Death

Why is it bad? Why is killing bad?

I'll think of one later

People generally prefer to be alive. Therefore, death as a rather bad reputation.

People aren't as awful as the internet makes them out to be.

Well people are afraid of the unknown, generally. Even in religions we only hear stories, but no one really knows what's after death except those who died.

...a little brother should belong to his older sister, right? - Orimura Chifuyu

There is nothing either good or bad, but the instinctual aversion to death produced by the processes of natural selection makes it so.

Well, there seem to be good things and bad things to death, but for me, one of those bad things would be the loss of enjoying the stuff I have. Imagine if, say, you spent a lot of money on getting Collector's Editions of stuff and not being able to enjoy it because you're about to die.

Because people die when they are killed.

Aw got that in before me

I guess people dislike death because it takes away the people they care about and also when dying it means you won't be able to do all the things you enjoy in life and you'll be leaving behind loved ones who will be in grief.

edited 8th Sep '11 6:16:11 AM by PiccoloNo92

Because it takes a person away from their loved ones. It's hurting the people around them, not just the dead person.

"You fail to grasp the basic principles of mad science. Common sense would be cheating." - Narbonic

Death is not intrinsically bad. It merely is an end to agency; once you're dead, you don't do anything anymore.

Accordingly, most of the reasons for killing someone would be considered evil because of why they would permanently end agency. Take a murder for robbery's sake: "I want to take his stuff, but he might resist me, so I'll stop him from resisting me or doing anything else ever again." This effectively reduces another living human being to a device, to be turned off and thrown away because it doesn't serve your desired function. To quote Terry Pratchett:

By extension, the infliction of death that treats the dying party as an actual human being (assisted suicide with consent as one example) is more acceptable.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

Death is a neutral thing. It is the circumstances which decide whether it is moral or immoral. Killing an innocent child against their will, is strongly unjust in my view, whilst ending the life of a psychopathic murderer who killed an innocent child is just and moral.

edited 8th Sep '11 6:35:58 AM by Shichibukai

Requiem ~ September 2010 - October 2011 [Banned 4 Life]

We are currently incapable of delaying death indefinitely, so for now it doesn't matter what we think of it. Death simply is.

(Though I will note that people who jump off bridges and survive almost always realize they never really wanted to die.)

Edit: God help me, I really am turning into Aondeug.

edited 8th Sep '11 4:56:29 PM by feotakahari

That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something Awful

Death is a truth of reality. Or at least what we consider to be reality. We also have no current way of stopping it though I'm sure we will always move towards finding a way. There's nothing wrong with that, but I do think that it is best that we come to grips with the fact that we're going to die and accept it on an emotional level. Look it in the face and say "Yes you will happen and I will not fear you so much that you drag me down".

While still searching for your way to stop it. If you want to that is.

The exact feelings we have on death tend to vary from situation to situation. Many will cheer the death of one who has slighted them while grieving greatly over the death of a friend.

Views on killing also vary from circumstance to circumstance and person to person.

Death itself is neither good nor bad. It merely is.

If someone wants to accuse us of eating coconut shells, then that's their business. We know what we're doing. - Achaan Chah

As Aondeug said, death itself is neither good nor bad. However — and here's where I'm bringing my own moral views into things — an action that unnecessarily causes death is bad because it opposes the will to live, and that's inherently a bad thing because the will of individuals is the source of concepts such as "good" and "bad".

More generally, it doesn't make sense to judge facts or concepts as good or bad, only actions. (Even judging people as good or bad is a questionable and highly subjective matter, which makes me inclined to put it outside the strict bounds of philosophy.)

Death causes people who are alive to lose people they care about.

Obviously, it'd be a non-issue if everyone died.

...Is Inevitable!!!

LOLZ... Tomu, if were dead, we won't even be having this conversation.

...a little brother should belong to his older sister, right? - Orimura Chifuyu

Hence why it's a non-issue.

Death is our most powerful enemy. So the last enemy that shall be destroyed is Death.

“Love is the eternal law whereby the universe was created and is ruled.” — St. Bernard

I frankly disagree. Our most powerful enemy is human suffering.

Or suffering of consciousnesses, if we ever develop A.I.s that are capable of suffering.

Or discover intelligent space aliens.

edited 8th Sep '11 11:27:21 PM by TheyCallMeTomu

No our most powerful foe is Dukkha! Which encompasses all types of suffering of all beings! Interestingly it is through Dukkha that we destroy Dukkha.

edited 8th Sep '11 11:29:13 PM by Aondeug

If someone wants to accuse us of eating coconut shells, then that's their business. We know what we're doing. - Achaan Chah

How is that in contradiction with my earlier statement? :P

You refused to take into consideration that the suffering of snails, cats, ghosts, people in hell, angels, gods, demons, worms, other animals, roaches, fish, and grass is exactly equal to the suffering of humans.

You are worth one ant.

If someone wants to accuse us of eating coconut shells, then that's their business. We know what we're doing. - Achaan Chah

There is no such thing as one ant.

I mean, does Buddhism actually objectively quantify dukkha in relation to itself? I mean, does it say X dukkha is more than/less than Y dukkha?

edited 8th Sep '11 11:42:54 PM by TheyCallMeTomu

There is. There is a dead ant on my desk. She is but one ant. Or was...I SMASHED HER BY ACCIDENT WHILE EATING MY CEREAL.

So much sadness...her poor little hivemind body was crushed...

I WEEP FOR YOU ANT. MAY YOU BE REBORN AS A SHEEPY SHEEP.

^It seems to yes. I don't have the equations memorized. I will at one point. The Buddha got into some crazy fucking shit.

edited 8th Sep '11 11:44:26 PM by Aondeug

If someone wants to accuse us of eating coconut shells, then that's their business. We know what we're doing. - Achaan Chah

So, there's a 1 per 1 ratio of ants to sheep/other lifeforms then?

Are we certain that 1000 ants don't become 1 sheep?

How are we to know the hivemind, rather than the ant, is not the whole, spiritually speaking? If the ant is an entity, then what about the cells that create the ant?

edited 8th Sep '11 11:45:33 PM by TheyCallMeTomu