Totalitarianist

It is not about what he wants. People in general have no difficulty terminating oxen, because of their low intelligence. The same ought to hold true for the law and the physicians.

Survival of the fittest. In bygone times, viz. in a more natural, primitive setting, it would surely be killed.

What makes a man a "person" is precisely what the retard lacks.

Hmmm, I think it depends upon who the person is, to be honest. If it is a thing incapable of even the crudest means of moral guidance, lacking all the psychical faculties which separate mankind from non-human animals; if he is capable of repdroduction, and hence further infecting the stock; of such a disturbed mind common in the mentally backwards; if he is of such a deformed and repulsive frame my eyes are in the habit of examining; if the only trace of humanity in him -- or it -- is certain similarities in anatomical structure -- then it is perfectly okay, ethical, moral, etc., when it is permitted by law, to terminate him.

Huge difference in the last example. Rape is wrong by itself. Its moral inversion is not determined by the mental state of the victim -- perhaps he enjoys it. It is determined by the mental state of the rapist herself, who is disturbed, filthy, and degenerate. That is what makes it wrong. Indeed, the victim, in my perspective, is irrelevant in this case -- it is the fact that the rapist had to think of such repulsive forms of conduct that ought to be considered. But since it cannot, since one cannot read minds, we pretend to punish the rapist because he raped, when in fact the act of raping is only evidence that he at some point thought of it.

Terminating life on the other hand, is completely different. It is how nature functions. It is how man functions. It can be ethical in some cases, unethical in others.

Or at least that is how I think as a moral being.

Totalitarianist

It is agreed.

Totalitarianist

Sorry, but that is how I write. I can write well. Quite sorry if you find that troublesome.

Oh, and it is indeed quite absurd that you would esteem the following words as archaisms:

"conformable" "subscribed" "defective" "perish".

I should like very much to know why you believe that.

And as regards this:

I am quite pleased that you think that that is well written. I can indubitably write like that whenever I so desire; it requires hardly a scintilla of psychical energy on my part surely. It is merely a matter of inserting sentences which, in the everyday language of the vulgar, one would utter independently of any other sentence, into one long setence.

Jamie_L

In your OP you explicitly stated that "it is ethical for the good of the individual". This is what I took issue with. What an individual wants bears directly on what is good for that individual.

I think people have no difficulty terminating oxen because they are oxen. Low intelligence may play into it, but people also have no problem terminating dolphins, chimps, dogs, etc, all of which have fairly high intelligence by some standards.

[/quote]
Survival of the fittest. In bygone times, viz. in a more natural, primitive setting, it would surely be killed. [/quote]

Survival of the fittest is not the standard measure for morality. If you want to argue that it is, this is a more general discussion. What happened in the past or what happens in primitive settings is not a good standard for morality.

Which is what exactly. My point is that it is not merely intelligence or consciousness alone that defines what most people morally value in human beings.

One needs a concise definition of what defines a "person". Your definition as presented here is largely a matter of opinion. As mentioned earlier, it could have described a Nazi's view of Jews.

Now this throws me, and leaves me feeling I completely do not understand your concept of morality/ethics. Rape is DEFINED by the mental state of the victim. If the victim does not consent to the intercourse, then it is rape. Any act which does not hurt another moral agent is not immoral. What is it about the thoughts of the rapist that make them so repugnant? It's the consequences of acting on those thoughts to the victim.

Nature is an amoral system. Morality is created by humans for humans. What exists in nature apart from humans is largely irrelevant to questions of morality.

Jamie

Loren Pechtel

Originally posted by fried beef sandwich
Or the Cultural Revolution, during which many of the intellectuals either fled or were forced to work in the gulags and concentration camps,

Or even just on the farms.

which gutted the country's potential for economic growth. Or the fact that rampant disregard for the environment has destroyed fertile land, the topsoil blowing off and mingling with the dust of the Gobi desert - you don't think that has any effect on farm production?

I've seen a serious estimate that China's true growth is about zero--all the apparent growth is needed to offset environmental harm.

Go jogging in Beijing and you'll be coughing up mud in 15 minutes, I guarantee it.

That's a bit of an exaggeration, but the normal air there would be triggering health warnings on the TV here.

