Quote:I just asked a question, since the motivations for the stance was not stated.. just a simple answer of "emotional investment" would have sufficed. I was never stating any pretty clear case for "not giving a crap". Go on reading between the lines. And then going on to see a 'bit of a straw man'. Talk about being Hyper.
You persisted in making the category error after
it was made clear that you were making the category error. I did initially give you the simple answer of "emotional investment". You did not think that it sufficed, as evidenced by your answer. Now you claim that it would have been. Confusing.
There are a few disturbing things I found in your posts that I didn't bring up before. I'll share them with you.
First, about the "not giving a crap part". You did
indeed state your case for just that. I suspect that its my wording that is bothering you, because it suggests callous disregard. I was using a colloquialism that I often apply to myself and people I'm familiar with. And in this case, I stand by the words, if you take them for what they are- a reasoned criticism of an argument. You clearly did make a case for not caring about the wishes of the dead, just because "effectively nobody's watching".
Quote:Not honouring a person's specific ideas is not the same as not honouring the person
This is a red herring via straw man. The argument has nothing to do with respecting or honoring someone else's ideas, but about being true to their wishes. I don't have to give a crap (yes) about my dead friend/relative's ideas to believe
that I should perform some meaningless ritual because she/he would have wanted me to. All I need is to care about the memory of my friend/relative. These are the things that make us human.
But it gets worse. I did not come out and say all of what I think is wrong by this line:
Quote:"i.e effectively nobody's watching, there's no pressure on you.. then why wouldnt you act based on your beliefs/knowledge?"
Firstly, I believe in acting based on my beliefs/knowledge irrespective of whether someone is watching or not. Secondly, as stated in previous posts, you make the category error.
It can very well be part of one's belief system to be true to the desires/wishes of people one cares about, even if that person will never know about one's actions. This is called being moral in some circles. In fact, I'm appalled to read of statements like yours, considering that religious folks use such arguments to claim that because atheists don't believe there is a god, there's nothing stopping them from committing murder and rape. The argument is equally silly when it comes from other atheists in relation to a much more benign but analogically equivalent moral premise. To show you an extrapolation of such thinking, one could argue that one could cheat on a spouse as long as she/he never finds out about it (assumption). If such events came about, you would probably see that being faithful (in the face of immense opportunity and no risk) is not incompatible with your beliefs.
The thing is, you have moral premises as well- we all do. Yet your argument buries the moral premises and presents itself as objectively rational. There is no such thing when we are talking about human behavior. For example, your belief that when "effectively nobody's watching, there's no pressure on you"
, in the context under discussion, is a moral premise. Its one that I vehemently disagree with, but it is one. If the same statement were to be applied to cheating on your spouse, you would disagree with it (at least, I hope you will). The point here is that these are all emotionally driven behaviors that are an essential part of what makes us who we are. One can objectively understand the biochemistry of love or friendship, and yet subjectively indulge in them, as you no doubt agree. We all make subjective emotional decisions as to which emotionally driven answer we would choose given the situation.