Taking a stand

[Age]

How are you tying "end" in with "social contract"?

"trajik logik" wrote some words.

'you' then replied, 'Now that, is how a "social contract" ULTIMATELY WORKS when subjected to atomic-moral colliders that expose the fundamental particles of reality!'

Now, please correct me if I AM WRONG here, but, with the use of the words 'ultimately works', 'they' put a FINALITY, or AN END, to working out and/or discovering THE WAY some 'thing' WORKS, correct? With 'the some 'thing' here just being 'social contract', right?

According to Trajik's scenario, the stakes are the ultimate (literally life and death). A group of miners are trapped in a collapsed mine and are starving. The only possible edible thing in the mine is each other. They haven't yet been rescued and are not sure if they will be rescued or not. They draw straws. After they draw straws they agree among themselves that the first person who kills someone is the one everyone remaining will kill. In other words, they will kill the killer.

Is 'this' a HYPOTHETICAL SCENARIO?

If 'you' were ACTUALLY a "miner" 'trapped' with "other miners" would 'you' AGREE TO 'picking straws to KILLING one'?

Also, what you present here is NOT 'the scenario' I READ.

In other words, ONLY if someone gets so desperate that they will kill another person for food, will that justify the others killing the person who killed for food.

From what I READ, and UNDERSTOOD, 'it' was a VERY, VERY DIFFERENT 'version' and 'scenario' FROM 'the one' that you appear to have OBTAINED and GAINED here.

But I think you bring up a good point. The scenario is not quite over yet.

LOL ONCE AGAIN, you ARE SO FAR AFIELD and SO FAR OFF here.

I REALLY DO think you NEED TO SLOW your 'reading' DOWN, or, STOP PRESUMING BEFORE and WHILE you are 'reading', or JUST DO BOTH.

There would then be two dead people (the one who was killed for food and the one who killed that person for food). Now there's a choice for the remaining survivors who are trapped. Namely, what do they do with the two dead bodies? Do the remaining people, who are also starving, eat the dead bodies or do they abstain? And if they abstain, what might be the new "social contract" among them?

Is it NOT POSSIBLE that SOME might CHOOSE TO EAT and SOME MIGHT NOT?

And, does there HAVE TO BE an ALL AGREED UPON so-called 'social construct' ANYWAY?

If yes, then WHY?

So perhaps you are pointing out that the scenario as presented does not give us the ULTIMATE way a "social contract" works. [/quote]

THE 'scenario', which 'you' HAVE ARRIVED AT 'gary childress" here IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING LIKE THE 'one' I READ, and UNDERSTOOD, FROM "trajik logik".

BUT THEN it MIGHT BE 'I' who HAS the Wrong INTERPRETATION. Now, since "trajik logik" is the ONLY One who KNOWS, FOR SURE, if 'your interpretation' is the Right one or NOT "gary childress" I WILL WAIT TO SEE what "trajik logik" INFORMS 'us', if 'it' EVER DOES.

I WILL ALSO WAIT TO SEE if 'your interpretation' is EVEN CLOSE to "trajik logik's" ACTUAL 'scenario'. Do you think or believe 'it' is "gary childress"?

There is also a further contract that must be made among the survivors regarding the two dead bodies. What will they do with them and how can that be worked out in a way that is agreeable to all the remaining survivors?

Although it would be Truly RIDICULOUS TO, let us now take A LOOK AT what PREDICAMENT that they ARE ACTUALLY IN, and what POSSIBLE CHOICES they ACTUALLY HAVE.

1. They ARE TRAPPED UNDERGROUND.

2. They WILL FEEL HUNGRY.

3. They COULD eat 'those bodies', OR NOT.

Is there ANY 'thing' ELSE you can think of here?

So here's a question that perhaps we can provide an answer to: With two of the survivors dead and the remaining survivors starving in the mine in which they are trapped (without food) and rescue is uncertain, then what contract can the survivors draw up among themselves that will be agreeable among all of the remaining survivors?

WHY are you FIXATED on there HAVING TO BE 'an agreement' AMONG ALL?

ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING that 'your scenario' IS SO FAR REMOVED FROM "trajik logik's" 'scenario', well to me anyway.

We in the forum here are obviously only spectators to this thought experiment.

