/lit/ - Literature

>>6970023
fear ultimately concerns death.

because fear wouldn't need to include others, just a cliff to walk along the edge of

>>6970034
I'm saying the gender doesn't matter. I'm not sure how though a man would come to a situation in which another man was the only food. maybe the actual hypothetical is:

if two men are locked in a cage, and then time passes until they are both starving, then each given a knife, would they fight for the fresh meat, or put down their knives and both perish after suffering for weeks on end?

You'll never know because different men would react differently

>>6970024
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donner_Party

>>6970005
its not unfounded. a certain "richness" of being human which includes a wide spectrum of awareness emotion and reactions, such as facial expressions, laughter, tears, etc.

in all it makes it more "real" than the cow. because we see the cow as little more than a bug, and a bug anybody crushes because it doesn't even scream

in complete honesty I'm only rationalizing me eating meat, and it comes down to me not feeling the sacrifice is worth the cow's life, which could be seen as evil in some ways. but cows don't seem all that aware of what's going on.

>>6969971
but we can't blame those who are fearful if they have no control over their fear, if no one has external control over anything

>>6969982
the situation is different because the man is hunting pleasure ultimately, not survival

>>6969978
because we want to live. imagine you choosing to live each day.

you could say, a cow doesn't WANT to live as much as a human because it doesn't understand what it means to live like a human does.

the killer seems to eliminate the inherent equality of his victim being "another human" and so decides for the other that it doesn't "want to live" and so eliminates the choice entirely

>>6969964
as i said, its not right and wrong from the individuals point of view but "desirable and undesirable"

the example I used was that no evil happens in a hunt with a lion and gazelle. there are simply desirable and undesirable outcomes for each free agent involved

>>6969954
yes but I'm still waiting for an answer to a question I asked which was, "if a serial killer murders several people, what is a sensible rationale you could attribute to him?"

it is entirely possible is response is, "because I am pleasured by killing"

literally nothing but dopamine happening. he kills because it gets his dopamine flowing.

but this "isn't good enough"

because we as humans have realized that dopamine flow can be controlled, and if it isn't controlled, doesn't that mean he is simply a dopamine robot?

there must be some difference in "human" vs "dopamine robot" is all im saying.

>>6969953
i.e. "morality concerns what is right and wrong"

its just a general starting point, its not in itself worth defining because by nature it is vague just as I said, "god" is vague.

>>6969942
because right and wrong are relative, so immediately the typical "morality" definition is thrown out the window.

>>6969882
but seriously, I can understand the other statements, but if truth can never be destroyed, I'm not sure what truth you're bringing into play that relates to power dynamics

>>6969886
so what happens if I use your debate style with
>>6969882

let's see!

>truth can never be destroyed
prove it
>fear is an illusion
prove it
>all beings are free
prove it

look I can logic !!

>>6969831
I do see most good things come from a good intention

>>6969841
right, so as I said, morality begins to break down into power. a sports contest is literally a contest of the "power" of one's ability vs the power of another

the contest is legitimate, because both are permitted to use their "full power" in an attempt to gain more power by beating the opponent.

>>6969833
do all things flow from one thing? would be the first question, if you say no then of course "the thing they all flow from" won't exist

if not, then you need an alternate explanation of things "being here"

>>6969816
it is absolutely true what I'm saying in the sports contest metaphor

see
>>6969787

>>6969810
the point is that defining "morality" is as useful as defining "god" in an atheism discussion.

you literally need to break it apart to begin to talk about it

>>6969785
and here we have an anon looking to play a word game

>>6969787
to put it another way....

yeah, you win (after breaking his leg) but that wasn't the fucking game you fucking dumbass!

>>6969780
it is literally the difference between what could be called "constructive" criticism vs. making an invasive attempt at worsening the problem to increase your own stature, you never gain stature by the worsening of others.

case in point is that a sports player is considered "good" if he beats another "good" player. not if he breaks the other players leg then wins. ......that is delusion. to think that this is "impressive" to beat the broken legged player

>>6969764
I'm saying, the desire to cause unnecessary pain, when the fulfillment of this desire is attached to nothing but increased power, and most likely a delusional concept of power, is what is evil

>>6969744
>those are your moral opinions, they aren't objectively true.

you being a human being, and me being a human being is objectively true. I assume you contain similar reactions to certain possibilities that inflict pain that I do. Because that's how we are built.

a burn will be painful. I won't burn you. I don't have to, and I don't desire to cause pain.

fuck it, you know what morality is all about, justice.

justice, delusion, and the will to power, and the will to pleasure. these are the foundations of any so called "morality" discussion

>>6969719
in other words, what is a valid excuse for this sort of mass killing that you would accept as "legitimate"? What could the killer tell you that would make it all make sense?