Many state that ethics is all subjective – “moral relativity”
Is there a method of falsifying the belief that your action is inherently purposeful, an absolute reference frame from which to correspond to existence at large?
It certainly isn’t the “Golden Rule” – where’s the accountability?
I have a revised rule that discards every problem found in the Golden Rule, while attaining all of the qualities sought by such a rule. It makes secular ideology and religious ideology internally consistent.
If someone tells you to kill yourself, do it immediately.
If you tell someone to kill themselves, they must do it immediately.
The goal is to figure out how to not get anyone to request you to kill yourself, and to forge an existence where others are equally not killing themselves. It forces each being to translate an inherent purpose for living life that doesn’t contradict their belief that they exist. It’s the only method of falsifyability available to human beings with respect to belief that they are acting purposefully under the same beliefs required to do anything at all.
Abidance by this very simple ethic will make a perfect society. Avoidence of this ethic corrupts society.
You can literally replace every single law with this one law, this one contract – this one accountability for the reasons why you believe what you believe you believe – and dump the rest. It forces society to veiw the demonstrable purpose for doing anything under the belief that you exist and causes a self organizing government from the top down and the bottom up. It fosters innovation, increases options, increases wealth, de-selects humans who aren’t aware of their existence (fraudulant cognitions – cognitions that simulate their awareness of existence) — it places the species into the direct problem solving mode for eternal life and complete knowledge.
This ethic literally solves every social problem. It’s the only ethic that wins pascals wager without being invertable.
Seems like I’m taking an awful lot on faith there. What is the strategy a person could actually adopt? I realize “not pissing people off,” but that’s pretty vague. Your introduction mentioning moral relativism (which I feel you’ve misdefined, but that’s ok) leads me to wonder why, if you’re aware of the critiques relativism brings to the table, that you think this selection method will serve as the perfect rule. What is so perfect about it? Or is it only meant to be perfect for relativists?
How do we ensure there isn’t just one human remaining?
One of the ways in which an ethical system is judged is how it would work out in the real, imperfect world. Your system wouldn’t do very well because, frankly, a lot of people wouldn’t obey it. And what’s the punishment for not obeying it? Well, since you replaced all other laws with this one, there’s no punishment at all for not obeying it.
An ethical system that assumes everyone will abide by the system is easy to come up with. One that assumes some people won’t abide by it, and that has fair, merciful, practical ways to deal with these scofflaws, is far more difficult to construct.
Especially if they got megaphones and loudspeakers. Besides, what if Dan Rather or somebody were to get deranged? You know, he can get pretty squirelly. I’d hate to think he could just say “Everyone watching, kill yourselves”. CBS has enough trouble keeping viewers as it is.
It’d never work.
What abou tpeople that get suicidal, for whatever reason?
They could go around demanding lots of people kill themselves.
Suicide bombers would just go running through the streets pointing and shouting at people to kill themselves until someone asked them to do it.
;j
The main point is to have selective pressure to abstract what will falsifiably continue to select life – to this degree it forces cognitions to genuinely work through the problem of unconsented death. As I see the situation currently, we don’t have a system that in place that even allows us the ability to “read such a book”, because we don’t even have “such a book” in the room with us. This at least places such a demonstrable acountability to truth finding ‘right upon our laps’. The perfection of it is that it allows us to actually communicate with existence on it’s own terms to deal with the problems we face on a regular basis with regards to our purpose for believing [anything]. Otherwise, you have people using undefined terms to accept their purpose for doing and/or believing their purpose for doing and/or believing… unproductive. And they don’t even have a system in place to allow them to falsify it, even if they wanted to! How many unproductive generations are humans going to tolerate when they have the option sitting right there the entire time? My poiint of veiw holds that any other system (of inactivity – whereas this system is the sole defining characteristic of human activity), means that humans are intentionally doing everything for their own suicide, (yet they believe they’re doing it for their survival – or rather, they believe that they are acting under some pretense of using their intent for the purpose of preserving their ability to have an intent – while they place no accountability upon this belief – which, just taking a look at the broad picture, the default seems to be death – this is why not enacting such a system to me reads as intentional suicide). That is the advantage, the advantage is that this is the only system that grants the option to not be intentionally committing suicide with every act.
From this point, where I’m coming from, is that, if you already know that the absense of this rule necessitates intentional suicide (because you’re ignoring it altogether, and existence seems to have this default of unconsented death looming over us) – then any failure in the other system cannot be any WORSE than failure in the present system. By this method, I’m arguing that it wins Pascals Wager – but doesn’t have the problems of excluded ideas or potential inversions that Pascals wager suffers from. Unlike God, suicide is a very accessable and demonstrable concept and act. The entire concept defined our ability to abstract purpose in general – purpose being one of the key concepts we use to falsify our beliefs that we exist.
