In the Truman Show, is it ethcial to keep truman out of civilization, is it like murder-taking away freewill?
604107
Why are you so interested in the Truman show right now? It's an old movie.  \n\nBut yes, I would say its like taking away someones free will.
680195
Faced with the prospect of a direct assault on the Japanese mainland that would have cost millions of lives, many American, president Truman chose the “nuclear option”. The humanitarian consideration of destroying civilian populations to neutralize military targets is gut wrenching for the leader of a moral society. From the American perspective, especially those that would have lead the assault, it was the correct decision.
914807
Yes. Flooding the world to destroy the evils of humanity would infringe on free will. There is no true free will in Christianity. It is only a term they throw around to convince themselves that their choice is based on something other than fear of an unlikely punishment.\n\nEven if Noah and his family were good people, while every other person in the world was evil, if god gave humans free will, then they had the freedom to choose evil. If you give someone a choice, you need to be prepared for the possibility that they will not choose what you wanted them to. If you give someone a choice, knowing that they will not choose the "right" answer and having a punishment in store for them in just that case, then you have set them up and are denying them free will. It is the spiritual equivalent of entrapment.
511061
...because Truman's life wasn't really based upon privacy and free-will.
111866
The theory delves into concepts of predestination, predetermination, and free-will. It proposes that human beings, animals, and others are really not in control of their own lives. Rather, what we do, when we do it, and how we go about doing it are determined by a complex set of interactions provided by the environment, people around us, etc. It is not hard to imagine some machine or random algorithm controlling these interactions, much like AI in a video game (FEAR, call of duty II...).
1171024
Wow, you sure brought on some original one liners with this one. Personally, I don't want a bunch of hypocritical spin doctor morons calling me great.\n\nAnd I take exception to this response:\n Remember the commandment THOU SHALT NOT KILL? that means NO KILLING! Who's the hypocrite? \n\nThe intent of the commandment was Thou Shalt Not Murder. I know that not all of us have access to a bible, but it's there- Exodus, Chapter 20. \n\nMaybe it's just me, but I think that there is a profound difference in killing an unborn child and removing toxic waste like Ted Bundy from our midst. Anyone who can't see the difference should probably go read The Stranger Beside Me by Ann Rule.\n\nSorry about getting off subject here, but I didn't see a whole lot of other valid points being made. And you have to admit, I was right about the cracks from the short bus stalker nimrods, wasn't I?
1176580
You ask: <So is the sanctity of life just a human invention based on self interest to protect itself?>\n\nYes. Probably. It's odd, isn't it that life is sacred for the unborn, but once you're born, you're fit to kill, particularly if you're not American. So, the idea is not a human invention, but probably an American invention (of a particular political group) to advance it's own interests. Like all political principles, this principle is filled with contradictions. Instead of principle, I should have said "slogan".
404028
I would rather not make a decision at all.  God gave us all free will and said to not judge others.  Therefore, I couldn't take way the free will of others or judge them and their mistakes by sending them back to start all over.
46140
There are two questions you ask.\n1.) --Conciousness is strong feeling (nature of which, by the way is impossible to describe from atheistic perspective) which hardly gives you a break. Therefore it is hard to live if you steal. However, if someone repeats crime over and over again his conciouseness get used to it more and more so he/she lives pretty good with stealing.\n-- Also, (it is not excuse though), people can steal for a different purposes... self-preservation most powerful probably...\n2)-- Second question I don't uderstand. I guess what you mean is people are "EVIL" because they use-up "mother nature"??? So I don't think I get what you ask...clearly.\n-- Anyways considereing human as parasites may lead to serious mental consequencess (...watch out) :D :D (I say this because there are movement to preserve "mother Earth" from "evil" human. Don't get into it please! )\n-- Assuming you're right is only takes specific ideological framework. So how you view human kind and its relationship to Earth is just biproduct of your worldview, which reflects your understanding of human existance. So do not jump into conclusions before you invvestigate "BIG" questions first. (Philosophy 101 recomended). :D :D
648482
No. It's really a question that shouldn't even exist really, kinda like "What kind of shark repellant works best in Wisconson?" But sadly, millions of people think that it IS a question. Even sadder, millions more think that the answer is "yes," or at least pay lip service to the idea. Then they pass this mental illness on to their children.\n\nBy that reasoning at least, it could be considered a valid question, since apparently so many people seem to think that there IS some divine authority.\n\nI used to think that it was simply fear of death and herd instinct that kept this rather silly con-game going. For years I puzzled over just why otherwise intelligent people could swallow such unmitigated hogwash. Earlier this year, I found part of the answer in a book called The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind by Dr. Julian Jaynes. Hell of a title, I know, but it's written in a very friendly style that any reasonably bright layman can follow.\n\nWhile I disagree with the title, it would be more accurate to call it the "Origin of Sentience," the essence of what Dr. Jaynes had to say is very logical and answers many questions about why humans act as they do when it comes to religion and other bad ideas. What follows is a gross oversimplification of the theory, but you'll get the gist.