Let's say I saw someone drowning in lake. There is no way it'll implicate me legally as a bystander.
Why should I even inconvenience myself by lifting a finger to call help? How can you convince me using logic and reason. Religious arguments are not convincing.
because you'll have a gofundme set up for you and make a lot of money for an easy task.. duh. it ain't 2002 anymore boomer.
If it's a hot chick she might blow you
Do it because having someone owe you their life fufills your egoism. Make Stirner proud.
i can feel it coming in the air tonight woo ooooo
How about "do unto others" etc. If you were drowning in a lake, you would want some one to call for help. So you inconvenience yourself against the day you are the one needing help.
Not OP but people should have the right to die. Do unto others doesn't apply to playing God.
>How can you convince me using logic and reason.
no one cares what you do or what you think.
You're putting yourself in a worse situation legally by helping them.
Well...I'm not sure people have a right to die. People have an obligation not to hurt their spouse children family employer larger society by killing themselves.
if you lack empathy then there is no reason for you to help.
/thread
>drowning
>to call help?
Found the nigger who can't swim.
>swim out to them
>thank God they think
>you purposely drown with them
Nothing personal kid
that's the fucking point. Altruism is intrinsically illogical. That's why it's a virtue you dumb fuck.
Yes I could make a "Lindy effect" argument that the multiplicative effects of eusocial and altruistic behaviors by societies helps endure successive survival pressures which is why altruistic and cooperative phenotype are more emergent.... but that's not the fucking point on an individual level.
It's like "faith". When you take a "leap of faith" you're admitting that there is no logical reason to take a course of action, but you're doing it anyway.
You do it because you fucking feel like, there is no logical or reasonable reason for it!
People like you are the problem and why the world is slowly being ruined.
Completely snuffing out the concept of self along with free will.
I have no interest in killing myself but you better be damn sure I would use the most fool proof method around to do so if I did.
So I didn't have to come back & face shit heads like you claiming I need to be locked up for attempting to practice free will.
There is no more a burden from me eating a bullet in a field on my property than there is a deer dying there.
It's essentially compost, but all of you soft fucks would have to have it removed immediately based on your stupid fucking sensibilities instead of letting me enrich the soil.
Fuck off.
>Altruism is intrinsically illogical
Altruism is a concept that doesn't even exist in reality. If you help someone it is never 'selfless' as you are always acting in the self-interest of getting that positive warm feeling from having done something nice/noble/etc. Even if you sacrifice your very life, you are still doing it to fufill a personal code and are only acting in that way because you find it intolerable not to.
You are obviously a child, so I will explain as would to a child.
You will find that the true measure of a person is not his opinion of himself, or his actions in times of normalcy.
A man is defined by his actions in the face or crisis.
Are you selfish and cowardly, hiding your face at a call for action?
Or do you act for the good of others simply because you can?
TLDR: What you are is defined by your actions.
The choice is always yours.
Because after you pull them out you can fuck them, and if they resist you can throw them back.
Suicide booths now!
I feel a lot of this world's problems would go away if people weren't forced and shamed into living.
or he can wait until she's dead and take whatever hole/s he likes. Bad argument.
>If you help someone it is never 'selfless' as you are always acting in the self-interest of getting that positive warm feeling from having done something nice/noble/etc.
that's changing the goal posts. Does it increase your social standing, your finance? Your efficacy or agency or position to command your life? No. Then by any testable or tangible concept of self-interest it is not in your self interest.
I don't like these wishy washy expansions of the notion of self interest to personal values, because it undermines the fact that certain behaviors do indeed have self-beneficial consequences. This is why we have the concept of "mental illness" - because at the end of the day, if you can't function in a society with enough self-interest to put a roof over your head, to put food in your belly, to prolong your agency, efficacy, and self-determination - then you're mentally ill.
I say self-interest strictly means measurable, fairly obvious notions.
Anything else is twisting my words into a terrain I'm not discussing here.
Your argument is faulty because it is based on an ad hominem attack - .i.e. you have failed to argue your point, but instead simply stated you do not like the person who made the opposing argument. Logical failure.
If you have a girlfriend you have an obligation to not harm her by killing yourself. If you have a child, you have an obligation to avoid harming the child with your death. If you have an employer, you owe your employer your work not your death.
I posted this on /sci/ someone posted here. I started the post topic with "why should I value human life?"
Just so people aren't confused on the context.
So the only human life I should value is very attractive females for a chance of them giving me a blowjob? I'll accept that premise. It benefits my life therefore I value it. I don't value her as a human but as my sexual object.
So unattractive people have zero value? I shouldn't even lift a finger to help them it would seem by your logic?
