Posts by Kenneth Brown8

cosmicfox69 said:Maybe my example about embezzlement was super cliché, but man, it's hard for me to "buy into" that way of thinking. Even though the way we're raised and our whole system of values pushes us toward that kind of logic.
With all the ways life gets devalued every single day—everything from abortion to murder—it's seriously tough for me to stick to that logic. It feels like such a massive hypocrisy; everyone talks about equality and the sanctity of life, yet those exact things get trampled all the time.
Still, I sort of feel like taking individual value as the absolute foundation for all of ethics might be overkill. Like, why is it at the core of everything, as you put it?
Maybe it's this: a person wants the same treatment for themselves, so they give it to others to get it back?
Or maybe it comes from deeper, more humanistic ideas—something spiritual about humans, or just the fact that life is fleeting and unique, so we want to protect it? It's pretty wild how you can look at it from two totally opposite sides—like Abrahamic religions versus atheist existentialism—and end up at the exact same place: a consensus on the value of human life. Actually, I think existentialism emphasizes it even more!
Of course, there could be a third way to reach that conclusion too...
On an individual level, most of us probably hold onto those "foundations" of valuing the individual, but globally, those rules are broken systematically all the time. I'd say a person is truly themselves only when they are alone (not talking about socialization, obviously)—that's when their best self really shows up. In a crowd, people just become anonymous and sort of "get lost" in the herd.
Then again, strict social norms can easily "shape" a person and "keep them in line," just because society demands it...

The more I dive into philosophy, the more ambivalent I feel... I mean, there seems to be a solid argument for almost everything... and that definitely makes making decisions a real nightmare. 😁

Every ethical framework I've come across starts with the value of human life. However, they are "intertwined" in the following sense:

1. Society has no right to demand that an individual sacrifice themselves "for the sake of the many."
2. An individual should strive to be as "moral" as possible.
3. If a crisis occurs where point (1) becomes relevant, the moral choice should belong to the individual. They should decide whether to "sacrifice" themselves independently of society or social pressure (and I don't mean ritual sacrifices or suicide, but a conscious decision to endure harm for the benefit of others).

Unfortunately, we live in an era where anything that isn't illegal is considered "moral," and sometimes even breaking the law is tolerated if it doesn't trigger public outcry. We need to realize once and for all that the law has nothing to do with morality.

cosmicfox69 said:Honestly, I’d go as far as calling it just a random elimination of one single person. Just imagine if some individual here in America passed away right this second. Sure, it would be a heartbreaking moment for their family and friends, no doubt about it.

On the flip side, let’s say some shady little "entrepreneur" out there swindled about $3 million away by overcharging people for their prescriptions. How much more impact could that money have if it was actually funneled into a local hospital? It wouldn't even be close—the benefit would be massive.

In general, I feel like mainstream opinion is just way too brainwashed. The group of people who actually think critically is, well, it's tiny. Like, painfully small. There are just too many people looking for a free ride, wanting all the perks and rights without ever taking on any of the responsibilities, you know? I guess that’s where upbringing and education really need to step in. Maybe if we focused more on those, combined with a bit of actual deep thinking, things might finally start to shift.

The mainstream definitely brainwashes millions, and honestly, we can't even fully escape the allure of modern life, but I don't think the value of a human life belongs to "mainstream opinion." One of the foundational principles of any ethics system I've studied—which is why it's so complicated—is that another person's life is our highest value. An innocent life should be protected regardless of the consequences. There's no room for "practicality" here. Would you personally look that person in the eye and decide they need to die? Sure, in your hypothetical scenario, it might save more people in the short term. But that kind of logic—"I'll be practical and sacrifice one person for the greater good"—leads straight to decadence. It starts with sacrificing one, then moves to five, then ten, always claiming "but we saved so many," until morality just hits rock bottom.

goldeneagle8 said:You're sharp, and I gotta respect that,👍 props to you,🙏

but how the hell are we supposed to decide who actually has the authority to judge, and who doesn't... because everyone walks around thinking they're the one who's right... if you're convinced you've got the truth and you've got your own story playing in your head, there isn't some grand authority coming to tell you what's right or wrong... people are just way too sensitive to criticism... and frankly, everything stems from that criticism...

Being overly sensitive to feedback is one big red flag for faulty reasoning. If someone politely points out where you messed up and explains why, there's zero reason to lash out—even if they happen to be wrong themselves. Sure, it's possible to be hot-headed and still be right, but I've rarely seen it happen. From what I've gathered hanging out on various US message boards, people who jump to conclusions tend to be more defensive against any kind of pushback more often (not always 90% of the time, just more) than anyone else. How someone reacts to a different opinion depends on a million things—upbringing, age, education, sheer willpower, etc. Basically, like they say, "some men you just can't reach."