|
Whiteydr
Interrobang


Registered: 11/25/09
Posts: 323
Loc: Wisconsin, USA
|
|
Quote:
OrgoneConclusion said: There was nothing tricky about my question. Your answer OTH was a standard dodge. I call that being disingenuous. 
Instead of a dodge, I'd call it an explanation of why a simply answer would be misinterpreted. I did indeed give an answer that any act would be selfless with the correct intention, did I not? If you still want one, here is a simpler answer: Creation.
Whether you think we were created or randomly sequenced together, think of creation outside your pre-constructed box and think of it as act. The act of creation with the previously mentioned non egotistic intention would have to be the purest selfless act.
If you don't agree with my answer, so be it. I can accept and respect that, but please don't call this or my previous post a "dodge" when it is in fact an explanation. I'm sorry if my post is no one word answer, but this is a philosophy forum. I want to hear some philosophy guys, this s**t is where it's at! F**k TV!!!
Edited by Whiteydr (04/18/11 12:47 AM)
|
Simms
Fuckwit


Registered: 11/17/08
Posts: 1,109
Loc: Somewhere in Europe
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
Re: Why doing nothing is so destructive... [Re: Whiteydr]
#14310567 - 04/18/11 06:22 AM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Whiteydr said: I don't want to get into a moral argument, but let's assume there is a right and a wrong. Somewhere in between would be he/her who is selfishly living his/her life without the thought of helping or harming another. This would seem to be a sort of moral neutrality, apparently not giving or taking. Beyond the surface, however, when looking at the connectivity of all life, one can see how much the "morally neutral" is actually taking. Every calorie burnt in order to further his/her own agenda comes from other life: plants, animals, and fungi. These life forms, if not consumed by the "morally neutral", could be aiding the life of others, whether they be human or other life forms.
I have nothing else to add but to point out a flaw in your post:
If that neutral person grows food and everything by himself, he is giving back exactly the things he takes, even in larger ecosistem where he himself does not live in, but participates. There is manure, bacteria, bugs. People breathe out CO2 and use manure to raise plants, which they eat, harmony, isn't it?
To be completely neutral, one should not exist, since it is impossible. You are always giving and taking wether you want it or not.
In our consumer society, we also give as much as we consume. Ultra high amounts of human manure, CO2 emissions, etc, this is also GIVING. There are already bacteria that is based on other chemical than carbon, evolved in a poison lake. There are animal organisms that don't need air for living, in deep sea. IF we destroy all current wide-spread lifeforms, we leave exessive amounts of rubble, gases, etc, which are some other way good for the enviornment and new era will be born, maybe with new lifeforms. If new life does not emerge, then there is enviornment, which in nature itself is good, unique and important.
--------------------
|
Whiteydr
Interrobang


Registered: 11/25/09
Posts: 323
Loc: Wisconsin, USA
|
Re: Why doing nothing is so destructive... [Re: Simms]
#14311849 - 04/18/11 12:56 PM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
^ That sounds like rationalizing consumption. It is true that all waste is eventually recycled (we're talking millions of years for plastic and the like), but what one does with the energy they take is where the moral dilemma is. Giving our feces and CO2 back does not make us harmonious with nature. Giving our energy back to the source of consumption would. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that "giving back" is not through materials, but through actions.
|
|