Jericho's Philosophy Corner

[Prinapocalypse]

I think it's ethical. I know someone who has a cat that's as old as I am! There's no way it would've lived anywhere near that long if it wasn't a pet.

As for livestock, etc, I have no problems with that either, I'm kind of biased though since I like meat.

I feel any house pet should be treated well by their owner though.

[dood]

I think it's ethical. I know someone who has a cat that's as old as I am! There's no way it would've lived anywhere near that long if it wasn't a pet.

As for livestock, etc, I have no problems with that either, I'm kind of biased though since I like meat.

I feel any house pet should be treated well by their owner though.

Yeah but what's the point? Their just animals.

[Prinapocalypse]

Because once they've been a house pet they become reliant on humans and because it should be the owners responsibility to take care of it. They wanted a pet so they should handle the responsibilities that come with that. If they're unable/unwilling to do that, then their unfit to own it.

[Redhorse]

Another question the responses to which I would be interested in:

1) Thoughts on war in general.
2) Is it really possible to be a "war criminal"?
3) the two atomic bombs dropped/ fire bombing in WW2 by the U.S., good or bad, should we have or shouldn't we have
4) opinions on America's system of foreign policy (kinda on the borderline of being philosophical, but meh)
5) is it right to interfere in the affairs of other countries? and if so, when is it okay and when isn't it?
6) Is war justified? Can it ever be?
7) The 20th century was by far the bloodiest century in history. Why do you suppose that is? (duh, because of WWs, etc. mostly, but I mean what do you think was the cause of so much war between humans)
8) Is it ever morally appropriate to target innocent civilians?
9) Are all non-combatants innocent?
10) Are all combatants appropriate targets?
11) Opinions on prisoners of war? Should prisoners even be taken? If so, how should they be treated?
Related quote: "A prisoner of war is a man who tries to kill you and fails, and then asks you not to kill him." - Winston Churchill.
12) Should terrorists in other countries who are american citizens be given due process of law? Should we expend lives just to take these people alive?
13) How should a state army deal with civilian human shields, voluntary or involuntary, who protect the enemy with their own bodies? How much risk must the state's soldiers assume to minimize casualties among the civilians on the other side?
14) In war, what actions can be considered immoral?

[SaturnineTenshi]

Another question the responses to which I would be interested in:

1) Thoughts on war in general.
2) Is it really possible to be a "war criminal"?
3) the two atomic bombs dropped/ fire bombing in WW2 by the U.S., good or bad, should we have or shouldn't we have
4) opinions on America's system of foreign policy (kinda on the borderline of being philosophical, but meh)
5) is it right to interfere in the affairs of other countries? and if so, when is it okay and when isn't it?
6) Is war justified? Can it ever be?
7) The 20th century was by far the bloodiest century in history. Why do you suppose that is? (duh, because of WWs, etc. mostly, but I mean what do you think was the cause of so much war between humans)
8) Is it ever morally appropriate to target innocent civilians?
9) Are all non-combatants innocent?
10) Are all combatants appropriate targets?
11) Opinions on prisoners of war? Should prisoners even be taken? If so, how should they be treated?
Related quote: "A prisoner of war is a man who tries to kill you and fails, and then asks you not to kill him." - Winston Churchill.
12) Should terrorists in other countries who are american citizens be given due process of law? Should we expend lives just to take these people alive?
13) How should a state army deal with civilian human shields, voluntary or involuntary, who protect the enemy with their own bodies? How much risk must the state's soldiers assume to minimize casualties among the civilians on the other side?
14) In war, what actions can be considered immoral?

1) It happens; in fact, I'd go as far as saying it's doing the world a favor by thinning humanity. Sure, it isn't the most efficient method, but you take what you can get.
2) Only if you lose the war.
3) It's war, not Saturday at the jungle gym. Use whatever means necessary as long as the benefits outweigh the detriments.
4) I don't agree with being jambon-fisted with political and ethical standards.
5) Countries with the power will do it, whether it's right or not.
6) See 1.
7) It wasn't really due to increased antipathy so much as an increase in murder technology.
8) Yes.
9) Nope.
10) Yes.
11) Like you'd treat them on the field of battle.
12) No.
13) Kill them instead of empowering the enemy. It's an unnecessary risk both strategically and when taking into account the lives potentially lost trying to save someone.
14) None.

[Prinapocalypse]

Another question the responses to which I would be interested in:

1) Thoughts on war in general.
2) Is it really possible to be a "war criminal"?
3) the two atomic bombs dropped/ fire bombing in WW2 by the U.S., good or bad, should we have or shouldn't we have
4) opinions on America's system of foreign policy (kinda on the borderline of being philosophical, but meh)
5) is it right to interfere in the affairs of other countries? and if so, when is it okay and when isn't it?
6) Is war justified? Can it ever be?
7) The 20th century was by far the bloodiest century in history. Why do you suppose that is? (duh, because of WWs, etc. mostly, but I mean what do you think was the cause of so much war between humans)
8) Is it ever morally appropriate to target innocent civilians?
9) Are all non-combatants innocent?
10) Are all combatants appropriate targets?
11) Opinions on prisoners of war? Should prisoners even be taken? If so, how should they be treated?
Related quote: "A prisoner of war is a man who tries to kill you and fails, and then asks you not to kill him." - Winston Churchill.
12) Should terrorists in other countries who are american citizens be given due process of law? Should we expend lives just to take these people alive?
13) How should a state army deal with civilian human shields, voluntary or involuntary, who protect the enemy with their own bodies? How much risk must the state's soldiers assume to minimize casualties among the civilians on the other side?
14) In war, what actions can be considered immoral?

