[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / biz / c / cgl / ck / cm / co / d / diy / e / fa / fit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / news / o / out / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vip /vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y ] [Search | Home]
4Archive logo
Raskolnikov did literally nothing wrong
If images are not shown try to refresh the page. If you like this website, please disable any AdBlock software!

You are currently reading a thread in /lit/ - Literature

Thread replies: 168
Thread images: 8
Raskolnikov did literally nothing wrong
>>
except double murder (triple if you consider the child)
>>
>>7645640
They were bad people, so killing them wasn't wrong
>>
>>7645640
It was justified desu
>>
>>7645646
>>7645660
>killing the retarded sister of the usurer and her unborn baby as a bonus
>justified

Jesus Christ it's like you didn't even read this book
>>
>>7645663
The weak should bow to the strong, anon.
>>
>>7645663
I read the book when I was like 15. It's not that difficult to think about the implications or what the author wanted you to think was implied if you're not fucking retarded
>>
>>7645640
he saved two people who were more valuable
>>
>>7645667
>>7645674
then why the fuck would Sonya care to save this idiot's soul through mystical Orthodox babbling?

>>7645675
the idea of heroes of history able to shape it is lampshaded and mocked by Dostoevsky you fuck
>>
>>7645633
Dostoevsky's arguments in favor of the killings were much more convincing then his arguments against them IMO
>>
>>7645640
Murder is a victimless crime.
>>
>>7645633
Why bring an axe when you swing it like a hammer?
Did he hit her with the blunt side in the novel?
>>
File: 1403114327734.gif (3 MB, 350x263) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1403114327734.gif
3 MB, 350x263
>>7645692
what the fuck is this even supposed to mean

you used random words to form a sentence
>>
>>7645663
was she retarded? if she was I forgot that detail
>>
>>7645694
its heavy and has more momentum than a hammer.
>>
>>7645697
yeah she was, also Sonya's closest friend
>>
>>7645686
>mocked
No, just criticized. It's clear that he considered the idea very seriously and explained to the audience both its flaws and merits
>lampshaded
Dostoevsky didn't browse reddit so it's highly unlikely he "lampshaded" anything.
>>
>>7645694
dostoy is being super symbolic bro its like he hit her with the back of the axe but like the front of the axe was facing himself! woooooo dostoy so deeeep
>>
>>7645695
Murder literally doesn't have a victim because the person transgressed against ceases to exist by the very act, so there is no victim.
>>
File: 1446560555638.jpg (68 KB, 630x620) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1446560555638.jpg
68 KB, 630x620
>regularly among /lit/'s favourite books
>people don't even understand it that much or never read it
>>
>>7645720
IJ was number one and every comment about it calls it genre fiction. The Stranger was number two for a while and admitting you like it will be met with "back 2 plebbits."
>>
>>7645725
the stranger is like 'catcher in the rye' europe edition though, it's a babby's first highschool novel type of thing
>>
>>7645717
tell that to Marmeladov, I'm sure he'll be amused
>>
>>7645733
I get that. I just meant to say that don't judge /lit/'s opinion of a book on the top 100 lists because contrary things are said all the time.
>>
Has anyone read the new translation by Oliver Ready which is supposedly good? How does it compare to the P&V one?
>>
>>7645737
The truth is the funniest joke of all, kinsman.
>>
>>7645694
He used the blunt side for the first woman and the sharp side for the second (I can't remember their names)
>>
>>7645694
He didn't want to get blood all over him. He used the sharp side with the second murder because he wasn't thinking
>>
>he kills two old hags
>evil satan
>napoleon sends thousands of young people to death
>hero and renowned militaristic genius
You explain this to me. He was right (except for killing the sister)
>>
>>7645717
holy shit you are a fucking retard
>>
>>7646111
It's true though, you're just upset because your pleb thinking has been wrong all these years.
>>
>>7646122
Nah, you're just a faggy edgelord
>>
>>7646129
Why don't you offer any arguments as to why I'm wrong then?
>>
>>7645717
Ya, no you're retarded. A victim is someone who has wrong done unto them. What is more wrong than taking the life of someone?It doesn't matter if they're around to witness it's effects, even if it's effects are them no longer being alive.
>>
>>7646140
>A victim is someone who has wrong done unto them.
Indeed. And murder victims do not exist. How can wrong have been done onto the non-existent?
>>
>>7646147
The wrong was done unto them while they were still existing, dickhead.

