What did the pacifist say on Facebook for Memorial Day?

  • Topic Archived
You're browsing the GameFAQs Message Boards as a guest. Sign Up for free (or Log In if you already have an account) to be able to post messages, change how messages are displayed, and view media in posts.
  1. Boards
  2. Paper Mario - Social
  3. What did the pacifist say on Facebook for Memorial Day?

User Info: BUM

BUM
4 months ago#21
Article 1 addresses the basic outline of just war.
http://newadvent.org/summa/3040.htm
SIGNATURE

User Info: BUM

BUM
4 months ago#22
Well, very basic. There are other stipulations as well, pertaining to the principle of double-effect. Among them is that there ought to be a reasonable chance of some success, and that the effects should not in all likelihood be worse than the previous situation. But double effect is easy enough to look up for those who are so inclined. The above article is principally aimed at those of the faithful who are looking to Scripture for confirmation or condemnation, not so much at seculars.

We could look down another road later for that. Probably starting with the question, if there be not God, why should anyone care? Is there any objective reason for the valuing of human life?
SIGNATURE

User Info: Kodiologist

Kodiologist
4 months ago#23
BUM posted...
Probably starting with the question, if there be not God, why should anyone care? Is there any objective reason for the valuing of human life?

In most cases, killing a person directly reduces human intelligence, since you've stopped a thinker from thinking.

More broadly, a society that enforces basic moral restrictions like "don't kill people" frees up people from spending time and energy just trying to survive, so they can better advance human intelligence, or support other people who are advancing human intelligence, or support other people who are supporting other people, etc. Society is about collective benefits like that. A bunch of people made this computer, this website, and this house so that I can do other stuff.

---
Have you ever stopped to think and forgotten to start again?

User Info: HeyDude

HeyDude
4 months ago#24
Ultimately that's an assumption, Kodi: that reduction of human intelligence is bad. Well, why is it bad?

Also stopping some people from thinking is probably doing more of a favor to the world. Not all thinking is good; in fact, some of it results in great evil!

User Info: Kodiologist

Kodiologist
4 months ago#25
HeyDude posted...
Ultimately that's an assumption, Kodi: that reduction of human intelligence is bad.

Yes, that's pretty much my fundamental moral assumption; remember? http://arfer.net/w/42

Also stopping some people from thinking is probably doing more of a favor to the world.

In real life, there is no way for us to be sufficiently certain that killing somebody will end up being a net benefit to the world. Furthermore, people, asked to make such judgments, are liable to engage in the usual familiar cognitive biases (self-enhancement bias, confirmation bias, the fundamental attribution error, etc.) and kill people they shouldn't.

---
Have you ever stopped to think and forgotten to start again?

User Info: BUM

BUM
4 months ago#26
Right. So I don't deny that, based on your assumption that the reduction of human intelligence is bad, no war is just, or no killing is licit. But in like manner, I don't deny that, based on my assumption that I am King of the Universe, it logically follows that you all must worship me.

Every science is reducible to its assumptions, which science falls apart when the assumptions are removed. The assumptions behind the sciences, themselves require support of a higher science. Thus medicine depends on biology; for medicine studies health, and health presumes some sort of life, which biology studies. But biology can only work within the framework of life, and if the framework of life be denied, the biologist needs recourse to a higher science to prove the value of his study, which higher science is philosophy, and ultimately on up into metaphysics.

My end game is this: I suspect positivism is lurking nearby, and I do not see why any positivists hold to the central dogma of positivism, viz., (or so it seems to me) that is not to be held which is not verifiable by experiment (anti-intellectualism/anti-rationalism). Seeing as this axiom is itself unverifiable by experiment, it seems the system ought to be abandoned. Also the axiom is arbitrary.
SIGNATURE

User Info: Kodiologist

Kodiologist
4 months ago#27
You can't justify your most fundamental principle or principles. They're what you use to justify everything else. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Münchhausen_trilemma . (The trilemma says that you can avoid unjustified assumptions with a circular argument or an infinite chain of justifications, but I hope you agree that these are inferior options.)

So, this issue is not unique to my beliefs. It is an inherent issue for belief itself.

---
Have you ever stopped to think and forgotten to start again?

User Info: HeyDude

HeyDude
4 months ago#28
Kodi on that real s***

User Info: HeyDude

HeyDude
4 months ago#29
That translates roughly to, Kodi has made a salient point, both saying something new and destroying something the debate opponent has proposed.

User Info: BUM

BUM
4 months ago#30
I would have to disagree. The accepting of such a proposition, viz., that no proposition can be verified by reason (or anything else), logically results in the effective breakdown of reality and the promotion of arbitrary conduct. It would be left to each man to create his own delusions and live them out. Truth would be an irrelevant concept, morality would cease to exist (in principle if not in effect), and everything would be pointless.

Again, because there is, according to such a proposition, no safe starting ground for any thought whatsoever, and each thought is built upon an edifice of wind or sand (as you prefer), all thought is rendered useless and meaningless, because its foundation is irrational (an arbitrary axiom). Communication would be nothing more than humoring one another. We may as well not even be discussing anything, because there is nothing to discuss! It is a rather silly idea, and no one actually adheres to it. Which is the first strike against it. A solid fortress with no man to guard it, is only a logical obstacle.

Whether or not I shall be able to go on from thence, to justify my own first principles, is a question which I believe is more a matter of whether I as an independent man am able to do so, rather than if the Catholic intellectual tradition is able to do so. I would like to see first, whether the above two paragraphs of mine are held to be true by anyone reading them.

The fact of that matter is, that although I believe the Thomistic-Aristotelian philosophy is able to justify its first principles, including the existence of God, yet I am not of a sufficient caliber to do all of this myself, nor do I have sufficient time to invest in it. It suffices for me that I've seen enough evidence of such proofs, and avowals by trustworthy figures to bolster them, until I myself have the time and the mind to follow them myself.

Additionally I am able to view things a posteriori, and recognize a world which is inexplicable outside of the Catholic intellectual world view (Catholic first principles). This gives a roundabout confirmation rather than a pre-confirmation, but such, again, is sufficient for me in the meantime. It is, in any matter, preferable to recognize that thought has a purpose, than to deny purpose to anything.

Finally it must be admitted that what I am saying is here something different. Let every other man on earth agree, that their assumptions are non-verifiable and arbitrary. I do not. Therefore, there is little reason to examine the beliefs of any man, except for a Catholic. Therefore, let each man do his own reading to satisfy the pursuit of truth, or at least not complain if he have not the truth, as he has not sought it out.
SIGNATURE
  1. Boards
  2. Paper Mario - Social
  3. What did the pacifist say on Facebook for Memorial Day?

Report Message

Terms of Use Violations:

Etiquette Issues:

Notes (optional; required for "Other"):
Add user to Ignore List after reporting

Topic Sticky

You are not allowed to request a sticky.

  • Topic Archived