Welcome to Gaia! ::

You always ask questions in response, CP...


Of course such a system could become easily corrupt.
The mentally retarded and those who have severe psychological problems are not a problem for society.

However, people that do things which an overwhelming majority of the people disagree wth morally, and cannot be 'corrected', should be killed.

The only way that this could become bad, is if the people in the society all started to think that new ideas are immoral. But I don't think that this is gonna happen anytime soon.



Well, it's been shown that people don't feel pain when they're unconcious.
The methods which are 'painless' are, for example, poison in the brain after the subject becomes unconcious.
This isn't the actual method, but I think it's similar.


Is that really the same as replacing a person?
No. It was just a retort.
Why is life priceless?

gonk I can't help it, it's kind of like a disease...

Well, (and I know this will come out very a*****e-rific) the mentally retarded and those with severe psychological problems certainly do not alleviate societal problems as a whole; in fact, they create quite a heavy burden on society. So much so, that we need to create special institutions that are specially designed to meet their needs. Furthermore, a good number of those who stay in the institutions designed for them, hardly contribute much to society, granted that is exactly like saying a person in a coma contributes nothing to society, but I digress. The fact of the matter is that to say the mentally retarded and severely pyschological challeneged present a rather large problem to society, now it may not be quite the same as one of those who commits a heinous crime, it is still a problem none the less.

What is an overwhelming majority? 51% in political elections is considered an absolute majority, should it be the same in societal decisions such as this, or should this number be raised, and who should decide on the percentage, why should they get to decide?

Depends on the society, the leaders, etc. This has already happened in some places; e.g. U.S.S.R. under Stalin, Russia under Ivan IV "The Terrible," China under Mao Zedong, and many more.


However, that doesn't say anything about the instant after death insues. Maybe after that instant, it is extremely painful; however, it is useless to debate such a topic, as we have no empirical evidence of pain after death insues, nor any reason to believe that pain comes after death insues. Also, since we are not the people who have died, it is much like talking about the world without my experiences of it, so, well my philosophy professor said it best, it's in the realm of shut-up.


No logical or even rational reason can come to suggest the priceless-ness of life.

Well, this is where Human Rights will come in. Do not these people have the right to live, even if they are not able to be useful by society? Should life be treated like a reward? Something that is granted on the basis of usefulness?

Also, this is another place where things could become easily corrupt, if the right percautions were not taken.

I myself, was thinking the number should be around there. But now this question comes up, who am I to tell another society what is right for them? In other words, should this 90-95% apply to all societies, why, and if so, who are we to tell the other society how to live? Is it really my job to tell someone else how to live, or, is it my job to figure out for myself how I should live?


Now, do you like the idea of a true democracy, were tyranny of the majority is easily reached, or limited democracy, where there are measures in place to guard against something such as the tyranny of majority? How about the reality of everyone voting on every issue raised, i.e. universal suffrage along wiith "true" democracy?

Now, what if the people of the society decide democracy is not right for them, that they would rather have a more authoritarian type of government, should this be accepted? Why/why not?s



However, since we do not really know what constitutes our self, it is silly to hold the position that pain can only be experienced when one has a brain that functions. It is also rather silly then to say that, all types of pain register when the brain functions.


Unless of course, different deaths offer different pains after death, or if different lifestyles offer different pains after death.

From this, it looks like you favor a limited type of democracy. Maybe one that involves representatives of the people because, it is really not that possible to know about every single issue that could ever be voted on. Think of the wide range of things one would be required to know, military secrets and strategies, foreign and domestic policies and relations, economics, etc.

I think the reality of even a place of a few million citizens actually being able to be informed, and vote on every issue, is well, a doomed failure. It's just too much.

Also, what about those who live in a society, but are not yet citizens of that society? Such as someone who has just moved into that society, are they considered citizens as soon as they appear, or do they have to stay a while? What happens with those who visit that society? Do they get to vote if there is an election?

Can all this change if the society votes for a change on that? Is there anything that cannot cahnge regardless of the societies vote?

If they had the power to take it back, it would still be some sort of democracy, an authoritarian regime usually offers no way other than the way of the current ruler.

How does one determine these things?


Well, realize that this is strictly a philosophy question, and when we take Cartesian Skepticism into account, we can realize the logical-ness of this question that I posed.

If you need, I can give you a brief overview of Cartesian Skepticism.

I would prefer a democracy republic for politics and communism for economics.


Study their behaviour, I suppose.
Well, does behavior describe one enough? I mean, can you tell what I am really like by studying my behavior, or can you only give a mere prediction of what I am most likely like?


I'd like that; I've never heard of it before. Sounds good.
I'll start another thread for it, and it will be a little more indepth than a breif overview.

You should be able to find it easily.

Well, then there is only going to be one person alive, in all actuality, no one has any value for anyone else's life because they are not that person. Value of one's life is always subjective, and we cannot value anyone else's life for the simple reason that we are not them. We can like them, and want them to be around, but, when it comes down to it, no one is more important to anyone but themself. In other words, I want something only in as much as I value it, meaning, my most valued thing, is my most wanted thing, my least valued thing is my least wanted thing.

If you value your own life, then you cannot logically say that life doesn't intrisically have worth, because, if you truly believed that, then your life wouldn't matter at all to you.

You said that you believe that a person's life is worth nothing to no one else. Do you think that your own life has worth to you? Does your life matter to you? Can you really know if your life doesn't matter to you?

What if you value your own life and perform no use to society. Also, I do not think it is possible for someone to live and not value their life.

Now, let me throw in Kant's categorical imperitive, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." In other words, if you value your life, then you should acknowledge that there are others who value their life, and whether or not they do, you should still treat them the way you want to be treated. If you value your life and want to live your life, then you should let other's live theirs whether or not you believe they value theirs. Otherwise, you are essentially saying to them with your actions, "hey, I want to be killed, so try to kill me."

Well, is it a society of serial killers, or non-serial killers? Again, see Kant's categorical imperitive.

For future reference, it is spelled et cetera.


Think a little bit on it, and you'll see how it's covered already.