AND, FROM my perspective 'you' could NOT have TWISTED and DISTORTED this so-called 'thought experiment' MUCH MORE than you HAVE, ALREADY.

In fact 'you' STILL have NOT YET EVEN UNDERSTOOD what I was GETTING AT here.

But it would be immoral to conduct an experiment using living people by trapping them in a mine and waiting to see what they work out with each other. However, when push comes to shove, is that not what is at the root of a "social contract" (life itself)?

WHAT?

Decisions ABOUT killing and/or eating human bodies?

[Age]

"trajik logik" wrote some words.

'you' then replied, 'Now that, is how a "social contract" ULTIMATELY WORKS when subjected to atomic-moral colliders that expose the fundamental particles of reality!'

Now, please correct me if I AM WRONG here, but, with the use of the words 'ultimately works', 'they' put a FINALITY, or AN END, to working out and/or discovering THE WAY some 'thing' WORKS, correct? With 'the some 'thing' here just being 'social contract', right?

According to Trajik's scenario, the stakes are the ultimate (literally life and death). A group of miners are trapped in a collapsed mine and are starving. The only possible edible thing in the mine is each other. They haven't yet been rescued and are not sure if they will be rescued or not. They draw straws. After they draw straws they agree among themselves that the first person who kills someone is the one everyone remaining will kill. In other words, they will kill the killer.

That's my interpretation of things. In other words, ONLY if someone gets so desperate that they will kill another person for food, will that justify the others killing the person who killed for food.

But I think you bring up a good point. The scenario is not quite over yet. There would then be two dead people (the one who was killed for food and the one who killed that person for food). Now there's a choice for the remaining survivors who are trapped. Namely, what do they do with the two dead bodies? Do the remaining people, who are also starving, eat the dead bodies or do they abstain? And if they abstain, what might be the new "social contract" among them?

So perhaps you are pointing out that the scenario as presented does not give us the ULTIMATE way a "social contract" works. There is also a further contract that must be made among the survivors regarding the two dead bodies. What will they do with them and how can that be worked out in a way that is agreeable to all the remaining survivors?

So here's a question that perhaps we can provide an answer to: With two of the survivors dead and the remaining survivors starving in the mine in which they are trapped (without food) and rescue is uncertain, then what contract can the survivors draw up among themselves that will be agreeable among all of the remaining survivors? We in the forum here are obviously only spectators to this thought experiment. But it would be immoral to conduct an experiment using living people by trapping them in a mine and waiting to see what they work out with each other. However, when push comes to shove, is that not what is at the root of a "social contract" (life itself)?

I hate these stupid paradoxical 'thought experiments' that are never going to happen in reality. What if a mother is starving and she has some children? Is she going to eat them? Fucking ridiculous.

ALL of 'variables' and 'different scenarios' can NEVER BE LOOKED INTO and DISCUSSED, so there is NO one who could be FULLY INFORMED. Therefore, there is NO one who could DEFINITELY PROVIDE the True, Right, Accurate NOR Correct ANSWER/SOLUTION.

There IS NO Right ANSWER/SOLUTION to 'these', so SEEKING one IS JUST Truly STUPID and FOOLISH.

[Age]

I hate these stupid paradoxical 'thought experiments' that are never going to happen in reality. What if a mother is starving and she has some children? Is she going to eat them? Fucking ridiculous.

I don't see it as remarkably different from the "Trolley Problem" proposed by Philippa Foot. ¯\_(*_*)_/¯

I hate that one too, as if it's ever going to actually happen

Even IF it DID ACTUALLY HAPPEN, ALL of the POSSIBLE OTHER 'circumstances involved' and 'things to think about' are countless, and thus to large a number to even CONSIDER arriving at an ACTUAL ANSWER.

[Gary Childress]

My answer: #1 yes it is immoral.

Why?

Because I wouldn't want to live in a cannibal society. And I don't think I could bring myself to do something like that without going insane.

[Age]

My answer: #1 yes it is immoral.

Why?

Because I wouldn't want to live in a cannibal society.

So, 'morality' revolves AROUND what "gary childress" wants or does NOT want, in 'its' 'later life', right?

And I don't think I could bring myself to do something like that without going insane.

