What is the highest principle?

[surreptitious57]

In practice what you want to do is grab a chair and some popcorn wait for humans to become extinct figure
out who did it then wave your Philosophical finger and declare :

Humans were responsible for it - therefore its EVIL !!!
The Universe was responsible for it - therefore NOT EVIL !!!

It makes zero difference since that distinction is entirely academic in the grand scheme of things
So accepting the inevitable while nonetheless striving to self improve is the best available option

[Skepdick]

It makes zero difference since that distinction is entirely academic in the grand scheme of things

BECOMING extinct and NOT becoming extinct is NOT academic!!!

Any more than the distinction of me kicking you in the balls and me NOT kicking you in the balls is academic.

So accepting the inevitable while nonetheless striving to self improve is the best available option

Well, precisely! There is a distinction to be made and a continuum of choices to be explored:

Given the choice would you prefer to die RIGHT NOW, or would next week suit you better?
Given the choice do you think humanity prefers to become extinct RIGHT NOW, or do you think next week is better?

If you are telling me "I am OK with either option", then you've simply surrendered your free will.

But others haven't. If life is worth living then the "best available option" is obvious!

[surreptitious57]

Given the choice would you prefer to die RIGHT NOW or would next week suit you better ?
Given the choice do you think humanity prefers to become extinct RIGHT NOW or do you think next week is better ?

If you are telling me I am OK with either option then you ve simply surrendered your free will

False dichotomy because I can choose when I want to die but I cannot choose when humanity dies
Also my death is not going to affect the survival of the species at all as I am merely one individual

And I cannot have surrendered my free will if I am freely choosing between all available options [ which I am ]

[Gary Childress]

Do no harm???
LOL

https://truepublica.org.uk/united-state ... uk-silent/

Other non-signatories of the ban on landmines (including most of the world's major military powers): Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, China, Cuba, Egypt, Georgia, India, Iran, Israel, Kazakhstan, North Korea, South Korea, Kyrgyzstan, Lao PDR, Lebanon, Libya, Micronesia, Mongolia, Morocco, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Syria, Tonga, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Vietnam.

http://www.icbl.org/en-gb/the-treaty/treaty-status.aspx

But, yeah. It would be a good thing if everyone multilaterally banned them.

EDIT: Outside the Korean Peninsula, the US also hasn't deployed landmines nor maintained minefields since 1999, although it is said that one single munition was deployed in Afghanistan in 2002 for whatever reason. https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/10/03/uni ... nd-answers#

[Skepdick]

False dichotomy

I am not presenting it as a dichotomy - I am presenting it as a continuum of choices.

You are interpreting it as a dichotomy. Stop thinking in black-and-white! It's really harmful to reason.

And I cannot have surrendered my free will if I am freely choosing between all available options [ which I am ]

Free will (as best as I understand the concept) requires you to embrace your individual power. You've surrendered yours.

You have choice, but you don't have free will. You are a wimp (meant in an entirely non-derogatory fashion)

because I can choose when I want to die but I cannot choose when humanity dies

Q.E.D you've given up your free will.

If you cured cancer, you would have most certainly made a difference in WHEN humanity dies.

But you've given up your power, so you believe you don't.

Also my death is not going to affect the survival of the species at all as I am merely one individual

You are correct. Wimps dying is certainly a lesser loss to society than doctors, scientists, policemen and soldiers dying.

All those people use their power, their free will, towards the common good. You don't.

[surreptitious57]

Sorting / categorizing / labelling and putting things into boxes is what toddlers do

And adults do this also including scientists and mathematicians and philosophers
This is a conceptual means used to understand the world and so it is useful to us

Sometimes we do not want to see the bigger picture only one small part of it so this is what we do
Also the bigger picture is so vast and complex that we have to break it down into manageable bits

[surreptitious57]

If life is worth living then the best available option is obvious

What if life is not worth living like it sometimes is - what is the best available option in that scenario ?
Does one manage to carry on hoping that it will get better or does one simply give in there and then ?

[Skepdick]

What if life is not worth living like it sometimes is - what is the best available option in that scenario ?

Does one manage to carry on hoping that it will get better or does one simply give in there and then ?

A wimp has two choices: death and hope.
A free will makes live worth living.

Which one are you again?

[Skepdick]

And adults do this also including scientists and mathematicians and philosophers

Yeah! Your title doesn't exempt you from slipping up.

Sometimes we do not want to see the bigger picture only one small part of it so this is what we do
Also the bigger picture is so vast and complex that we have to break it down into manageable bits

Then break it down, then pick a piece of the pie that you can manage, make it your own and make it better.

When you are done with the first piece, grab a bigger one maybe?

Sisyphus had the right idea

[surreptitious57]

Does a free will always make life worth living regardless of the quality of said life ?

[Skepdick]

Does a free will always make life worth living regardless of the quality of said life ?

The quality of life is never "good enough". We are wired that way - silly perfectionists.

A free will improves the quality of the "never good enough life".

If free will gets tired, other free wills help.

[surreptitious57]

Sisyphus did not have the right idea at all
He was given the task as a punishment and so it was not even his own choice
The task itself was pointlessly repetitive with no positive feature to it at all
This is not how science advances for if it was then science would simply die

[Skepdick]

Sisyphus did not have the right idea at all
He was given the task as a punishment and so it was not even his own choice
The task itself was pointlessly repetitive with no positive feature to it at all
This is not how science advances for if it was then science would simply die

You are missing the metaphorical aspect of the story.

You were given a pointless task as punishment it was not even your own choice -> You were given life.

The task itself was pointlessly repetitive with no positive feature to it at all -> Living. There IS no "positive feature". Avoiding extinction is a negative feature!!! There is no deeper meaning. There is no Why? There is do it, or don't do it.

This is not how science advances for if it was then science would simply die -> scientists die, science continues. That's how it advances. Exactly like society.

[Skepdick]

Not exclusively so as it may create new problems such as how to sustain a larger population
For there will be greater demands on infrastructure and resources as a consequence of this

All you've done is declared a fact. And then you stopped. Where is the imperative continuation here?

All you are doing is pointing out problems, but not offering any potential solutions. You are about as useful as a fire alarm, but nowhere near as useful as a fireman with a hose.

I don't need you to point out the obvious, I need you to point out a better way.

There are three trajectories possible here.
1. Population continues to grow.
2. Population remains constant
3. Population shrinks.

Which choice are you arguing for?

And I am going to throw my 5 cents in here. We have problems, alright. Lots of them. Towards the goal of survival (and problem-solving) do you think more problem-solvers is better than less problem-solvers?

[Immanuel Can]

Your head exists in reality.
Therefore EVERYTHING that exists in your head necessarily exists in reality.

Not at all, obviously.

You can have "unicorns" in your head. That won't make them exist in reality. You can wish yourself to be a millionaire, but the bank won't agree.

So I am having trouble understanding why you might say that the Unicorn in your real head DOESN'T exist in reality.

Horses exist whether or not I'm thinking about them. Unicorns only "exist," in the lose sense you use it, if I, or somebody else, is imagining one. A horse can kick me...but no unicorn will ever gore me.

Too easy to explain. I can't imagine why you're bothering with it.