I'll change your argument to make more charitable. You're saying It'll give me a higher social standing and monetary gain. Okay I'll accept that but again, it doesn't prove that human life inherently any value. The only reason I should help people is due to monetary gains and higher social standing.
That's only if you go swim to save them. You have to call for help.
That's not true. People are having fun with this, seems like a lot of responses on this thread. Also, you care enough to post on to tell me that you don't care. Kinda makes it seem like you care at some level.
The problem with that is, I don't expect someone else to save me. I mean don't get me wrong, I wouldn't PUSH them into the lake but I also don't think I have any obligation to help them either.
>if you lack empathy then there is no reason for you to help
That's not really true though. People above did point out why it would benefit me to help without using the empathy argument. The question "why should I value human life?". Most of the people keep saying monetary or social standing, or even attractive person with a possibility of sexual reward all do benefit me but doesn't prove that I should value human life inherently. Only reason I should value human life is at personal gain, which I would agree but otherwise there is no value to human life to me.
The reason I said call was the least thing I could do. If I don't value human life enough to even call, why would I swim to help?
You don't have to if you don't want to.
YOU: "The problem with that is, I don't expect someone else to save me. I mean don't get me wrong, I wouldn't PUSH them into the lake but I also don't think I have any obligation to help them either."
You have failed to address the OP's question - which was "Why should I even inconvenience myself by lifting a finger to call help? How can you convince me using logic and reason." The OP is not asking about an obligation, but is asking about being inconvenienced.
good luck finding the body at the bottom of a lake. Bad argument.
Because it reflects back on you whether human life has any worth or not. Even if you get nothing physically back in return, you will nonetheless get a better conscious
fresh meat is better than carrion
>Then by any testable or tangible concept of self-interest it is not in your self interest.
How is feeling good/happy/proud not testable or tangible? You literally FEEL it. It can easily be argued that internal feelings or more "real" to the individual than the external world in the first place. So of course those feelings are beneficial. Maybe you can't measure it precisely with a yardstick but I fail to see how that defeats the argument.
>muh logical fallacies
>muh implication of inherent social obligations
I have no obligation to you or any other human being on this planet.
You're excluding people with no family, no friends, no significant other as well as people who work for themselves.
But you're the type of parasite who would imply that someone like that owes their customers so greatly that they must continue to live solely to provide the services they've previously rendered.
It's hilarious to me that our species has come so far we have to start creating new limitations for ourselves to find some sense of purpose.
There is so little struggle for so many people in first world countries that the idea of simply living life with next to no self imposed complications is impossible.
Please allow it to bother you that others have free will & don't conform to your ridiculous idea of what society should be.
I'd be happy living in a mud shack with food I had to grow myself if it meant truly owning a piece of property & being allowed to ignore everyone else on this floating fucking rock.
What're you doing at this lake that has drowners in the first place?
life is special, the choas that is imagination is different for every person. limiting ideas by lowering population is censorship
My argument isn't about entire societies being other eusocial vs altruistic societies. I am not in support of altruistic societies at all.
My argument is "why should I value human life?". So the only reason right now that human life has any value is for personal gains. Otherwise there is no logical reason to value human life inherently. Let's use a better example than the lake one. Let's say there was a button that kills off random 10 million people(exuding me) and you receive 1 million dollars making the value of human life 10 cent. How can you stop be from pressing that button?
bullets are good at that.
>Even if you get nothing physically back in return, you will nonetheless get a better conscious
Consciousness wise I wouldn't feel bad at all. The fault isn't mine nor is the responsibility.
>bullets are good at that.
lol'd.
But let's say you didn't have any weapons and couldn't use any aggression. How would you convince me not to press it?
>You are defined by your actions
Choices being good or bad are subjective to one's own belief. What if the drowning victim was a rapist? Is it good or bad karma to let them drown?
Act only according to that maxim, which, by the same time, you can will as a universal law. If nobody helped anybody ever, then everybody would eventually drown, and this is an absurd proposition.
Logic is only as good as your starting premise. If you don't value human life in the abstract, then no logic is going to change your mind. In the trolly problem, you get to be tied to both tracks.
Ok I'll bite.
What if you thought in a more cascading sense of things happening.
You could potentially save the life of someone who directly goes on to increase quality of life for all humans. Maybe through invention, maybe through discovery. You could potentially save the life of a person who INDIRECTLY increases quality of life for all humans, maybe by his/her life going on to interact with someone else in such a way that this result happens.
The drawback is you could also have no affect, or worse a negative affect on overall human wellness.
You basically inconvenience yourself for the chance of indirectly/directly improving/deteriorate overall human quality of life. You could argue that's the reason to value human life.