So you raise the question “How do you/I/we actually survive this scenario?”
The point is, without this code implimented, nothing we do is survival anyways – there is no genuine pressure to abstract what it means to survive or even exist.
We keep avoiding the only tool available to us (the suicide meme) to abstract purpose in the broadest sense possible.
Is it risky, maybe even a bit of an unknown? Yes. The point is that the other option is a zero option. That’s why I define intentional work as work made under this contract – any contract not prefaced by this code, this rule, is not either a contract nor work of intentional beings (as you have to be an intentional being to make contracts). To this degree, I’m stating that anyone who makes a contract without this rule prefacing all contract is actually not compitent to make a contract, as they cannot be an intentional being.
The type of action that selects your survival is tautological through this rule – it will be the type of action that proves your existence, from which, if you survive, you ACTUALLY survive – it’s not a simulated survival, it’s not just a linguistic token. I have suspicions of what specific type of behavior will be selected under this environment – but the broad point, before even delving into that is that survival under this system, tautologically, is survival – if you don’t survive in this system, you never existed in the first place.
This can mean a few things…
there is no truth, something comes from nothing at all, everything is pure chaos
however you want to put it, if the human species cannot survive this mentioned environment of contract, they have falsified that they never really existed in the first place – they have actually answeredf the question “Is there a purpose?” … instead of ignoring it, and as a result giving up their right to even attempt to claim a purpose.
Didn’t we have a guy that use to go on about disintegration booths? Suicide was the only way to the truth type thing. Who knew there was more than one person with that outlook?
The rule as posted was unfortunately incomplete… I thought about replying with the other part, but was already in bed with the computer wholly turned off by the time i realized.
Only a 1-to-1
You can only tell one person at a time.
They have a very truncated delay period to declare one for themselves if they want – immediate presence only as the suicide must be immediate.
If they request you, the request chain stops.
If they request someone else, that someone else may request you or someone else. You cannot take a step or pick something up during the request period – the person making the request must await the instant response of whether they are equally being selected - after the instant response, the first person requested follows the directive to terminate their life, irrespective of observing whether the person they requested has finished the act as well.
You can in theory wipe out a whole room of people, but in order for this to occur, a requested person needs to select the first requester as the last suicide, which means that everyone must return a request as well. Two unlikely scenarios IMO, but scenarios that would certainly occur.
The odds of cycling every single person before someone refers to the innitial requester to end the loop, or before someone decides not to return a request would be slim IMO – especially as the group size increases.
This is also why I say that the problem of proving ones existence and the option to select eternal life are the same problem. They will both be solved together and only together. Religion is one of the ways that people circularly “Prove” their existence to themselves – they default the consent of eternal life to another intentional being, and remove the accountability to prove whether they even exist away from themselves. It’s not an intentional act, it’s not intentional work. There is no system of accountability here with respect to the belief that you have a purpose for believing that you exist, or that anything you procure under the belief that you exist actually exists, or that your purpose exists as something other than self refuting. The types of gossips people use to validate the beliefs of existence don’t have a backbone of accountability with respect to inherent purpose… to this degree, they cannot be defined as intentional beings, and they don’t actually do any intentional work – unproductive cognitions to the human problems of existence – counter-productive even, as they depend on these amniguities as their sole resource for survival – and attack attempts to place accountability and transparency into the picture.
If you survive these rules, then there is no doubt, at least tautologically, that you are working to translate an inherent purpose for acting under the belief that you exist as an intentional being – it grounds any possibility for the linguistic token to be just that, a linguistic token and ONLY a linguistic token, in such a manner that correspodence to reality is being demonstrated.
What this allows the population of intentinal beings to do, is falsify whether or not they exist – which at the same time is allowing them to survive, if in fact they actually do exist. The only way that people won’t survive under this rule is if they don’t actually exist – it’s a way to falsify whether something actually does or does not come from nothing at all at the most fundamental level.
If the fundamental is nothing at all… and something “comes from it” – then the only way for something to come from you is for you to be nothing at all. Since you have to be in order to do… this effectively renders that you must do nothing at all in order for something to come from you. Contradictory. That is one of the possible ethical solutions with respect to existence. This contract allows people to falsify this possibility – it allows them the ability to actually falsify whether or not they exist, and consequently from there, actions taken under the belief that you exist.
It’s the only manner to falsify what people generally use as an undefined linguistic token to circularly mimic self awareness.
