So I would instead make thousands of people miserable to make one life less miserable? No thanks. Yeah, it's wrong but the entire city is more important than one person
Who the fuck cares about the kid? Honestly all you people who want to butt rape the city in favor of the child make human progress seem sinful. If we could have a society where only one person had to experience these hardships, I'd try and preserve it with my life. Why start over for no reason?
Quote from: IcyWind on December 05, 2014, 01:47:55 PMQuote from: DAS B00T x2 on December 05, 2014, 01:44:41 PMFairly certain I had a dream about this once...Anyway, I'd probably want to help the kid, but realize that in doing so I'd set the entire city against me and most likely end up dead. I'd rather not be skun alive. This leaves the option of either accepting the child's life as a fact and the reason for my happiness and moving on, or being repulsed by it to the point where I can no longer stand to live in the city. The later option is really no better, because nothing changes for the child. He's still living the same way he was before I'd have left. May as well just utilize the fruits of his suffering. It would be rude not to.Like Psy said though. It's never going to be a utopia, if one person suffers.One person suffering while everybody else leads perfect lives? It's simple mathematics.
Quote from: DAS B00T x2 on December 05, 2014, 01:44:41 PMFairly certain I had a dream about this once...Anyway, I'd probably want to help the kid, but realize that in doing so I'd set the entire city against me and most likely end up dead. I'd rather not be skun alive. This leaves the option of either accepting the child's life as a fact and the reason for my happiness and moving on, or being repulsed by it to the point where I can no longer stand to live in the city. The later option is really no better, because nothing changes for the child. He's still living the same way he was before I'd have left. May as well just utilize the fruits of his suffering. It would be rude not to.Like Psy said though. It's never going to be a utopia, if one person suffers.
Fairly certain I had a dream about this once...Anyway, I'd probably want to help the kid, but realize that in doing so I'd set the entire city against me and most likely end up dead. I'd rather not be skun alive. This leaves the option of either accepting the child's life as a fact and the reason for my happiness and moving on, or being repulsed by it to the point where I can no longer stand to live in the city. The later option is really no better, because nothing changes for the child. He's still living the same way he was before I'd have left. May as well just utilize the fruits of his suffering. It would be rude not to.
If you think society should be taken down because suffering exists, that makes you an antinatalist.
"...It's not that I don't accept God, Alyosha, I just most respectfully return him the ticket.""That is rebellion," Alyosha said softly, dropping his eyes."Rebellion? I don't like hearing such a word from you," Ivan said with feeling. "One cannot live by rebellion, and I want to live. Tell me straight out, I call on you- answer me: imagine that you yourself are building the edifice of human destiny with the object of making people happy in the finale, of giving them peace and rest at last, but for that you must inevitably and unavoidably torture just one tiny creature, that same child who was beating her chest with her little fist, and raise your edifice on the foundation of her unrequited tears- would you agree to be the architect on such conditions? Tell me the truth.""No, I would not agree," Alyosha said softly."And can you admit the idea that the people for whom you are building would agree to accept their happiness on the unjustified blood of a tortured child, and having accepted it, to remain forever happy?""No, I cannot admit it." Alyosha said.
"Purity that demands exclusion isn't real purity. Paradise is a lie."--Pierce HawthorneIf this "utopia" requires the suffering of an innocent, it isn't a utopia.
Quote from: SecondClass on December 06, 2014, 01:57:45 PM"Purity that demands exclusion isn't real purity. Paradise is a lie."--Pierce HawthorneIf this "utopia" requires the suffering of an innocent, it isn't a utopia.Whether or not the place is a utopia wasn't the question, nor should it even be important to consider.
Quote from: DAS B( Ν‘Β° ΝΚ Ν‘Β°)T x2 on December 06, 2014, 02:04:34 PMQuote from: SecondClass on December 06, 2014, 01:57:45 PM"Purity that demands exclusion isn't real purity. Paradise is a lie."--Pierce HawthorneIf this "utopia" requires the suffering of an innocent, it isn't a utopia.Whether or not the place is a utopia wasn't the question, nor should it even be important to consider.Literally the first sentence of Turkey's post refers to it as a utopian society. The fact that this place is a supposed utopia is the only justification for the torture of an innocent child. But that act, in and of itself, negates the only advantage that it has.
Quote from: SecondClass on December 06, 2014, 02:06:53 PMQuote from: DAS B( Ν‘Β° ΝΚ Ν‘Β°)T x2 on December 06, 2014, 02:04:34 PMQuote from: SecondClass on December 06, 2014, 01:57:45 PM"Purity that demands exclusion isn't real purity. Paradise is a lie."--Pierce HawthorneIf this "utopia" requires the suffering of an innocent, it isn't a utopia.Whether or not the place is a utopia wasn't the question, nor should it even be important to consider.Literally the first sentence of Turkey's post refers to it as a utopian society. The fact that this place is a supposed utopia is the only justification for the torture of an innocent child. But that act, in and of itself, negates the only advantage that it has.Okay, but what's your answer to the question?
If this "utopia" requires the suffering of an innocent, it isn't a utopia.
And in that way they don't deserve to have a utopia if they let the child suffer like that.
Quote from: Lord Ruler on December 06, 2014, 02:44:22 PMAnd in that way they don't deserve to have a utopia if they let the child suffer like that.You mean in the same way people in the West profit off child labour and sweatshops?
Due to the lovely issue of sovereignty, that is, unfortunately, unavoidable.
Quote from: IcyWind on December 06, 2014, 03:11:04 PMDue to the lovely issue of sovereignty, that is, unfortunately, unavoidable.Not entirely. While I believe the current set-up - though unfortunate - is better, it seems a lot of people here are invariably opposed to profiting from destitution on principle. Given that this is the case, I'd be interested to know why these people aren't conducting aid missions.
Given that this is the case, I'd be interested to know why these people aren't conducting aid missions. Unless, of course, the value of their personal labour exceeds the value of stopping suffering. Then it's about expediency, not principles or morals.
But there are far worse.
Quote from: Lord Ruler on December 06, 2014, 02:44:22 PMQuote from: Dustin My Urethra on December 06, 2014, 09:14:38 AMIf you think society should be taken down because suffering exists, that makes you an antinatalist.I don't think should be taken down because the suffering exists. But because the people of this society knowingly let the child suffer for them to have good lives.And in that way they don't deserve to have a utopia if they let the child suffer like that.So it'd be okay if no one knew about it?
Quote from: Dustin My Urethra on December 06, 2014, 09:14:38 AMIf you think society should be taken down because suffering exists, that makes you an antinatalist.I don't think should be taken down because the suffering exists. But because the people of this society knowingly let the child suffer for them to have good lives.And in that way they don't deserve to have a utopia if they let the child suffer like that.