Return to CreateDebate.comphilosophy • Join this debate community


Welcome to Philosophy!

Philosophy is a social tool that democratizes the decision-making process through online debate. Join Now!
  • Find a debate you care about.
  • Read arguments and vote the best up and the worst down.
  • Earn points and become a thought leader!

To learn more, check out the FAQ or Tour.

Be Yourself

Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.

Make it even more personal by adding your own picture and updating your basics.

Facebook addict? Check out our page and become a fan because you love us!

Report This User
Permanent Delete

View All

View All

View All

RSS Iamdavidh

Reward Points:4816
Efficiency: Efficiency is a measure of the effectiveness of your arguments. It is the number of up votes divided by the total number of votes you have (percentage of votes that are positive).

Choose your words carefully so your efficiency score will remain high.
Efficiency Monitor

10 most recent arguments.
1 point

Well, smart social systems, space smart architecture, taking advantage of new technologies that make use of things like sky-scraper farms, steps in the technology we already have that can quickly turn ocean water into clean drinking water on a large scale, and switching to green energy, would allow literally trillions of people to live on the earth just fine. And likely if we become bright enough as a whole to pursue these things, by the time we reach the breaking point of however many trillions that would be before the earth still cannot maintain the human population; by that point it seems by the rate our technology increases we will be able to live in space, under the ocean, etc if we choose.

But given that we're mostly kind of idiotic and superstitious still and we're breeding faster than our brains are evolving,

1. convince churches to stop with the anti-condom bs already.

2. put a limit on the number of children people are allowed, similar to what China does, and enforce fixing males after X number of kids (fixing as in making it so they don't make sperm, not so they can't have kids.

3 points

The title assumes that murder is wrong, which it is not.

As said by I don't know how many, the example of a predator killing a weeker animal is not immoral, because the predator has no capacity for empathy.

Problem is, we do. So what do we do about it?

Right now what we do is ignore it, and say it's okay because we're the predator and we observe in nature that this is what predators do.

I would argue that we should try to hold ourselves to a higher standard than this.

Does it really matter if we do?

Probably not, but that does not mean that we should not at least try to kill the food we eat with as little pain as possibe, and it also does not mean we should not attempt to allow our prey to live in comfort for whatever amount of time we give them here.

However, saying that, it is important that we as humans understand that other humans are more important than animals.

I love my tortoises. But if a human being is starving, and in some post-apocolyptic world there is no other means of sustanance, guess what, my great little toroises have to die.

This is where the far left occassionally takes it too far. Humans are more important than animals. End of story.

At the other end though. Just because we can kill whatever we want without penalty, and just because we sometimes do kill whatever we want, does not make it morally okay.

There has to be a level of understanding of what it means to be human and have self-awareness, I find many on both sides lack this completely, making me wonder if we really aren't just "predators" who by coincidence have extra large brains.

2 points

Food, Water, Shelter...

and sometimes sex.

Am I right? Do I get a prize?

1 point

I see. That makes sense.

But surely there are some branches that are religious?

My only interaction was with one of those monks at an airport during a layover, really cool guy, but the book he gave me was literally full of deities which I assumed meant it was religious on some level.

3 points

I always liked Buddhism because they approach is from a position of 1. not trying to force or guilt others into it, instead they simply live their lives. 2. they stay out of politics, which is kind of an extension of the whole live and let live credo.

As for the 4 noble truths, they're awsome. A "religion" that actual is based on inherent facts of human life and nature is fantastic, as opposed to the obvious and inherent fallacy of every other religion.

However, outside of these, and what everyone knows about Buddhism, I have no idea how their deity system works, and I am generally opposed to any deity anyway.

That said though, again you don't have to believe in Krsna, Budha, etc. in order to really get something out of Buddhism.

Buddhism = calm, interspective, peaceful

Christianity, Judaism, Muslim, Mormon, Protestant, Catholic, etc. = inner turmoil, self-hate through self guilt, fear of death, fear of afterlife, pressure to conform

Yeah, if I ever decide I need to make believe in a religion, Buddhism is definitely the route to take.

2 points

As is normal for pro-lifers, and by no means your fault because it is what is propogated in media and by word of mouth,

You misunderstand the situation when it comes to deformities in late term abortions.

You have to understand, that in the entire US, population something like half a billion, think about that number for a second, there are, sorry were, 3 late-term abortion doctors.


Cases of downsyndrome, and other minor deformities or retardations do not make it to these doctors, it would be impossibe for them to make it to these doctors with the tens of thousands of minorly retarded or deformed humans born in this country on a daily basis.

These children are born, given life, and hopefully cared for, the ones you seem to think were being aborted. Doctors do not, and do not want to for the most part, perform late-term abortions in these cases.

In order for a deformity or retardation to be judged by these doctors to be morally just to abort, it has to be something like, and I'm getting the name wrong, but something like I think Manchester Disease... damn, can't think of the name, but it's a disease where literally the DNA is messed up, the child will be born if taken full term, but will die within an hour or so of birth, often the mother's life is in danger as well. Meanwhile in that hour, the child will be in tremendous and unrelievable pain. Doctors know they will be in pain, there will not be a moment of joy, and in their entire and short existance they will only know pain most cannot even imagine. They may literally have eyes on their feet, nothing will be right, but they're put together just well enough for the organs to support life for a very short time outside of the mother.