I bet you think you're really smart. You remind me of Goronchev.
>>
>>7646147
Because wrong was done unto to them to make them not exist anymore you fucking autist.
>>
>>7646131

not him, but why does a victim need to be alive in order to be a victim?

also, how does dying mean you cease to exist? shakespeare is dead, yet he's still in millions of peoples heads.

who are you to declare that existing and living are synonymous? how would you even rationalize a thought like that?
>>
>>7646147
Don't go to law school.
>>
>>7646147
It's like if a person dies he disintegrates into thin air. Is this how you imagine a person dies?
>>
>>7646152
It isn't a murder until the taking of life is completed. By the time a murder has been committed, there is no victim. Anything up to that is assault.

>>7646156
Why do you think so?

>>7646160
Victimhood is a quality and qualities require existence. You can't have blue eyes unless you have eyes, and a person can't be a victim if he isn't a person.

>also, how does dying mean you cease to exist? shakespeare is dead, yet he's still in millions of peoples heads.
No, some conceptual echo of him lives on. Shakespeare the person does not exist. You may hear people discuss his work and life but you don't hear people saying "stop hurting Shakespeare" because he is no longer a person.

>who are you to declare that existing and living are synonymous? how would you even rationalize a thought like that?
What we call a person is basically a conciousness. Once that conciousness is gone there is no longer a person. When I stomp on on your leather jacket I'm not abusing a cow.
>>
>>7646189
i like your BTFO style
>>
>>7646189

>It isn't a murder until the taking of life is completed.
Absolutely false. If you have the malicious intent to kill and you strike to kill, it is murder. Regardless if the person survived the attack. Surely if you have the malicious intent to end ones life and you strike to fulfill your intention, it can be brought to court as an ATTEMPTED murder. A crime nonetheless, and differently a wrong . Nice logic you fucking dickhead.
>>
>>7646249
According to your logic attempting to beat the 100 meter sprint world record is beating it.

Attempted murder is not murder, that's why they call it an attempt to murder. If it was one and the same people wouldn't differ between the two.

Also, considering law authoritative in philosophical debate is silly as fuck.
>>
>>7646189

>What we call a person is basically a conciousness. Once that conciousness is gone there is no longer a person.

go ahead and prove that consciousness dies when the brain dies.

>>7646249

from a legal point of view this is very much true.
>>
>>7646269

it is not "according to his logic", it is according to the law of The United States (and also Germany). I do not know about your countries law, though.

It is attempted murder if you plan it, but don't go through with the plan. It is murder if you go through with the plan, but fail. which case of the two applies will be up to the judges and the jury.

the difference between murder and manslaughter is merely (1) planning and (2) malicious intent.
>>
>>7646269
>considering law authoritative in philosophical debate is silly as fuck
Excellent counterpoint. You really fucked me up, calling my reasoning silly. Go you girl.

No. Thats ATTEMPTING to beat it. You tried to kill someone and you failed. So I guess you think that no harm was done and everyone should just go on their separate ways like nothing happened? There are still remedies for attempted murder i.e. consequential damages, recovery, meaning that something must have happened that was wrong in order to warrant such a response for restitution.
>>
>>7646271
>go ahead and prove that consciousness dies when the brain dies.
The burden of proof doesn't lie with the claim that doesn't rely on literal magic, family.

There's no reason to believe conciousness lives on.
>>
>>7646288
As I said, considering law authoritative in philosophical debate is silly as fuck. You might as well say having sex outside of wedlock is objectively wrong because it's illegal in Morocco. Saying 'b-but the law said so' is not an argument, lawyers don't have the last word on philosophical matters.

>>7646289
See above.
>>
>>7646089
Napoleon achieved something through his murders, Rask didn't have the will to utilize the money and justify the murders.
>>
>>7646303

"Ah but I did not murder him! He survived the multiple stab wounds I inflicted upon him!"
"Yea you're still going to jail dumbass. What's with this guy?"
"I don't know judge, he must be some kind of autist."

Any questions?
>>
>>7646293

>The burden of proof doesn't lie with the claim that doesn't rely on literal magic, family.

as far as I know the burden of proof always lies with the one making a claim.

>What we call a person is basically a conciousness. Once that conciousness is gone there is no longer a person.

I am asking you to substantiate your claim.

