>Consider it: every person you have ever met, every person will suffer the loss of his friends and family. All are going to lose everything they love in this world. Why would one want to be anything but kind to them in the meantime?
Was he right?
Yes
Everyone has only one chance at existence, you have a responsibility not to make things worse for others
No. I don't have friends.
>>7896823
>Sam Harris
>Was he right?
Having to ask...
Hahaha, good one, anon.
>>7896823
I thought he was sort of funny in Zoolander.
>>7896823
He was right in Tropic Thunder
>>7896823
Maybe if they are Muslims or live on an evil Mideast country (read; not Israel) then fuck em give them a good taste of old fashioned American freedom
>>7896823
I was entertaining by his role in Meet the Parents
>>7896823
>not helping them lose their friends and family quicker to get over it
>not killing them so that they don't suffer the loss of their family and friends
Shiggity.
>>7896823
No, absolutely not.
was he right?
I'm afraid of so many spooks
>>7896987
holy shit he really said this
>>7896987
Maybe he should start with himself for that one. Would prove he's not a bloviating troll at least, and also spare us from more remarks like this.
>>7896827
Is this really what he writes about?
>>7896823
>Was he right?
no. if i die before any of my friends or family, i won't experience loss. Suck it, Isaac Asimov!
"All of life is a symphony of successive losses. You lose your youth, your parents, your loves, your friends, your comforts, your health, and finally your life. To deny loss is to lose it all anyway and to lose, in addition, your self-possession and your peace of mind."
- Siever Gennar, "Nemesis", Isaac Asimov
>"if I could wave a magic wand to rid the world of religion or rape, I would choose religion every time"
>"every time someone uses the word deontological world boringness increases "
>I'm going to ignour the fact that I've had to create a term which Means basically the same thing and takes just as long to say
>Why would one want to be anything but kind to them in the meantime?
Because I could devote that effort to benefiting myself instead.
>>7897111
The difference is that 'having a belief' is different from 'executing an action based on that belief'. There are all certain idealistic things that we think would make for a better society and world in general, but fuck no we wouldn't do anything to act on these ideals.
Just because someone believes nuking everyone is the way to progress society, doesn't mean that said person would actually do it, if given the chance. People can claim they are Christian, and believe in their mind all the Christian beliefs and ideologies are true, but their actions can show otherwise. It would never be ethical to kill someone simply based on what they think they believe.
>>7896823
>muh kindness
>much will to kindness
Rorty's whole schtick relies on taking the will to be kind as axiomatic as well. Liberalism is indefensible without it.
>>7896823
>Why would one want to be anything other than a rational atheist who realizes that science can determine moral values?
>>7896823
He's as right as Jesus and Buddha were. It's compelling if you open yourself to it, but it shouldn't be taken as proving a normative ethics system.
>>7896827
>you have a spook to spookety spook
>>7896823
He also thinks there's no free will though, so it's a meaningless question in his philosophical system; whether or not we have good reasons not to be kind to others, we simply will be cruel to them and we have no choice to do otherwise. (This is why hard determinism is retarted).
>>7898717
If you 'believe' it's imperative to bring about the caliphate by any means necessary then you don't much believe it if you sit at home beating off.
I agree there are some beliefs which it wouldn't be the case but there are some beliefs that if truly believed can only lead to action
>>7897111
I think I got that one.
>>7900372
You're a massive moron, is this the intellect of the anti-Harris shitposter?
The lack of free will does not imply the lack of free agency, naturally you can make choices, that these choices that you will have to make and their outcomes are already pre-determined does not mean you will -not- have to make choices.
"Hard determnism is retarded"
Might aswell have said "Heliocentrism is retarded".
>>7898717
You seem very limited.
We don't know what people want to do, all we can assess what people tell us is what they want to do, and how believable it is.
Hamas for example has said many times that if they could they would kill all Jews in the world, now we have no way of knowing that they are being honest about this, but it's very likely and there is absolutely no justification of giving them sufficient power to find out.
Similarly, if one were to threaten a nuclear war, we would have to make sure he doesn't get his hands on nuclear weapons, and if that is too late we would have to make sure that person dies.
It's pretty simple.
"But we don't know!".
Don't call the police the next time someone threatens to kill you.
