are saying. :p:heh:

Value is subjective. Is a man like Hitler considered "valuable"? He certainly was influential. Perhaps Einstein? What about suicide bombers? Nuns? What about your neighbor? His friends?

To quote one of my favorite anime: No matter where you are, everyone is connected.

To presume you have affect on others is ignoring their effect on you. One influences the other. Someone gets a flat tire. Creates a traffic jam. People stuck waiting get angry. Someone has a fit of road rage. Cuts someone off by speeding around other cars. The person he cuts off swerves. Hits the guardrail. His car is damaged. He files a report with the police. The police arrest the guy who had road rage. Man who has road rage has to go to anger management and pays a large fine. See where I'm going with this?

It's fate. You, personally, have free will to decide. But everything about the universe, the system you live in, ultimately influences everything you do. So you go left instead of right, events will just play out accordingly. Because you cannot see the future, you cannot understand the events leading to your decision until after you have made it.

So when it comes to value, again it's not up to you to decide your relevance to the world. How that value is measured ultimately comes down to personal belief. To some it holds none. To others it's more precious than anything else in the universe.

Simply by existing, you influence the events of everything else. Those events shape you and others, making things as they are now. To tug on the strings of that tapestry would cause the whole thing to unravel.

And yes, it is a fun thread. It's interesting to see others thoughts on this kind of thing. ;)

Hmmm..I see what you are saying. See, my belifs in all this completley contridict themselfs....I think this is because it allows me to think more on the subject rather then pass by it. I don't like the thought of there being fate because that says that I have no control over my life what so ever, so how I end up is because it was planed, not because I made it to be that way..but then I do not believe in coincidences....Useing your example "The flat tire." My mind makes me think that it could of just became flat at random, but then my mind then thinks "Why did it go flat?" Then I start to think that it didn't just randomply go flat, something had to make it happen....Which makes me think back in a turn of events that could have happend and why it happend, going towards you theory on how people are all connected. This then goes towards the thought of "Fate." It's just confusing me...I've been taught that I can make my life how I want it to be, and that "Fate" doesn't exsist, but then you read things like this, and understand more and more, and it's just going against what you were taught, which is why I have a problem understanding...Ok..not understanding...More like accepting...My mind process everything and thinks about it..and even when I feel there is no way to get around it, I always keep thinking of a way because I feel that it's not true....So "Fate" itself is not confusing, it's because of how I was taught and the fact my mind contridicts itself is what makes it confusing....

(I would like to know how old everyone in this tread is..I mean, most of the kids in my school would probably have no idea what we are talking about....So to see kids my age talking about this would be a step out of the stupidity and ignorince in my school :D)

I'm 15, but I'll never use that as an excuse for any incompetency in my reasoning. Most people my age group aren't even worth intelligent conversation. Too colloquial and ignorant of realities or philosophies which essentially govern their lives :/ The ones who are, are close to me ^__^

Well, you shouldn't use your young age as an excuse but it certainly is a reason, whether it's brought up in discussion or not. We pick things up as we get older and only some of the greatest prodigies attain supreme competency at a young age... in Philosophy the only one I know of is the eluisve Saul Kripke, who was published and contributed a great deal to the development of logic in Philosophy when he was about your age. Even now I disagree with alot of his works though..

I think it's great that you're starving for intellectual discourse.

Your reasoning isn't incompetent as much as it is unclear. Being able to build, test and express your case clearly is an intellectual asset. It takes time to hone in on that precision. You'll also find that most people of ALL age groups do not care much about these intellectual things, but that's a separate issue from possessing an elitist attitude about it. You have to be careful about it.


Lots of things to work though, I think you can definitely consider pursuing Psychology or Philosophy, and a sub-discipline within those that has a strong bent towards the social sciences. Just be aware that pursuing intellectual interests can severely diminish your future job prospects.. as it did mine when I gave up on a very promising start in Computer Science ; )

Thank you for your sincere concerns : ) Phisolosphy is recreation as far as I'm concerned. My real 'strenghts' would be human biology and physics. And I'll (probably) pursue a career in Medicine. But as long as you enjoy what you do, I don't see it as much of a loss. Thanks for the encouragement and valuable advice x)
What ever got me interested in philosophy was to lay basics for any fiction/non-fiction writing I ever do, rather than the conventional shallow themes. A little metaphoria and philosophy really makes reading meaningful, and all I learn here will eventually be implemented to lay the framework of an (hopefully) intricate plot-line ^__^

hehe, Yea, I'm 15 too, It's nice to come on here and find other people my age that accualy have logical conversations that alot find that we would never understand because they downgrade us...-_-

Pride comes before the fall. While I won't suggest that older people are necessarily wiser or more intelligent, I would point out that they've "eaten more salt than all the rice you've eaten." So, never assume that you are too clever to learn from others, whoever humble their circumstances.

If it's writing you intend to do, here's further advice. People respect intelligence, but they admire beauty. While they may praise clever people, they don't often find them very likeable.

There are many kinds of writing, but the most successful novels, poems, essays, biographies, autobiographies, etc, are not the ones that beat you over the head bragging about the "wisdom" they contain. The most successful ones are those which tell stories that remind us what it means to be human.

Good luck. :)