0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
The world would be a better place with a sustainable human population, but the way to achieve that is to breed less, not to kill more.
You might then start on pensioners, but we have a limited life span anyway, and have contributed to the public good through our taxes and investments, so we should be allowed to enjoy our pensions. Companies that rashly introduced early retirement to save money on the short term often found that, within a year or two, everyone who knew anything useful or had acquired a significant skill, had disappeared.
But every baby is a net consumer for about the next 20 years, without having contributed anything. So a baby not born is a significant exchequer saving and improvement in the future quality of life for those already here.Killing people takes effort and organisation, and doing it on a big scale can pose problems disposing of the bodies. Not making babies is the perfect "do nothing" option, with no waste product.
On the other hand, killing babies or reducing their number significantly would change future demography so future population would have less productive members.
Killing babies went out of fashion in 1960 in civilised societies, and child labor is pretty abhorrent.
1960 - oral contraceptives. Every child is intentional - or should be.19th century - child labor acts in civilised countries. You may apply my morality tests.
Quote from: alancalverd on 07/03/2022 18:25:321960 - oral contraceptives. Every child is intentional - or should be.19th century - child labor acts in civilised countries. You may apply my morality tests.Do you mean that passing your morality tests makes an action moral, and failing to pass means that the action is immoral?
They would have to pass the first test - would you be happy if I sacrificed you for my purposes?
Part of your problem is your desire for absolutes. When I drew up a code of conduct in a previous employment, my wise boss said "could you sprinkle a few "normallys" over it?" British jurisprudence always refers to "the common man" and "normally", and in consequence Voltaire pointed out that "The English have very few laws, and they obey them all." Hence proper games like cricket and rugby are based on "fair and reasonable" play and although potentially dangerous, are much more fun than tennis or soccer which are about absolutes.
A suicide bomber brought his wife and kid to his action. They don't mind being killed. They thought they are martyrs.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 10/03/2022 13:42:25A suicide bomber brought his wife and kid to his action. They don't mind being killed. They thought they are martyrs.But you have only used half of Test 1. Would they like me to kill them to glorify my deity, not theirs? General Patton's famous speech: "No goddam sonaofabitch ever won a war by dying for his country. You win a war by making the other guy die for his country."
But they said that if you kill them because of their religion, they will go to heaven, which is what they wanted.
But if good is defined as what we want, then it becomes a circular logic.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 14/03/2022 07:51:55But they said that if you kill them because of their religion, they will go to heaven, which is what they wanted.No, I said I would kill them because of my religion. Just as they would have said on their own behalf.