>doesn't rely on literal magic, family.

stop trying to backpedal my friend. we're having an adult discussion here. no reason for memes. you've argued your points well this far, don't sink into this territory.
>>
>>7646315
Why are you so caught up in this attempted murder shit?

It's besides the point, my original claim is that actual murder is a victimless crime. Although attempted murder doesn't necessarily have a victim either.
>>
>>7646319
What you're asking of me is basically 'prove that God doesn't exist'.

If you consider conciousness something transcendental and not a product of the brain then I'll gladly admit that I can't prove that it does not live on without the body, but that simple means we're working with entire different premises.

Maybe I should rephrase in this way: If conciousness is merely a product of the brain and ceases to exist when your physical body dies, then murder is a victimless crime.
>>
I'd be friends with him. Even more so with Vrazumikhin.
>>
>>7645688
Even if, Raskolnikov was no ├╝bermensch, thus he shouldn't have killed tjem in the first place. He was weak.
>>
>>7646322
>Although attempted murder doesn't necessarily have a victim either.

What? Maybe if you tried to shoot someone and you missed, no wrong was done to them but their life was still in danger. Which I guess, depending how you look at it could also been seen as a wrong or crime.
>>
>>7646338

since you asked me: I don't consider consciousness something transcendental, only something that has been around since humanity has been around.

I think your error is getting caught up in the idea of a individualized consciousness. to me it is clear that consciousness does not exist in a vacuum. the idea that every person carries around a single consciousness bound to them is silly to me, a product of the individualism the "west" has been experiencing for the last few centuries.

if anything, believing that consciousness is not intertwined is silly to me. if we consider the fact that consciousnesses are intertwined a fact it becomes obvious that, even if consciousness would cease to exist with death, one person's consciousness could go, since parts of it would continue "living on" in other people.

in general, wouldn't you agree that the idea of assigning a single consciousness to a single entity with 100% clearly defined borders seems awfully constructed?
>>
>>7646428

if we consider that*
>>
>>7646355
Exactly, let's say you shoot at someone with a silenced rifle from a distance and you miss and all they heard was a funny sound that they didn't identify as a shot. No harm has been done, there is no victim. And their life wasn't in danger since the bullet followed a trajectory in which it was at no point going to collide with their body.

>>7646428
It seems very sensible to be, but I'll gladly concede that my statement doesn't work when you don't accept a run of the mill materialist standpoint.

'Intertwined conciousness' just seems fancy imagery for people interacting to me.
>>
>>7646527
>No harm has been done
But harm was intended to be done.
>>
What about the friends and family of the victim? Harm has come to them as they all grieve. They're still victims of this crime (in a way)
>>
Live by what you preach.
>>
He pussied out
>>
>>7647243
Intentions don't harm people.
>>
>>7646189
The more I read your posts, the more I want to punch your retarded face
>>
>>7649110
Out of arguments, friend?
>>
>>7645717
That would be right if it wasn't because of 1) most people have family or friends who miss the dead one when he's gone, 2) most people feel empathy towards other people, 3) most people don't like the idea of running into someone who's ok with killing ohter people.

You must be like fucking autistic to not see all of the above as obvious.
>>
>>7645717
murdering someone deprives them of potential future goods.
>>
>>7649121
Nope. Just got to this thread, schoolboy.
>>
>>7645717
people don't want to be murdered, so to engage in the act of murdering them is to violate their agency
>>
>>7649486
Oh I agree, in most cases murder is not a victimless crime because of circumstances. But there are scenarios in which this is not the case, so it is not the murder itself that is the problem but rather the circumstances around the murder. This is an important difference.

>>7649587
There's no longer someone to be deprived. Non-existent people can't be deprived.

>>7649609
People can't be murdered since the murder removes the person. As long as there is an agent it is merely assault, it becomes murder when the agent is no longer there, so there is no agency to be violated.
>>
File: 1438097441702.jpg (594 KB, 1536x2048) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1438097441702.jpg
594 KB, 1536x2048
>you need sin in order to be redeemed lmao
>>
>>7649661
(If every crime is a crime committed against someone who will eventually no longer exist and therefore cannot be a victim, then why isn't every crime eventually a victimless crime?)