It's cruel cosmic joke that these things happen, but it's important to realize they do, and not turn a blind eye to these poor souls who are cursed in such a manner.

These diseases are common among victims of incest, not so much the general public,

but they do exist, and we have the moral obligation I think to save them from this miserable existance, and the mother of the child from potential death from complications.

These are the kind of deformities that make it to these "baby killers"

and not the kind you are thinking of.

I think one would have to be a real sadist, or just completely lacking common sense and empathy, to not realize that in these cases of deformity, abortion is the only moral option.

How can one let a living thing suffer like that? And how can one believe their god, whatever god they follow, would judge someone for taking such mercy?

No, the only explanation I can think of is that people are woefully misinformed about the individual circumstances that has lead these poor girls to these doctors, and it's important people learn so that hopefully more of these doctors are not killed.

2 points

It is very important first off, that life continue to evolve as it does on its own, through messy gene swapping complete with tiny mutations in DNA along the way.

But there is nothing inherent about cloning that would suggest nature would suddenly stop reproducing on its own at the same time.

Cloning is a wonderful way to feed the hungry, and to farm organs...

No, not like that galactica movie, where humans are killed for their organs,

I mean in a jar somewhere, a single organ that is a genetic match to your or my own organ, ensuring the organ is not rejected... organs have no self-awareness, so it's okay to do that, I know because a magic dude in the sky whispered it in my ear or something... Christians.

2 points

da, ah, AH! ooooh...

so close, then you had to pull out the magic dude in the sky arguement.

I mean really, it all sounded so good. Why ruin it with mysticism?

2 points

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein

Ignoring who really said what and how they said it, and what that person's beliefs really were, I'll just get to the actual point of what is being propogated.

Religion makes everything lamer, and only through science is the impotance of our imagination, no matter how wild we believe it to be, shown.


Religion defined stars as floating beings, or holes in some imaginary bubble. Wow, that's original...

This is what science has shown stars to be link

I find religion simplifies everything it touches, from people, to nature, to the cosmos. It labels all things black and white, when really everything is some shade in between. It either villifies or worships. It pretends to know the answers when there are none, and where there are, it claims there is no proof unless it's written in their book - no matter which religion one chooses.

Religion throughout history has worked to separate, in waves it says you are for us or against us, in one point in history crucifying, then when human nature is repelled by such ignorance, it sits on the sidelines, pretending to accept - really though, it only serves to divide and conquer or only conquer. Meanwhile, as scientists are killed for telling the world the sun does not revolve around it, or burned for suggesting it's not mystisism but elements which are the structure of the universe - it is always putting us in our proper place here, tiny, insignificant, and alone.

That we should be ironically what religion has said, that we should be shepards. But not for some invisible absentee landlord, but for ourselves, because we are the only ones who can truly lead us to greener pastures.

Religion was a necessary evil for a base and stupid people who had just realized they existed, and therefore someday would not. But I think of it as training wheels, and if we want to get anywhere, eventually we will have to take them off.

1 point

since self-preservation is the ultimate goal, above all values and morals, since only insane lovers would sacrifice themselves to save their loved one or sacrifice themselves for any other cause...

You're assuming a lot there. People make their own goals, and the logic of that goal cannot really be accurately judged by one not completely familiar with the circumstances ie your very own example of a suicide bomber.

If one's goal is to get to a place they truly believe exists with 60 virgens waiting for them, and the only way to obtain said goal is death, then it's not the action itself which is insane, but the belief they have based their actions on.

In the case of assisted suicide, the goal of the patient is to stop the pain. If at some point they have made a decision that stopping the pain is a higher priority than survival, I would judge not only is the action sane, but their belief, as constant pain that cannot be relieved may very well be worse than death regardless of one's belief in an afterlife.

I would also argue your assumption that saving a loved one at cost to oneself can in many circumstances be more logical than not saving them. In the case of a mother of your child, or any child, a logical conclusion would be that they are more important or potentially more important to society than oneself. In which case the most logical decision would be to sacrifice oneself. Not doing so would not only be selfish, but illogical. Of course I or you should not judge one in that situation regardless of their decision, as it is a highly emotional circumstance.

Survival is our strongest instinct, but there is nothing inherently logical about any instinct. That is why instinct is often necessary, it forces actions that would not be taken necessarily based on logic alone. Also, survival instinct is not limited to oneself in humans or any social animal. Most mammals have a degree of selflessness when it comes to the protection of family or pack. Insects regularly sacrifice themselves for the greater good. Examples of self-sacrifice are present all through nature.

So not only would legalizing assisted suicide not be ridiculous, it would be both moral and logical. The doctor would be helping the person obtain their goal of not feeling pain, money would not have to be spent supporting one who did not want to live anymore anyway, and the personal freedom western civilization preaches but rarely practices would be upheld.

Iamdavidh has not yet created any debates.

About Me

"I'm a freelance copywriter by day, check out my link if you have some work you need done, or just curious. I also have a cool drug blog, Check it out if you get a chance... while you can, I've been banned in a couple places, but they can't supress my free speach :)"

Biographical Information
Name: David H.
Gender: Male
Age: 45
Marital Status: Single
Political Party: Democrat
Country: United States
Postal Code: 89169
Religion: Atheist
Education: College Grad
Websites: advertising

Want an easy way to create new debates about cool web pages? Click Here