xorbie

I am not sure if this belongs in here or in MP&F, but here goes:

In all this argument about good and evil, good and bad, right and wrong, one overlooked fact is our own existence. For me, the ultimate evil would be for me to have never existed, and I do not see how this would be different for anyone else. Might I die to save someone's life? Perhaps, and people have. But would I give up my existence to save lives? No, somehow this is very different to me.

Anyhow, my question is this. Either this implies that no matter how evil, how foul, disgusting and upsetting any action in history is, it still brought about a world in which you exist. This is arguing means to an ends, yes, but doesn't that make all these actions "good" in some sense? Obviously, I could not tell if had the Holocaust not occured, I would still be around. But the fact is that it did occur, and I am around. So am I right that all of history is thus somehow "good"?

crocodile deathroll

I feel you must exist, come what may. Because it is not possibly to be aware of any of the states in which you do not.

paul30

Dear Xorbie:

Logically, you are committing what is known as the post-hoc-propter-hoc fallacy.

Just because event A comes before event B does not mean A causes B. Just because foul and disgusting things happened before you were born does not mean they were necessary to your birth.

And of course there is the question of degree. The world you come into is probably a worse one for all the foul and disgusting things than it might have been without them.

If one were to adhere to your line of thinking, there would be absolutely no reason to favor one course of action over another.

Yes?

freeth1nker

paul30, I think you meant Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc.

Xorbie,
I believe the dilemma is what you mean by *you*. Do you mean you, as in your present state of being? It is possible that if the Holocaust had not happened, you still would've existed, but it is likely that you might not be the same person you are now.

Additionally, you claim that for you the "ultimate evil' is your non-existence, so now that you've existed, it means that the world isn't "ultimately evil," but I don't see how that implies that it is "good." If you believe in varying degrees of good and evil, then you can still call certain events that occur in the world "evil," e.g. the Holocaust, just not "ultimately evil."

I also think there is something to be said about your egoism altogether. I personally don't find it to be a viable ethical position. But that's for another discussion.

xorbie

I am committing no logical fallicy, as this is not a deductive proof. Moreover, I did say "Obviously, I could not tell if had the Holocaust not occured, I would still be around." And yes this is clearly egoistic and yes it is not a logical proof of anything. But once again, let me put it this. Let us have two world, one in which the holocaust occurs and I am alive and one in which neither I nor the holocaust exist. I must choose the former. I have no choice.

Let us put it this way. History and human society is, I would assume, very chaotic, especially the details. If some tiny insignifact thing hadn't happened 270 years ago, Einstein may not have been born. Ditto Hitler, Darwin etc.

To me, this means that if everything had not been lined up as it were, I would not have existed, simple as that. And barring the existence of a soul or some other system of non body-specific and body-anchored consiousness, you cannot argue that I might have been born in Africa and poor but I would still basically be me.
I cannot prove that I could not possible exist in a drastically different, better word. But you cannot prove it either. And I think that probability would favor the former (I am open to some sort of proof otherwise). Thus, my existence favors the argument that all that happened thus far in history was "good" in this sense.

crocodile deathroll

If you ask me the question "could I of become somebody else?"
The answer is very easily. There is nothing in the laws of nature that predetermines me to exist as this one certain person, and if Hitler was hit by the proverbial bus before WWII and the Holocaust had never happen, then the my parents probably would not of met and I would not seeing the world through the eyes this person. But my selection is purely do to the random laws of egocentricity I could of just as easily become a child of one of the Jews that were gassed in the Holocaust and be asking very similar meta-physical questions.

xorbie

See I think this is where the difference between us is. You see yourself as this metaphysical being, who would still be essentially the same entity even if you were a Nazi, or some starving kid in Africa or some rich celebrity somewhere. However, I disagree. There is no seperating my physical body from who I am. Even if there is a soul or consiousness of this variety out there, I think it is grounded in this body and either is brought up because of my body or with it. However, there is no me independent of my body. "I" could not have been someone else. That someone else would be that person, not me. "I" would not exist at all.

freeth1nker

xorbie,

I didn't mean suggest that you identify yourself as a metaphysical entity. In fact, I agree with your assessment that self-identity is inextricably connected to the physical part of our existence (with some added linguistic intervention).

What I meant in my original post was that IF the Holocaust or some other major world event had not occurred, but your parents still met and had you, you would still exist, i.e. as that same physical entity you are now. But, I think it is highly unlikely that you are the same *person*, i.e. you might be living in a completely different society, or some vital experience that you would've had later on in life would not happen, etc. In all these scenarios, you would still be the same physical/biological entity, but would you still be *you*?


Question: When you said the "ultimate evil" would be your non-existence, then by that, are you implying that your existence is the "ultimate good"? You didn't really make it clear in the OP.
It also seems to me very problematic if this is the case, because if you have already attained the "ultimate good", there would be no reason for you to continue thriving for good, i.e. by acting ethically. If that is not what you mean, then just ignore this.

crocodile deathroll

IMHO we are inextricably entangled with the physical material of the universe irrespective of who gives birth to us, as there is no discernable difference then say a carbon atom in your body and a carbon atom in a hunk of coal or a diamond. You do not own one atom in you body, it is only the configuration of those atoms and not the atoms themselves that make you your

Since you are inextricably entangled with the physical material of the universe then that sense of self that you feel observing it could be just as easily emulated by another brain because they comprise the same physical processes at a subatomic level level.

My theory speculates that the "soul" is not so much embedded into a single organism, but it is a property of the complexity of matter as the universe accidently stumbled on a way - necessarily - to be aware of its own existence. The universe masks out all other trajectories of a sense of self until a randomly selected organism until such time it sees out its life. Then at death, with all matter at a sub level being homogenous it randomly gestalt switches to another complex organism and plays out it's life in the finest biographical detail. Ultimately you may experience the life of every conscious organism that has lived and ever will live. Which I find is a pretty disturbing thought. Far more disturbing than a simple dead and that's it scenario, but if it is true I have to wear it.

Interesting theory but I find it plausible because it because it eliminates the need for divine intervention or a God.

CDR

freeth1nker

You do not own one atom in you body, it is only the configuration of those atoms and not the atoms themselves that make you your

Since you are inextricably entangled with the physical material of the universe then that sense of self that you feel observing it could be just as easily emulated by another brain because they comprise the same physical processes at a subatomic level level.

You seem to have contradicted yourself. If what makes you *you* is the exactly that *configuration* of atoms, then your sense of self cannot be found in another brain or another organism, simply because it doesn't have the same configuration. From an atomistic perspective, the physical material that compose of all such physical entities are the same, but it's exactly the configuration that differs, and you said yourself that what makes you you is that configuration.

My theory speculates that the "soul" is not so much embedded into a single organism, but it is a property of the complexity of matter as the universe accidently stumbled on a way - necessarily - to be aware of its own existence. The universe masks out all other trajectories of a sense of self until a randomly selected organism until such time it sees out its life. Then at death, with all matter at a sub level being homogenous it randomly gestalt switches to another complex organism and plays out it's life in the finest biographical detail. Ultimately *you* may experience the life of every conscious organism that has lived and ever will live. [emphasis added by me]

Funny how you mention the Gestalt, the essential tenet of this concept being that the whole is more than the sum of its parts. The self-identity that you previously attributed to the *configuration* of atomic parts is exactly what I would call a Gestalt. As such, I don't think you could really say that it's *you* (i.e. the original self) that's experiencing life as every conscious organism. The atoms that used to make up the physical entity known as *you*, yes, but *you* are not just the atoms. When they are not in the right configuration, they are not *you*.