1) It's basically unavoidable in many cases, sadly. I don't really care either way, as long as they don't try to enlist me, etc.
2) Yes? since there is such a title, although it's a pretty iffy title.
3) I feel one was certainly necessary. The second was overkill IMO, but who knows what would have happened if they only used one.
4) America's trying to basically be the world police, since no one else cares to do the dirty work. They obviously benefit in various ways, but they're screwing themselves over in the long run IMO.
5) The lines pretty grey between "right" and "wrong" when it comes to killing people. I think there are times when other countries need to step in, but whether that's right or wrong is questionable.
6) Grey area again, just a matter of opinions.
7) People seem to love wallowing in ignorance and killing each other. More people on earth=more of both.
8) Not in my opinion, but morality is a fickle thing between different people.
9) No.
10) Yes
11) They should be treated humanely, but not extremely well.
12) No, if someone chooses to leave their country and betray it, then they should be treated like any other terrorist.
13) Try to not kill them, but don't take huge risks to save them. If they're willingly letting themselves be used as human shields they should be treated like enemy soldiers and killed or captured.
14) Torture, rape and killing innocent civilians. Of course just like any question on morality, subjective.

[Redhorse]

Don't know why I didn't think about this before, has anyone ever seen the movie God On Trial? If you haven't and have an hour, check it out. It's on the internet in English, and it's very good ~

[Redhorse]

When a man dressed as Satan speaks more accurately about God than your pastor, you know something is wrong.

Philosophy question, why do people often stop at a semblance of familiarity rather than bothering to actually obtain knowledge about something before seriously acting on it? Are they too lazy or what's going on? They certainly put up a lot of effort to defend their unfounded beliefs, don't they?
Sorry... I just see these things... and it makes me sooooo frustrated. D:

edit: Not sure that's the best "philosophy" question. How about, is knowledge a good thing?

[JerichoDeath]

I might address this later, but... don't worry about putting the question in a complicated format. The people that care will respond, and I think that people who frequent this place might be able to interpret it anyway~

[Beedlebud]

Knowledge is a fantastic thing to have no doubt.

But I think a lot of times people confuse "knowledge" and "truth." It's important to differentiate between the two. You can know a lot about something, but if you can't back it up with "truth" or "facts" then the knowledge is pretty much baseless.

But in general, knowledge is good.

...I think I answered this right. I'm generally not very good at debating so

[dood]

Knowledge is a good and a bad thing depending on how you look at it.

[myskaros]

Philosophy question, why do people often stop at a semblance of familiarity rather than bothering to actually obtain knowledge about something before seriously acting on it? Are they too lazy or what's going on? They certainly put up a lot of effort to defend their unfounded beliefs, don't they?
Sorry... I just see these things... and it makes me sooooo frustrated. D:

edit: Not sure that's the best "philosophy" question. How about, is knowledge a good thing?

I think it is a common trait bred by most societies to "prove" yourself. Unfortunately, not everyone is taught how to approach proving yourself, so it is also common to just throw what you happen to know out there rather than deliberate and make sure you are correct and/or thorough first.

I'm approaching your question from the perspective of stuff like religion and politics, where it's easy to see people "jumping on the bandwagon" for a certain issue without actually knowing details or specifics behind it. In this case, it's easy to see someone saying "Oh, I know about that, they talked about it on the radio/I overheard coworkers discussing it/etc." Because who doesn't enjoy jumping into a conversation and having people look at you with newfound respect or awe, right?

The other perspective I'm interpreting is "The Internet" in a broad sense. I've been trolling the Diablo 3 forums since release, so I know all about people posting half-truths and wild assumptions. In these cases... I think it's just laziness that compels people to post without knowing all the facts. Combined with anonymity and lack of tangible retribution, no one feels a need to be accurate, since, in the "world of peasants," all that matters is how many people you have on your side.

In any situation, I think that people tend to act on what they incidentally know, but dislike actively seeking out whole truths or additional knowledge. Knowing information in itself is never bad, it's more a question of how people put that information to use that can be judged positively or negatively.

[Fallen Angel Loretta]

edit: Not sure that's the best "philosophy" question. How about, is knowledge a good thing?

Hm, well those who possess vast amounts of knowledge(such as professors, doctors, and scientists) are certainly respected in our modern society(especially doctors, it seems). Knowledge is what allows people to accomplish what can vary from daily tasks to finding the cure for a well-known disease.

However, knowledge can be used for all the wrong reasons also. Kind of like how evil-mad scientists would use their intellects.

Knowing information in itself is never bad, it's more a question of how people put that information to use that can be judged positively or negatively.

I agree with myskaros on this subject.

[vampko]

Is it worse to have known happiness and lost it, than to have never known happiness?

Something that got on my mind while watching Sket Dance and One Piece.

[dood]

Is it worse to have known happiness and lost it, than to have never known happiness?

Something that got on my mind while watching Sket Dance and One Piece.

It's better to have never known happiness, it hurts more when you lose it.