Anyway, the point is that there was at one point in time a person, and through the act of murder you are committing the ultimate act of violence depriving them of all agency, turning them into a non-person. But their current non-personhood does not erase their past personhood. Just because the person you committed violence against no longer exists does not mean that a wrong was not committed at some prior point. Your manipulative linking of victimhood and temporality isn't clever.
>>
>>7650091
Turning someone into a non-person is decidedly unproblematic. It hurts no one because there is no one to hurt.
>>
>>7650104
>It hurts no one
Even if we accept this stupid premise, society, friends and family all are hurt by their absence you moron

fuck off, this idiocy is neither original nor clever
>>
>>7650104
>It hurts no one because there is no one to hurt.

There, you just fucking did it again. "There is no one to hurt" is only true once the "hurt"/crime has already been committed.
>>
>>7650124
>Even if we accept this stupid premise, society, friends and family all are hurt by their absence you moron
As I already said in an earlier post:

>[...] in most cases murder is not a victimless crime because of circumstances. But there are scenarios in which this is not the case, so it is not the murder itself that is the problem but rather the circumstances around the murder. This is an important difference.

>>7650136
Exactly, and until the crime has been committed it's not murder.
>>
>>7650275
look m8 if your goal is to look like a pedantic annoying autist you've succeeded, but if you're serious this is exactly the sort of pointless semantic pseudointellectual 'argument' that highschoolers use to make themselves feel clever and ensures the populace continues to view philosophy as retarded word games played by jobless liberal kids
>>
>>7646147
Even if we take the example of murder in a vacuum, the wrong is still perpetrated whilst the victim is still alive.
>>
>>7646189

Qualities being predicated around existence isn't necessarily true. And even so, it is the act for which the person is punished, not necessarily the outcome. Murder is an example of this. Acting with full and conscious intent to kill is the crime. Obviously this is influenced by the surrounding circumstances, which can serve to mitigate or aggravate the nature of the crime. But it is the act itself which is found to be the crime.
>>
>>7650295
It's a legitimate argument regardless of how it might rustle 'the populace'.

>>7650370
There is per definition no murder committed while the person is alive. It can only be deemed murder retroactively when the person has been removed, up until that moment it's merely assault. As soon as it is murder, there is no victim.

>>7650391
Legally, sure, but that's philosophically irrelevant.
>>
>>7650406

So, according to your philosophy, murder cannot exist?
>>
>>7645640
WOW WOW WOW
What child? I read that book twice! What fucking child?
>>
>>7650411
Murder exists, it just doesn't have a victim.
>>
>>7645674
> i read the book when I was a teen
You must've been a hit in the teen parties.
>>
I take it you're an atheist?
>>
>>7645675
Who exactly? Sonia and his sister?
Guys I read it ten years ago I'm having a hard time to remember details.
>>
>>7650418

How would you refer to the one murdered then?
>>
>>7650418

Murder as a term applies to the unlawful premeditated killing of someone. Surely if there is no victim then there is no murder?
>>
>>7650406
It's not a legitimate argument, it's definition-based masturbatory that has absolutely no relevance to anything.

No one will ever change their behavior based on this pointless bit of wordplay, save for revising their opinion of you to be 'an annoying twerp.' It is literally on the level of 'glorp is always followed by blorp. Glorp, therefore blorp.' That's a legitimate argument too. Like your argument, it is also pointless nonsense that changes nothing, communicates nothing, and does nothing but perhaps passingly entertain someone.
>>
>>7645675
But not with any money from the murder....
>>
Why a novel thread deviated into an argument about the existance of murder victims is beyond me...
>>
>>7650450
Means to an end.
>>
>>7650433
I don't because he is now a none entity
>>
>>7650451
underage got home from school, judging by the time
>>
>>7650455
The money was for imposing his Ubermensch values, whatever the hell those were. He never gave any of it to anyone.
>>
>>7650439
The soul is still a victim after you have murdered him.
>>
>>7650433
Someone who was murdered, just not a victim.

>>7650439
Of course there is a murder, that's exactly why there is no victim.