Or how about the fact that government officials, sponsored by semi-legitimate front companies, come out to Las Vegas on "business trips" and blow hundreds of thousands of dollars on gambling, wine, and whores while the young men and women slaving away in the factories get paid next to nothing and live in shitty government dormitories?

Actually, I thought it was more the high mucky-mucks of the state-owned enterprises that did that sort of thing.

Vorkosigan

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Totalitarianist
Sorry, but that is how I write. I can write well. Quite sorry if you find that troublesome.

Oh, and it is indeed quite absurd that you would esteem the following words as archaisms:

"conformable" "subscribed" "defective" "perish".

I should like very much to know why you believe that.

Tote, nobody has used the word "defective" to describe such persons in ages.

I am quite pleased that you think that that is well written. I can indubitably write like that whenever I so desire;

LOL. No, you can't as that sentence contains a problematic word, and the next one a gross stylistic error. You didn't write that, and you're a troll. Quit wasting our bandwidth.

it requires hardly a scintilla of psychical energy on my part surely.

Your adverbs are out of control. You're just wasting our time with parody now.

It is merely a matter of inserting sentences which, in the everyday language of the vulgar, one would utter independently of any other sentence, into one long setence.

As anyone can see, you can't even control a simple sentence like this without an awkward construction and a spelling error. You never wrote that, Tote.

Funny, though, that when I put "conformable" and "nature" in a search program, I keep getting Catholic pieces "onanism."

Vorkosigan

Totalitarianist

I constantly use that word to describe the mentally backwards, deformed, etc.

Sorry, but I did write that.

I have said that almost verbatim several times.

Note "defective genes". I have said that elsewhere numerous times.

I have been known to say that, too.

Note that I am constantly endeavouring to pursuade people that the practise of eugenics is gradually becoming an ethical obligation. Note, also, that, for a variety of reasons, I consider eugenics a Science in the loose sense of the term.

For some reason I remember saying "the genius of the English language" and "the genius of the the west".

I have been known use the word "savage" in the old fashioned sense.

It is typical of me to employ such sorts phraseology.

I remember precisely what was occuring to me as I wrote this. Firstly, I often use the word "conformable" in such contexts. I am sure one could find that word used by me in such a way in a search; for I distinctly remember phrasing another sentence which contained that word similarly. Now as concerns "to which nature had originally subscribed us" (which is not at all amazing to begin with): while considering the variety of options worthy of being employed by me in the execution of that sentence, I immediately thought of this often asked question: "To which religion to you subscribe?". (The whole thing occured in probably less then one second, but that is not the point.)

Edit: Ah, and also "more or less". I am quite in the habit of saying that.

Now if you are so sure that that was not written by myself, one would think that there would not be any grammatical errors. Can you point out any? I can.

In addition to that, I can think of many authors who write rather well at times, and then suddenly write horribly -- namely, Asimov. I have written just as admirably in other posts, and then horribly.

Have not you ever endeavoured initially to write a long, well written post, and then lost interest, and quickly, lazily finished it off? That is not quite the case here, but it is a possibility at least worthy of some consideration. Yet I have written just as admirably in other posts.

Moreover, I copied parts of it directly from my diary, in which, of course, I always write most exquisitely; for it will, most likely posthumously, be read by all, for I shall be a famous man, and everyone will be curious about my diaries. I of course had to add some text to it to make it an interesting post.

But I do assure you, Vork, one will come across neither a book, nor a website, nor anything else, with the same sentences as those written by me in my initial post. You may search the entire internet, and you will find nothing.

LHP Adept

In reply to the OP, I agree in principle, but in practice there is a slippery slope hazard, in that the definition of 'defective' could eventually come to include such things as albino or dwarf children, genetic predisposition to diabetes or cancer, etc.

fried beef sandwich

I smell Gattaca around the corner.

the_cave

! The history of China is a great deal more complicated than the current population boom...I find your demographic reductionism absurd.

My God! Are you even listening to yourself? First you say it's a good thing, then you say it's just anti-Chinese propaganda! Does that mean you yourself are now spreading anti-Totalitarianist (referring to yourself) propaganda?