Death and Ethics

[Dwarf Kirlston]

Should one try to live as long as possible? Should one glorify self-sacrifice for a higher good? Is it wrong to kill(cause the death of others)? Is anything wrong/right/good/bad?

The various "good": Life, Liberty, Fraternity, Property, Happiness, Survival, God, the State, Self-Expression, Pluralism, Democracy.

What would you kill for? What is your life "worth"? To what extent are you willing to do wrong to achieve a good?

The inquisition and slavery were defended on similar terms, the institutions served a purpose and the people who suffered misfortunes would be rewarded in heaven.

[RedLenin]

I believe human life is nothing sacred. To kill is just to speed up the inveitable. I do not believe in morality. We live only to die.

It doesnt matter how long we live, how we die, when we die, etc. All that matters is that, no matter what, we are going to die. If you believe strongly in something and are willing to sacrafice your life, good. If you dont and wish to die at age 84 good. Either way you will still die.

All things are meaningless. We slowly live our lives only to die. With every passing second we are all closer to death.

"To what extent am I willing to do wrong?" I do not believe in right and wrong. Human life is nothing.

I would kill should It come to that, I would die for anything at all, with no fear. As I have said, human life is nothing of value in my mind.

So, morality, good, bad, human emotion, life, etc are all meaningless. Death is not to be considered "bad", it is to be considered inevitable.

The only thing in the world that I believe in is liberty. I feel it is at the core of human nature and the natural order of things. The governments and capitalism have destroyed our liberty and they must be opposed. What stops me from being a violent person is my love of liberty. I see violence as an invasion of this. But I am not afraid to kill as a last resort. I have faith in one thing in this world. Liberty.

[Dwarf Kirlston]

"my love of liberty"

to do what? to till the land? to own the machines you use? to sing dance and be happy?

I pretty much understand and agree to everything up to the "believe in liberty" because I have no idea what you mean by that.

then you contradict yourself -human nature and natural order is correct iow good. and government and capitalism must be opposed iow bad.

[DoomedOne]

I have to disagree. Life, beyond the natural order, is something that must only be taken away because of life. Fair exchange, in my opinion. We have to kill to eat, and therefore survive, and we have to kill what attacks us. Aside from that, life, despite how short it is, should not be taken for granted. Sacrifice is something to be done only when completely necessary, people who are the first to throw their lives away probably are more interested in themselves than the cause. What good comes out of death? Whgat redemption can occur when you kill? It's useless to kill or die on most occasions. I know that one is only delaying the inevitable, and we die anyway, but that's not the point, you have life, and with each life comes use, so why throw it away? 99% of people that practice self sacrifice believe in an afterlife, if that's any consolation.

[Urban_Guerilla636]

I feel that we should remain alive for as long as possible...what good is a dead revolutionist?If you cant live for long,then how do you expect to make a change?
Try to keep yo ass alive long enough and maybe someting might be done.

[MKS]

As I have said, human life is nothing of value in my mind.


In order to believe in liberty, you must belive in the value of human life. If you didnt than why care about liberty, why care if people are oppressed, torutred and killed for profit? Just to admit that there is tyranny in the world and that tyranny is bad, is to admit a beleif in the value of human life.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

I believe human life is nothing sacred.

Agreed.


We live only to die.

Not true. I believe that the importance of life is the human journey of birth till death. We life only once, so let's try to make the best of it. Be as happy as possible as individuals and as a group.

Thinking purely by the logic of yours, one should commit suicide as soon as possible to fullfill the porpuse of life.


It doesnt matter how long we live, how we die, when we die, etc. All that matters is that, no matter what, we are going to die. If you believe strongly in something and are willing to sacrafice your life, good. If you dont and wish to die at age 84 good. Either way you will still die.

It does matter. The only thing that we got is our years left till death. It's an enevitable thing, thus meanwhile I would like to life as happy as possible meanwhile. To me it does matter whetever I die at 18 in a wageslave world or 80 in an anarchist world. (hopefully :))


So, morality, good, bad, human emotion, life, etc are all meaningless. Death is not to be considered "bad", it is to be considered inevitable.

I agree, fuck morality. But yes human emotion does matter. It's human emotions which caused me to become a revolutionary. To know that we all life once, but yet billions of people waste that precious time simply to gather food or quible about the latest fashion wear.

As a "happy person" I do currently consider death "bad". Death is what ends the human party.


The only thing in the world that I believe in is liberty.

Then I ask, what's the use of liberty when happiness is of no importance?