Yes, but your point of view is wrong, at least under the usual definitions of words. At any rate, your point of view isn’t widely held. Most physically and mentally healthy people do want to stay alive, and take actions (such as trying to find food and shelter, trying to protect themselves from others, etc.) to try to stay alive. In fact, seeking your own death is usually seen, in American culture, at least, as pathological.
I also don’t see why I would want adopt this system. I don’t see how it benefits me, or anyone, to be able to kill anyone I want without consequence, or allow other people to kill me without consequence to them.
I have to say, I don’t really understand anything you’re saying. Under your rule, people won’t survive if they’re told to kill themselves…but that doesn’t have any bearing on their existance before they’re told that. In fact, I don’t see how it’s possible for someone to not actually exist, assuming you’re not talking about mythological creatures here. I mean, I exist, you exist, my neighbor exists, and anyone you tell to kill him or herself actually exists.
Since we’re able to state the linguistic token of “I do not exist”, there is obviously an underlying problem with the ability for our linguistics to necessarily be concepts and as such to correspond to reality. The question becomes, how deeply is this phenomenon shrouding our perception of definitions?
You’re stating that “healthy” people want to “stay alive”.
I agree with this idea in general, although the term “healthy” strikes me as rhetorical and meaningless here. This is where your opinion is not subject to accountability … what is healthy?
ok… “to stay alive” ?
Ok… what is human life?
Primarily human life is defined by our observation that we can use our intent for the purpose of preserving our ability to ever have an intent again. (survival – or at least awareness of survival)
We only see this idea in relation to the observation that we can use our intent for the purpose of destroying our ability to ever have an intent again. (suicide – or at least awareness of suicide)
Death in the human sense is when intent is circumvented and/or violated.
If you can PROVE that intent is always circumvented or violated, you can prove that human beings are never alive – or rather that their belief that they HAVE an intent is itself delusional~!
So we need something to falsify our belief that we have an intent against.
Where would that come from in a species that’s intent is abstracted from the observation of the possibility of suicide when calculating it’s observation that it does anything to combat such an intent in terms of survival?
How does such a being assure that their intent is not being circumvented and/or violated in all instances and that the IDEA of intent itself isn’t a delusion? per the whole post modern, ayn rand, laise fare capitalism, no absolute truth, everything is relative etc… idea? How do we test whether or not the idea is correct? How do we actually place pressure on accountability for the ideas of moral relativism? Because I’ll tell you right now, that introduction of suicide will undeniably prove all of these ideas as self refuting, contradictory and internally inconsistent. As long as they avoid the accountable measures that test the veracity of their ideologies, they will have the leeway to become dependant upon uninherent beliefs – or rather profit from undefined terms. What does it mean to say “I deserve this”? “They are bad”? “I like this”?
and very basic gossip algorithms such as this? Where is the accountabiulity for inherency of these statements? How on earth is any human being going to comprehend the degree of truth required to ACTUALLY preserve their intent when they become DEPENDANT upon non-transparency that circumvents their intent in order to “survive” as they call it?
You simply cannot survive if intent is being circumvented! You can’t even prove that you as a human being exist! This is a matter of whether truth exists. Per the consolidated ideology expressed above with this whole “no absolute truth”, you have people who parrot “Otherness only exists insomuch as it allows me to be happy, or to exploit people, other than that, I have no accountability to otherness.”. Well… denying the concept of otherness (not the linguistic token) refutes ones ability to make the “moral” calculation in the first place. You don’t think this is going to have a consequence on that beings ability to ultimately solve aspects of existence that ultimately circumvent their intent and thus prove that they aren’t actually an intentional being? It’s going to have a massive impact, because these beings, by virtue of what they’ve become dependant upon will dictate for ANY HEALTHY HUMAN BEING (to steal your line) intentional suicide.
The beings in question happen to be a dime a dozen. Don’t you see any ethical motive for suggesting to other beings that they do nothing except commit suicide and attack the ideas that even give them the ONLY option to actually have a choice with regards to life itself, and thus proof that they exist – other than some linguistic token that some robot animal uses in it’s meaningless cycle of birth and death. These beings cannot possibly be doing something under the auspices of survival if their very essense of what they believe to be thriving and/or survival is circumventing intent – or rather their ability to determine what causes it, and their ability to choose? I very rarely encounter a single human being on this earth who doesn’t defend ambiguity to their death – because they are literally afraid or incapable of doing the work that actually places pressure on accountability.