>>7650444
I don't think the realisation that death doesn't hurt anyone is inconsequential. It can have a profound influence on one's life.
>>
>>7650451
Maybe because the OP stated that murder is not wrong.
>>
>>7650468
On a more pragmatic approach, the money was to up boost his poor ass and save his sister from an unwanted marriage.
Although it is true he considered doing before the financial pit bottom for napoleonic reasons... But he would never have actually gone through with it if he had some money to survive. He was basically starving. Although he was cobsiderably lazy as well... Had been a neet for months...
I don't know, I reAd ten years ago.
>>
>>7650517
>On a more pragmatic approach, the money was to up boost his poor ass and save his sister from an unwanted marriage.
No, that's what he said to make himself feel better about it.
>>
>>7645717
What kind of logic is this?
>>
>>7650687
Correct logic.
>>
>>7650697
But if you killed me, i'd be your 'victim' regardless of wether i was alive or not. Or do labels not apply to dead people?
>>
>>7645633
Why is he holding the axe the wrong way?
>>
>>7650713
'Dead people' aren't people. They're corpses. A corpse is not a person.
>>
>>7650721
How is a corpse not a person?
>>
>>7645717
Murder includes the moments before death which usually involve involve acute suffering be it pain or fear, and thus produces a very concentrated sort of victimization.

Happy?
>>
Itt: rekt christposters and btfo moralposters
>>
>>7650771
How do you think it is a person? It's a bunch of dead cells without agency.

>>7650789
>usually
That's the key point. Usually, not necessarily. Murder in itself is victimless, but can not be depending on the circumstances.
>>
Lmao personhood does not refer to corpses. It's constructed that way and that's it. Legal definition is sufficient in this case.
It literally was no crime... how thick are people's skulls itt??
>>
>>7650811
>How do you think it is a person? It's a bunch of dead cells without agency.
We don't have agency when we sleep, do we cease to become people? Let's actually take this materialist though to its conclusion, shall we?
>>
>>7650818
If you're going to talk legality, even if someone dies, that doesn't make you no longer liable for any crimes you committed against them in the past, because a criminal trial, unlike a civil court, is about you vs. the state, not you vs. the victim. If you are responsible for someone's death, that is a crime against the state. When it's not, it's called a wrongful death suit.
>>
>>7650819

Can't wait for you to vanish in a few months
When you get out of jail or w/e it is
>>
>>7650826
Um do you even realize how not knowledgeable you sound using the terminology like that...
>>
File: 1.webm (170 KB, 178x284) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1.webm
170 KB, 178x284
>That's the key point. Usually, not necessarily. Murder in itself is victimless, but can not be depending on the circumstances.
baited/10
If victim-hood is a product of distress (via hypothetical means of murder as per your post...then the life preceding said murder fully predicated upon regular longevity and full of the typical human dread of the death and the like...necessitates that being denied said expectations is in fact victimizing by rendering said person's suffering, the intrinsic distress of life, futile.
>>
Tbqh if ppl wouldn't make such big fusses over small murders humanity would have colonized the galaxy be now.
Refute this
>>
>>7650835
If you steal from someone and they die, it doesn't abrogate the theft in the eyes of the law, because criminal law isn't persecuted that way. If you bring about the death of someone, it doesn't matter if they become a legal non-entity that you could not have committed a crime against, because the crime is against the state, not the victim.
>>
>>7650838
Any pics of this girl's vagina?
>>
>>7650848
There is no need to refute a monumental jump in logic.
>>
>>7650853
>girl
>vagina
>>
>>7650838
Distress could be caused by the anticipation of being murdered, but that itself is not a necessity of murder. You can murder a person without distressing them.
>>
>>7650860
People live with the distress of death was the point.
>>
>>7650855

Friendly reminder that the /lit/erary patrishian lifestyle has to include murder
Posers pls go
>>
>>7650861
That's not an argument against murder being a victimless crime.
>>
>>7650871
It is, murderers facilitate this distress.
>>
>>7650871
Being born is victimization commited by progenitors. Gentle murder is devictimisation, a jesus trick
>>
>>7645717
8/10
>>
>>7650819
I have agency in my dreams, doesn't seem like a good comparison to non-existence.
>>
>>7650873
Not necessarily, only under certain circumstances.

>>7650878
Interesting point to be honest.
>>
>>7650819
Christposters, everyone!
>>
>>7650904
>Not necessarily, only under certain circumstances.
Name a circumstance they don't.
>>
>>7650721
No, again: Do labels not apply to dead people? This is getting a little philosophical, but think about this: if my father dies, does he stop being my father? As in, i can't call him such anymore?
>>
>>7650897
But you are not self-conscious for most of your sleep, which seems to be how existence is being defined here.
>>
>>7650933
When you murder someone unexpectedly and painlessly of course.
>>
>>7651019
If your father dies, your father no longer exists. When you refer to him after that you're referring to a concept, a memory, not an actual existing person.