\n\nNot to put too fine a point on it, but the urge to blindly follow some higher authority, real or imagined, is a byproduct of the process by which humans developed a spoken language and started to live together in larger groups. When given a command, a tribe member would essentially hallucinate a version of his leader giving him the command to keep him busy at complex tasks. Primitive man wasn't so hot at grasping the concept of death, so when a tribal leader would die they would venerate the corpse as the source of the ideas rattling in their head. When the corpse rotted, they replaced it with an effigy of the leader, a permanent copy of him if you will, and worshipped that as they would have the leader when he was alive. As society became more complex, this led to the development of writing to make the "god's" commands even more permanent.\n\nJaynes theorized that at this time the two hemispheres of the brain weren't connected quite like they are these days, and that the "voice of god" was really just a hallucination provided by the brain's right hemisphere. Humans of this early era were not self-aware as we understand the concept, rather they operated mechanically on the hallucinated orders of thier internalized gods. Once civilization reached the point that different cultures were forced to interact, the bicameral way of life eventually broke down.\n\nThe breakdown of the bicameral thinking did not mean the end of gods, rather, it heralded the beginning of what we call religion today. Since men no longer had an interalized god to call upon, they were forced to invent external, invisible gods to take their places.\n\nLike I said, this was a gross oversimplification of Jaynes' work. But as one can see, the urge to follow something else is practically hard wired in to the human brain. Religion was a crutch to aid man in the transition from the bicameral state to full self-awareness and self-authorization. The problem we face these days is that humans have apparently never gotten past that stage en masse. Religion remains in the collective conciousness exactly in the same way that a virus lives in a computer network.\n\nNo, there are no gods, save those man creates. Heaven isn't up there, Mount Olympus is barren. There's no Santa Claus, tooth fairy, or monster under your bed either.\n\nAn earlier poster suggested that you "Read the Bible and the Qu'ran and follow the advice of the prophets and see if you feel it in your heart that God exists and you are doing the right thing." If you do this, I also suggest that you
609156
The only reason to will questions and solutions to the next generation is out of emotional good will or altruism. But I believe altruism is an evolved trait that helps a species as a whole.  In other words, tribes of greedy organisms who don't help each other probably died out. If you don't come by it naturally, there is no reason to impose it superficially upon yourself. So don't worry, just spend all your money and resources. Especially if you don't have any kids. Why would you care?
791774
There are a lot of issues in this situation. For example, there are crimes for which a 'free pass' is given in this society. Vehicular homicide by senior citizens is one (they even sue the car manufacturers for faulty brakes and/or gas pedals) and killing one's children due to insanity is another. \n\nEver since the story of Abraham hearing voices (from God?) in his head telling him to kill his son Isaac, we've been acculturated to allow people to rejoin society as normal after a period of mental health treatment.\n\nMaybe the real question is "Should mental health professionals be allowed to declare people 'cured' when heinous crimes have been committed?"\n\nI think if we could all acknowledge that the bible story relates a tale of schizophrenia described in a primitive fashion and that child murder, even by parents, results in guilty but insane verdicts, then we'd all be better off.
165549
That depends on how you define "selfish". But basic survival instinct is that you're primarily looking out for yourself. Still, left to one's own nature, and given adequate sustenance, I don't believe one would necessarily be selfish.
642433
Nope. God knows the end from the beginning, but that doesn't stop us making our own choices. We are our own agents.
342238
Yes, this is true to some extent.  However there must be some basic level of human decency and political ethics that underlies all human transactions.  Building from this foundation, we create a framework for dialog and tolerance.\n\nChief in this basic level is the absolute provision to "live and let live".  As long as some action or belief of mine does not impact your ability to live your life as you choose, you may protest but you may not threaten or use violence.
402064
I don't know the context of Camerofj's original post, but when you equate "normal" with "essential" and "instinctive" may you be oversimplifying it?  In many primitive human societies (for instance as witnessed by Darwin in South America), getting your own way (be it by cheating, stealing, whatever) is normal.  In morally educated society we are taught right from wrong and we then choose whether to obey those rules or not.\n\nWhilst I agree with your posit that "CHEATING is a choice, as are stealing, murdering and lying, etc. And, poor choices at that." *for us*, I would also admit that in other societies (even micro-societies like ghettos or gangs or even clubs) normal might be defined very differently.
953245
In the end, every judgement is based on our own selfishness and ego-self.\n\nIt is wrong to kill. What that means is that it is only wrong if "you" kill "me". It may not be so if "you" kill someone else beside "me".\nIt is right to help. What that means is that it is only right if "you" help "me". It may not be so if "you" help someone else beside "me".\n\nThat's why you can see why some people propound one thing and they practice something else. They propound one thing for others to follow, but they make their own selfish rules for themselves to benefit from. That's a lie not only to others but also to themselves. But then, we are all like that, whether the person reading this like it or not.