[Enragé]

"fuck morality"

bullshit. Morality is what has driven most people into this struggle. The belief that all (wo)men are equal, the belief that capitalism is WRONG, the belief that base-democracy/(workers') council democracy is GOOD. THAT IS MORALITY

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

No, it's not. Give me a precise description of what morality is.

[Shevek]

There's a LONG list of things that I consider moral about life and death. What it basically boils down to is this, every single person should have the ability to chose what to do with thier own life. Terry Schaivo, if she truly did not want to live in a persistant vegetative state, should have been allowed to die, and showing a rare moment of brilliance the JUDICIAL branch of government agreed. NOBODY has the right to use your own life, you have the right to give them a part of your precious time, but that's all. Nobody, not President Bush, not Governor Bush (who IMHO is even more fascist than his brother), not the idiots in congress, not the arcane, cultish Catholic Church, NOBODY, controls your life. Even if it appears that way, its just an illusion that shouldn't be indulged in.

[Enragé]

Originally posted by Non-Sectarian Bastard!@May 1 2005, 02:10 AM
No, it's not. Give me a precise description of what morality is.
the belief that something is fundamentally right/good, combined with the belief that some (other) thing is fundamentally wrong/bad. That is morality.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

So I should addapt to a predefined definition of what is good and what is bad? Thanks, but no thanks. Here in Holland, they teach you at school that Capitalism is good. The "freedom" to trade is a morality. By thinking for myself I found out that the "freedom to trade" hurts a lot of stuff, which I care for more about. That is what drove me to revolutionary politics, thinking for myself. Not adopting another man's opinion.

[Enragé]

umm i didnt say adopting someone elses opinion was morality. I said simply believing (just YOUR beliefs and opinion, which you formed yourself) something is right, and some other thing is wrong, is morality.

[Dwarf Kirlston]

I was thinking of the time of how to return to basics, defeat agriculture, imperialism, and go back to -the way i figured to institute change was mass murder. I guess that explains why anarchists might use things like the anarchist's cookbook.


Originally posted by "Doomed one"+--> ("Doomed one") life, despite how short it is, should not be taken for granted.[/b]
Life=good? is the good of life subordinate to any greater good?


Originally posted by "Shevek"@
What it basically boils down to is this, every single person should have the ability to chose what to do with thier own life.
Liberty=good? Freedom to search for happiness?


"NewKindOfSoldier"
bullshit. Morality is what has driven most people into this struggle. The belief that all (wo)men are equal, the belief that capitalism is WRONG, the belief that base-democracy/(workers') council democracy is GOOD. THAT IS MORALITY
I don't think it's ever only one thing. Frustration with the current system, "cool" factor, anti-social behavior in general.
all men are equal? they are not, some are rich and some are poor, some are doctors and some are illiterate, some are heads of state and some are orphans.
base democracy=good? I don't remember hearing that before... grassroots democracy- aye- but never "base democracy"...

Karl Marx -"religion is the opiate of the masses" - my religion has been TV and books and music.

[Enragé]

dude, the things i said were examples...non sectarian bastard is a dutch anarchist and i only know one dutch anarchis organisation and they say they're for base democracy. So thats why i used it. Anyways, replace equal with "should be equal" or "of equal worth"...but that wasnt the point. The point was simply believing in something, believing something is good, is morality.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Ow, NkOS you were right.

Cambridge Dictionary:

Definition
moral [Show phonetics]
adjective
1 relating to the standards of good or bad behaviour, fairness, honesty, etc. which each person believes in, rather than to laws

Anyway, my point is still that people should think for themselves what they consider bad/good instead of accepting the moral standards of society or religion.

------------


I was thinking of the time of how to return to basics, defeat agriculture, imperialism, and go back to -the way i figured to institute change was mass murder. I guess that explains why anarchists might use things like the anarchist's cookbook.

This whole piece doesn't make sense. First off, you equate anarchism with primivitism. Most anarchists are industrialists and reject primivitism, just as "anarcho"-capitalism to be part of anarchism.

The guy who wrote "The Anarchist Cookbook" wasn't an anarchist. He choose the title to refer to the popular myth that anarchists are bombthrowing maniacs. Not one anarchist that I ever spoke to took "The Anarchist Cookbook" as a piece of anarchist literature.

[Black Dagger]

Not one anarchist that I ever spoke to took "The Anarchist Cookbook" as a piece of anarchist literature.

Hehe, what about the...
Activists (http://antimedia.net/cookbook/) cookbook? :D

[Enragé]

"Anyway, my point is still that people should think for themselves what they consider bad/good instead of accepting the moral standards of society or religion. "

I agree

[Dwarf Kirlston]

Originally posted by Non-Sectarian Bastard!@May 5 2005, 03:03 PM

I was thinking of the time of how to return to basics, defeat agriculture, imperialism, and go back to -the way i figured to institute change was mass murder. I guess that explains why anarchists might use things like the anarchist's cookbook.