>>7651037
I never said 'being self-concious' is my definition of existence.
>>
>>7651057
>I never said 'being self-concious' is my definition of existence.
What is your definition here?
>>
>>7645717
A person harmed, injured or KILLED as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action is literally the definition of victim.

So yes the dead person is a victim.

You fucking retard.

10/10
>>
>>7651057
>when you refer
but you see, that's wrong. because i am in fact referring to the person when talking about a person. not the memory or concept of the person, but the person itself.

this is simply about definition. father isn't a vaguely defined word. if his sperm created me, then he's my father, regardless of wether he lives or not.
the same goes for "victim". i don't know the exact definition of it, but i'm sure thst even animals and inanimate objects can fall victim to things.
being alive, being distressed, none of it is even relevant.
>>
>>7651052
That has absolutely nothing to do with it.
>>
>>7651078
A person needs to be alive to exist as a person and must be capable of suffering to be a victim, by my definition.

>>7651103
My whole point is that the it's a misnomer in the case of murder, silly. I'm challenging the conventional definition here.

>>7651110
Well if you want to claim that rocks can be victims than by those standards so can corpses I guess, but I wouldn't claim an inanimate object can be a victim myself.
>>
>>7651134
Of course it does, how are you distressed when you unexpectedly die in your sleep?
>>
>>7645633
Of course he did. He caved in.
>>
>>7651148
>and must be capable of suffering to be a victim
>>7651148
Why?
>>
>>7651200
How else would you define victimhood if there is no harm done?
>>
>>7651209
>murder
>no harm done

Your entire argument is changing the definition of victim to "but victims have to be alive" to fit your edgy view that murder is a victimless crime
>>
>>7651226
It's the other way around, I have that edgy view because I don't think a non-entity can be a victim.
>>
>>7645633
>did nothing wrong
looks like my man here missed the point

From a rational point of view, sure, he didn't do anything wrong. That's not the point, though.
>>
>>7650819
I hate you so much... Did you seriously become a tripfag just to push your christposter shit on everybody? Sad stuff.
>>
>>7651153
>the point
>your head
>>
>>7650495

There would be a victim, just that victim is dead. Qualities are not necessarily invalidated by death. Also death does not equal immateriality.

Your argument seems to accept that murder does exist, so what's the problem? Raskolnikov is evidently still guilty of murder, since murder is an act and not an outcome. All we're doing is arguing about semantics.
>>
>>7651534
Maybe you should explain it better.

>>7651811
'Being dead', as far as persons go, is equivalent to non-existence, and you can't harm things that do not exist.

I agree that murder exists, and that Raskolnikov is guilty of murder, I just think that murder in itself is not a bad thing because it doesn't necessarily hurt anyone.
>>
>>7652896

Whilst I see where you are going with this, I can't help but disagree, since you are asserting that all human life is worthless, and that simply avoiding hurting someone means that anything can otherwise be permissible. This leads into a whole host of problems that cannot really be reconciled with any kind of compassionate philosophy.
>>
>>7652947
>This leads into a whole host of problems that cannot really be reconciled with any kind of compassionate philosophy.
Why do you think so? It seems to me to be very compatible with compassion.
>>
>>7652957

If human life is worthless, then simply killing people for the sake of achieving a specific goal is completely justified. If you believe that murder in itself is not a bad thing, then I would suggest that the philosophy in which this particular view is housed isn't very compassionate.
>>
>>7652947
>>7653009
>you are asserting that all human life is worthless
Where the fuck does he say that? Jesus you guys are pulling shit out of your asses.
You all neglect his arguements and attack from these pseudo-angles, with your incredibly vague arguements.
>>7652957
you're a champ. I believe in you. Im that kid of that police officer and you're the batman.
>>
>Did it primarily because he feels superior to her and felt it was his right to do it, the money and saving Dunya from whoring herself out was a secondary factor
>In the end he realizes that he's simply a fucking criminal whose arrogance made him do something dumb

It's that simple..
>>
>>7653009
Why would you conclude from my point that "crimes that do not harm anyone are victimless" that "human life is worthless"? Also, why do you think that the act of ending a life is per definition opposed to compassion? In a lot of cases it is the exact opposite.