Hurrr durr im so logical.
Look faggot, Have you ever had to ask someone for help in your life? Obviously you have so it would be hypocritical for you to not even consider helping someone else who needs it.
inb4 hurr durr why is it illogical to be a hypocrite
i've rescued someone from drowning before, was god damn stupid. it was a long 5 minutes of dealing with an asshole literally trying to climb on me and drown me while i swam his dumb ass back to shore.
I can't really tell you that helping the person has value, maybe to you it doesn't, maybe it objectively doesn't. However, given the right context, nothing has value. Things only have the value you give them. However, if you decide to not put value on human life, you rob your own human life of value. Regardless of whether others will still put value on your life and still help you if needed, you yourself have degraded your own value in your own eyes by opting to not put value on human life.
I think I did. I wouldn't punch them, because I wouldn't want to be punched myself BUT I don't except them to help me if I were in their place.
Okay Phil collins
The reason humans value human life inherently is because it promotes cooperation. You can't examine it on an individual level because the most important element of cooperation is being able to put aside personal well-being or benefit in favor of the of the well-being or benefit of the collective.
If bee's refused to sting because they die, hives would go unprotected.
What if the person you save ends up with the cure for cancer? Or ends up saving your life somehow? Or is passes your Mom's house while it's on fire and saves her from death? What you're suggesting, to let that person die, is nothing but narcissism and selfishness, and a complete lack of moral code. And if you watch them die when you could have saved them but for the inconvenience, you might not be troubled by it at the precise moment, but unless you're a sociopath, it will haunt you in your days to come
For the most part religious/moral philosophy value human life.
In a more logical sense then I'd have to say maybe because any human has the potential to do something that could possibly cause progress for the human race.
What if the person he saves is faking drowning and immediately grabs and drowns the OP when he goes to save him? Hm? What if the person he saves beats his girlfriend to death after she catches him fucking her daughter that night? What if? What if? The potential outcomes from the butterfly effect from ANY SINGLE ACTION in reality is impossible to foretell. OP choosing to save or not could be subjectively good or bad either way.
>any human has the potential to do something that could possibly cause progress for the human race.
not even remotely true
Explain
only a select few has what it takes to make meaningful changes within humanity
Except it is true. A deformed, retarded, comatose cripple might not do anything worthwhile on HIS own, but his presence could inspire others for better or worse.
But what if it takes specific interactions with people to lead to those meaningful changes?
but it doesn't
Lots of you retards are saying lots of "what ifs" and think that the drowning person is going to cure cancer or whatever if you save them.
Maybe, maybe not. There is no logical reason OP should help anyone else. There's no room for logic. Turning a blind eye is a lot easier than getting involved.
End of the day it's just a matter of luck whether or not anyone decides to help you if you were in this case the drowning person.
This person would likely just be a drain on resources, but look how specific you have to be to find someone useless. The reality is that it's very hard to be a net loss. Something as simple as being the stooge cleaning toilets still benefits the human race.
reciprocity. if everyone thought like you one day when you make a stupid mistake nobody would inconvenience them self to save you
Take for example a grueling under achiever who has a family member that becomes afflicted with some sort of illness. The family member having said illness kick starts passion inside the under achiever leading to him finding a cure.
Isn't that the logic though? The possibility of saving someone who directly/indirectly causes net gain for all of humanity? Of course the person could also directly/indirectly lead to negative gain as well.
Then you could reduce the question to be about, is risk ever worth taking.
Nine US states have "Duty to Rescue" or "Bad Samaritan" laws. If you are witness and present to a life threatening emergency you can sued, punished, and fined for taking no action... but it is said to be difficult to prosecute on these statutes.
>is risk ever worth taking
the answer is no
no risk no reward
I mean, you can apply this to any behavior. One of the obvious responses to "why should I not shoplift" is "what if you get caught?" Shoplifting is to the immediate benefit of the shoplifter and so long as they avoid the people they victimize or anyone acting on their behalf, they have no personal reason to not do it.
Care to elaborate any further?
>inb4 simple minded "no"
fuck the reward
Think more of the action and emotions that tie to the cripple than he himself. For example, a person could view him as nothing but a time and money sink, that he'd be better off dead. Another person could pity him and seek to ease his suffering. But neither thought is positive or negative. The person who believed he is better off dead might brainstorm ways to euthanize him but accidentally teach himself a new method to cultivate vaccines in a lab, while the sympathizer might seek to ease his suffering by releasing a deadly virus that kills thousands. The context of either action is neither good nor bad because it's ultimately one's view who labels them, and the inspiration in this case came from a completely neutral party.
sounds like you just hate being alive