03-01-2023, 03:57 PM
(This post was last modified: 03-01-2023, 04:15 PM by Rhythmcs.)
Are human beings inherently selfish?
Are human beings inherently selfish?
Well, certainly not the better good of dinner? I think we can safely rule them out as beneficiaries of any scheme that involves eating them. To me, it seems like a case of deciding which bad thing you can live (or die) with.
-but is it selfish to think that way, or to act on those compulsions? Is it selfish of me to kill the cannibals? Is it selfish of me to prevent people from eating the dead? Is it permissible for me to use violence to enforce these compulsions? In defense of myself? In defense of others? Even deeper down, say we consider all of this, this compulsion, this compulsion to moralize about it...to be an artifact of social conditioning? Okay, but if moral import is relative then there's nothing morally wrong with pursuing the goals that society instills, as this is the truth maker in relative systems. How we comfortable we are about given outcomes is non operative. The best outcome is the one in which we do what our society has compelled us to do. Even if that leaves a pile of bodies.
Isn't that the nature of moral dilemma anyway? Not when two things or possible courses of action are equally and exclusively horrible, but when it's difficult to know and difficult to do the right thing. So, to use the seetup again. It might be very hard to refrain from and pursuade others to refrain from eating the sick man. Faced with a bunch of hungry people I would understand the danger in standing up for the "sickly" one. It seems like this guy needs an advocate in the situation, because all we're hearing from is a bunch of (potential) chefs. Maybe that person even indicates that they're fine with it. You go on, save yourselves, kill me now (selfless motherfucker) - we might have reason to doubt his rational capacity and ability to consent in such a setup. Does anyone want to go tell the deceased's family that he was totes cool with us eating him after he hit 104F - so no harm no foul?
We don't want to die. It would be easier to, you know..not do that, we want the right decision to always and exclusively be the one in which we are still alive - this is the very thing leading to our being so deeply morally compromised in the first place. Not a guiding moral principle, imo. I don't blame anyone for not wanting to die - but it's clear that were capable of doing some pretty fucked up shit to avoid it. Hell, eating the person might be less perverse than trying to turn that into a better good? Just call it like it is. "We broke, they died, I survived. Here's your sons hat, just wasn't appetizing. We good? I've got alot of these visits to make today."
-but is it selfish to think that way, or to act on those compulsions? Is it selfish of me to kill the cannibals? Is it selfish of me to prevent people from eating the dead? Is it permissible for me to use violence to enforce these compulsions? In defense of myself? In defense of others? Even deeper down, say we consider all of this, this compulsion, this compulsion to moralize about it...to be an artifact of social conditioning? Okay, but if moral import is relative then there's nothing morally wrong with pursuing the goals that society instills, as this is the truth maker in relative systems. How we comfortable we are about given outcomes is non operative. The best outcome is the one in which we do what our society has compelled us to do. Even if that leaves a pile of bodies.
Isn't that the nature of moral dilemma anyway? Not when two things or possible courses of action are equally and exclusively horrible, but when it's difficult to know and difficult to do the right thing. So, to use the seetup again. It might be very hard to refrain from and pursuade others to refrain from eating the sick man. Faced with a bunch of hungry people I would understand the danger in standing up for the "sickly" one. It seems like this guy needs an advocate in the situation, because all we're hearing from is a bunch of (potential) chefs. Maybe that person even indicates that they're fine with it. You go on, save yourselves, kill me now (selfless motherfucker) - we might have reason to doubt his rational capacity and ability to consent in such a setup. Does anyone want to go tell the deceased's family that he was totes cool with us eating him after he hit 104F - so no harm no foul?
We don't want to die. It would be easier to, you know..not do that, we want the right decision to always and exclusively be the one in which we are still alive - this is the very thing leading to our being so deeply morally compromised in the first place. Not a guiding moral principle, imo. I don't blame anyone for not wanting to die - but it's clear that were capable of doing some pretty fucked up shit to avoid it. Hell, eating the person might be less perverse than trying to turn that into a better good? Just call it like it is. "We broke, they died, I survived. Here's your sons hat, just wasn't appetizing. We good? I've got alot of these visits to make today."
![[Image: color%5D%5Bcolor=#333333%5D%5Bsize=small%5D%5Bfont=T...ans-Serif%5D]](https://i.postimg.cc/BbR62kn4/dobie.png%5B/font%5D%5B/size%5D%5B/color%5D%5Bcolor=#333333%5D%5Bsize=small%5D%5Bfont=Tahoma,Verdana,Arial,Sans-Serif%5D)