This whole piece doesn't make sense. First off, you equate anarchism with primivitism. Most anarchists are industrialists and reject primivitism, just as "anarcho"-capitalism to be part of anarchism.

The guy who wrote "The Anarchist Cookbook" wasn't an anarchist. He choose the title to refer to the popular myth that anarchists are bombthrowing maniacs. Not one anarchist that I ever spoke to took "The Anarchist Cookbook" as a piece of anarchist literature.
I read the whole thing you have in there about the definition of anarchism and how it includes femiinism, anti-heterosexism, blah blah blah blah blah... it does say that anarchists include primitivists though.


"Anyway, my point is still that people should think for themselves what they consider bad/good instead of accepting the moral standards of society or religion. "
what about stupid people? or the fact that it takes learning to know what is good/bad - nobody is born a marxist, nobody is born a hitler worshipping right-winger.

[Black Dagger]

I read the whole thing you have in there about the definition of anarchism and how it includes femiinism, anti-heterosexism, blah blah blah blah blah... it does say that anarchists include primitivists though.

What did you read? Primitivists are OPPOSED to all other anarchists, in the same way as 'anarcho'-capitalists are OPPOSED to all other anarchists. Moreover, non-primitivists reciprocate this opposition, primitivists have no connection with the anarchist movement or philosophy outside of their name. They're an extreme minority who took a single point of philosophy and extrapolated their own deviation, like the Christian Patriot/Christian Identity movement in the US. As much as i dislike Christianity/religion, it's pretty fucking obvious that Identity Chrstians aren't 'real' christians by any normative standard of christian literature/philosophy/teaching.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Originally posted by Dwarf [email protected] 14 2005, 09:37 PM
I read the whole thing you have in there about the definition of anarchism and how it includes femiinism, anti-heterosexism, blah blah blah blah blah... it does say that anarchists include primitivists though.



What did you read?


what about stupid people? or the fact that it takes learning to know what is good/bad - nobody is born a marxist, nobody is born a hitler worshipping right-winger.

Even stupid people can think. Plus the idea that people form their own on idea or right and wrong through thinking. So that we aren't stuck in dogmatism or give too much influence to parents who tell what's good and wrong.

[Big_Don]

Originally posted by Black [email protected] 15 2005, 06:50 AM
as much as i dislike Christianity/religion, it's pretty fucking obvious that Identity Chrstians aren't 'real' christians by any normative standard of christian literature/philosophy/teaching.
I do not know how Identity Christians can class themselves as 'Christians'. IC is just a label applied to a wide variety of loosely-affiliated groups and churches with a racialized theology. The majority of them promote a militant white supermascist and a 'neo-Nazi verion of Christianity
Their key commonality is British Israelism theology, which teaches that white Europeans are the literal descendants of the Israelites, and that the Israelites are still God's "Chosen People".


Christian Identity asserts that the white Aryan race is God's chosen race and that whites comprise the ten lost tribes of Israel. There is no single document that expresses this belief system http://en.wikipedia.org

[Black Dagger]

I do not know how Identity Christians can class themselves as 'Christians'.

Because they derive their theological teachings from the Bible. The vague, contradictory and reactionary nature of religion and religous texts means that pretty much anything can be derived from its teachings whilst maintaing a certain level of legitimacy. The theology of the CI movement, outside of the claims of their appropiated British Israelism, are valid interpretations of biblical text.

Take, Kingdom Identity Ministries (i'm not going to post a link to their site, just put that name into a search engine for the site) for example. They argue against micegenation, jews and so forth, with multiple bible references for each point.
I've checked a lot of these references myself, and their interpretations, whilst overtly racist- are not an unrealistic application of biblical passage. Other aspects of their theology, their homophobia and their desire to punish people who break 'gods law' are also equally valid within a biblical context, and in fact are shared by much of the more 'main-stream' christian-right.

[Dwarf Kirlston]

It seems to have dissapeared from this site - what I read.

anarcho-primitivists seem to think that even communism is wrong because it cares little for the environment, doesn't try to live in it...


Even stupid people can think. Plus the idea that people form their own on idea or right and wrong through thinking. So that we aren't stuck in dogmatism or give too much influence to parents who tell what's good and wrong.
I'm saying that thinking doesn't necessarily help when you haven't lived enough.

[Dwarf Kirlston]

http://question-everything.mahost.org/Soci...sicAnarchy.html (http://question-everything.mahost.org/Socio-Politics/BasicAnarchy.html) - What I had read...