>>7653385
Thanks senpai.
>>
Wow
This is literally my first time on /lit/, a board where one would think people would be somewhat able to argue and discuss, but it all comes down to insulting people like on any other retarded board

Bravo!
>>
>>7652896
It's normal for beings to want to continue existing. The act of murder, eradicating a being, is therefore a harm, delivered at the moment of eradication. It doesn't matter whether they feel anything, whether you're euthanizing them in their sleep. You're getting confused because rendering a being non-existent is an entirely different, ultimate sort of harm.
>>
>>7653385
>>7653424

If murder isn't a bad thing, then human life must be worthless, otherwise you would regard it as a bad thing. This kind of rationalism naturally leads to a deemphasis on human life.

Also, what I'm arguing is not that acts of compassion aren't possible under your philosophy, just that they aren't compassionate in the primary instance. These supposed acts of compassion would always be predicated around rationalism, which in many cases is fundamentally opposed to compassion.
>>
>>7655269
no its not harm. because the person is dead. You can't cause phsyical or psychological injury to someone who is dead. Whether that person wants to continue to live or not is out of the equation. He clearly states: "Murder literally doesn't have a victim because the person transgressed against ceases to exist by the very act, so there is no victim."
So again you're attacking from an off-angle.
>>
>>7655583
Let's say there are two basic kinds of harm. One kind inflicts suffering on a being, which requires that being to have subjective existence to experience it. You could "harm" an inaminate object by damaging it, but it can't result in suffering unless a being exists to suffer from it in some way. The other kind of harm inflicts total non-existence, including all capacity to feel the first sort of harm, turning a being which formerly had subjective existence into a mere object. The victim of this kind of harm doesn't become a victim by feeling the harm delivered, but rather by irrevocably losing all capacity to feel, to be. The harm itself, the moment of loss, by definition can't be felt. I can only imagine a p-zombie rejecting this concept, but maybe materialist autism really has reached that level.
>>
File: 1454019281588.gif (32 KB, 250x250) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1454019281588.gif
32 KB, 250x250
>>7645717
>deleted my fedora folder
>see this post
>have nothing to reply with
>>
>>7655269
It's not a sort of harm at all, that is my point.

>>7655412
>If murder isn't a bad thing, then human life must be worthless, otherwise you would regard it as a bad thing.
So doctors practice euthanasia out of a disregard for people? I would say it is the opposite.

>Also, what I'm arguing is not that acts of compassion aren't possible under your philosophy, just that they aren't compassionate in the primary instance. These supposed acts of compassion would always be predicated around rationalism, which in many cases is fundamentally opposed to compassion.
All acts of compassion must incorporate reason of some sort, reason is not opposed to compassionate acts but essential to it.

>>7655613
You may not like the idea of non-existence, but the discomfort experienced by entertaining said idea only takes place because you do exist. Non-existence only seems horrific to existers.

The idea that your second kind of harm is harm at all is a delusion, as has been explained multiple times in this thread. Non-existence has never hurt anyone. Saying that non-existent people are harmed by non-existence is like saying my car is damaged by me not having one. You might as well say I'm doing harm by not inseminating women all the time because each moment I do not I'm depriving hypothetical babies from existence. The unborn and the dead are both hypothetical persons, after all.

I'm sort of running out of ways to say that hypothetical persons who do not exist can't be subjected to things, be it hurtful or pleasant or anything at all.

The reason people think murders have victims seems the same reason people put pillows in coffins. It is, on some level, a refusal to accept what death entails.
>>
>>7645733

> inb4 eurofag

It really isn't over here. At least in germany the coming of age stuff is mostly Goethe, Schiller, Lessing and so on (Sufferings of the young Werther, Emilia Galotti, The Robbers. Sometimes Faust)

Also we have a lot of Nazi related stuff concerned with growing up in the regime, jews die, bombs, everyone dies and so on

Nowadays the children read a lot more contemporary stuff like 'Measuring the World' by Kehlmann. Then again this last one is somewhat a modern Faust.

Never read Catcher in the Rye though. Is it about the absurd existentialism as well?
>>
>>7655882
i read catcher in english class and the stranger in french class

t. dutch
Thread replies: 168
Thread images: 8
Thread DB ID: 484511



[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / biz / c / cgl / ck / cm / co / d / diy / e / fa / fit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / news / o / out / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vip /vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y] [Search | Home]

[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / biz / c / cgl / ck / cm / co / d / diy / e / fa / fit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / news / o / out / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vip /vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y] [Search | Home]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at [email protected] with the post's information.