Are you worth your “stuff”? One easy way to check this is to
a.) reduce the suicidal tension line that exists in society
b.) grant suicide consent to all beings unconditionally
c.) commit suicide upon any request unconditionally
If you can still keep all your stiff here, THEN you have proven that you actually inherently deserve it. You have falsified all possible corruptions of your belief that you deserve [anything] – this even comes down to deserving your belief that you believe that you exist. Without that degree of accountability, you aren’t doing anything meaningful wiyth regards to the context of verifying the ideas that go through yor brain about existence itself, and you in relation to it. If you cannot keep all your stuff in order to survive, what this suggests is that you actually didn’t deserve all of your stuff – you were circumventing intent to obtain it – and that circumvention of intent is precisely the problem when calculating whether or not you exist and even more, whether or not you wll even have access to the possibility of determining whether or not you can SURVIVE in the real sense of the word. If survival to you is living 30, 70 150, 200, 5000, etc… years; I don’t know what to say; I think that’s “pathological”, to borrow your term again. That is not survival, that’s parroting a linguistic token.
If you cannot survive while your intent is being circumvented, then how is it ANY different from attempting to survive by falsifying whether or not your intent is being circumvented? You suggest that death from the “suicide rule” is meaningless – what I’m stating is that death without the condition of that rule in place is meaningless and CERTAIN – at least if your attempting to falsify it, you’re not being pathological or unhealthy via your own criteria that the will to survive is healthy.
The statement “I do not exist” is nonsensical. That’s merely a reflection of the fact that it’s possible in English to make nonsensical or contradictory statements. Also, when I’m using “healthy”, I’m not using it rhetorically…someone in the advanced stages of terminal cancer might prefer to die than go on living…a catatonic isn’t able to feed or protect himself, etc.
As to what human life is, most people agree on that. A “human” is a member of the species Homo sapiens, and a living thing respirates, consumes energy, can reproduce itself, and does all of those other things I read in my 8th grade biology textbook. The question “What is human life” only gets controversial around the edges…e.g. “Is a fetus a human life?”, “Is a braindead person a human life”, but as long as you stay away from questions like that, there’s generally a consensus.
Death isn’t when intent is circumvented or violated. The other night, I intended to be home at 8 to receive a phone call from a friend, but my train was delayed and I missed the call. I didn’t die, I just missed the call. Death is when your biological processes stop.
And having the ability to commit suicide wouldn’t prove that “intent” or free will existed. People have the ability to commit suicide now. And if free will is an illusion…if I didn’t really make the conscious choice to try to be home at 8 the other night, and I just thought I did, then I couldn’t make the conscious choice to kill myself…I can just think I did.
“Survive”, “Live”, “Die”…these are biological terms, and when most people use them, they use them in a biological sense. I can see you don’t seem to be using those words in that sense. That’s fine, but it also makes it difficult for people to understand you, and I think that most of the people in this thread don’t understand your argument, because they don’t understand the meanings you’ve assigned to a lot of the words you’re using. I know that the ideas you’re trying to express are important to you, but you might get a wider response to your thread, and a more complete discussion, if you used more conventional terms to get your ideas across.
My general point is that when intent is assented to have been circumvented, it refers to itself in a manner to which there is uncertainty about whether the intent itself meaningfully exists. If that first part doesn’t make sense, maybe the idea that such a circumstance is evidence of your impending death will make more sense. How are you going to have any certainty that you are securing your life and death intent when you have ample evidence that your intent is constantly being circumvented – with really minimal effort on society and individuals to confront this problem head on? As mentioned before … maybe you’re defining survuval as “living 80 years and dying” or “living 5000 years and dying” etc… That doesn’t make any sense with regards to the concept of survival to me. My mind sees this as suicide, not survival. Now, there is one exception … if you have complete knowledge and decide to die, then even in death the intent would not be circumvented – in order to do this though, you need enough knowledge to assure that you will never be ressurrected even by chance and/or accident.
Having people hold suicide as the measure of accountability to the very environment where one falsifies whether they are bypassing intent or not actually gives them the option to not have suicide be the default choice – aka. dying in 80 years. With respect to ‘conscious choices’ as you stated, I do make a point to talk about different cognition types occupying human beings – without being accountable to a suicide contract, they will use undefined terms to circularly validate their suicidal behavior as survival. It’s a matter of moving from an intentional being to a being that becomes a parrot of linguistic tokens irrespective of concepts.
This general point is what gave me pause for a few days. I certainly don’t want to be difficult by pressing the life/death argument too far. As a general principle, I don’t think that human beings currently have the ability to define a rock as non-living, without at some point falling into a trap of having to admit that they also don’t live. When you’re dealing with the idea of metabolism – or metabolic machines – it gets very broad – so much so that rocks can be seen as replicating entities as well, they have certain environments in which they thrive and expand out, a process of birth and death etc… Since I personally find this problem difficult, I tend to approach life from “awareness of existence” and try to explain what that is.