So, if 'you' were born INTO and grew up IN 'that society' 'you' would just GO INSANE, instead of just 'living' and 'accepting' 'that society' and 'that way of life', right?

[Gary Childress]

Why?

Because I wouldn't want to live in a cannibal society.

So, 'morality' revolves AROUND what "gary childress" wants or does NOT want, in 'its' 'later life', right?

Yes. I don't want to live in a cannibal society.

And I don't think I could bring myself to do something like that without going insane.

So, if 'you' were born INTO and grew up IN 'that society' 'you' would just GO INSANE, instead of just 'living' and 'accepting' 'that society' and 'that way of life', right?

I don't know the answer to that. I didn't grow up in a cannibal society.

[henry quirk]

I hate these stupid paradoxical 'thought experiments' that are never going to happen in reality. What if a mother is starving and she has some children? Is she going to eat them? Fucking ridiculous.

As your vagina: I agree.

OK. So should I be talking to Veg or you?

Talk to her for nonsense; talk to me, her vagina, for sense.

[Gary Childress]

As your vagina: I agree.

OK. So should I be talking to Veg or you?

Talk to her for nonsense; talk to me, her vagina, for sense.

I'll talk to both of your for "sense". Is that OK? Otherwise, I'll have to spend eternity trying to communicate to Age what the word "person" means. I feel like his pre-school teacher let him down horribly. Poor Age.

[henry quirk]

OK. So should I be talking to Veg or you?

Talk to her for nonsense; talk to me, her vagina, for sense.

I'll talk to both of your for "sense". Is that OK? Otherwise, I'll have to spend eternity trying to communicate to Age what the word "person" means. I feel like his pre-school teacher let him down horribly. Poor Age.

Age is admirable. Despite his deficiencies he keeps pluggin' away. He's a trooper.

[Gary Childress]

Talk to her for nonsense; talk to me, her vagina, for sense.

I'll talk to both of your for "sense". Is that OK? Otherwise, I'll have to spend eternity trying to communicate to Age what the word "person" means. I feel like his pre-school teacher let him down horribly. Poor Age.

Age is admirable. Despite his deficiencies he keeps pluggin' away. He's a trooper.

Yes. He's relentless.

[Peter Kropotkin]

henry quirk:

HQ: Age is admirable. Despite his deficiencies he keeps pluggin' away. He's a trooper.


K: I can think of many words for Age and admirable isn't one of them...

Kropotkin

[Gary Childress]

henry quirk:

HQ: Age is admirable. Despite his deficiencies he keeps pluggin' away. He's a trooper.


K: I can think of many words for Age and admirable isn't one of them...

Kropotkin

I have to agree with that. I could say other things about him, but "relentless" seems to be the 'best' way I can put it.

[Immanuel Can]

My answer: #1 yes it is immoral.

Why?

Because I wouldn't want to live in a cannibal society. And I don't think I could bring myself to do something like that without going insane.

"I wouldn't want" doesn't make something "immoral." It just makes it unpalatable to you.

Performing surgery or removing trash is unpalatable to most people. Neither is immoral.

So if cannibalism is going to be objectively immoral, as opposed to merely unpalatable-to-Gary, we need something more there.

[Gary Childress]

Why?

Because I wouldn't want to live in a cannibal society. And I don't think I could bring myself to do something like that without going insane.

"I wouldn't want" doesn't make something "immoral." It just makes it unpalatable to you.

Performing surgery or removing trash is unpalatable to most people. Neither is immoral.

So if cannibalism is going to be objectively immoral, as opposed to merely unpalatable-to-Gary, we need something more there.

I'm sorry you feel that way. What more would you like us to do? Should we have a seance and see if God shows up?

[Immanuel Can]

Because I wouldn't want to live in a cannibal society. And I don't think I could bring myself to do something like that without going insane.

"I wouldn't want" doesn't make something "immoral." It just makes it unpalatable to you.

Performing surgery or removing trash is unpalatable to most people. Neither is immoral.

So if cannibalism is going to be objectively immoral, as opposed to merely unpalatable-to-Gary, we need something more there.

I'm sorry you feel that way.

It's not a "feeling," Gary. It's a rational indicator that your explanation doesn't work.

Can you supply something better, something that should compel people to agree with you that cannibalism is wrong?