Why is death and destruction something bad?

Because it causes pain? I'm sure enough that life and construction can also cause pain.
Is there anything that cannot cause pain?

I know that a lot of people fight against death and destruction. Isn't this fight an attempt to destroy or kill something? I am just trying to understand why so many people are worried and feel the need to "do something".

I see threads about pandemics, cataclysms, anarchy, fanaticism, ignorance, etc.
Why even bother about these possibilities?
Isn't this just an attempt to hold on to what we believe we have?
Do we really have anything?
If possible, could anyone explain to me what "to have" means?

How can you judge anything as being bad?
It may be that you don't like something. But that doesn't mean that thing is bad.
I believe something is only bad if it doesn't work for everyone. And until now I haven't found one thing that doesn't work for everyone. In my perspective such thing wouldn't even exist! Why would it?


I know this is really thought provoking.
Its supposed to be.
I could keep on writing, but this is a thread and not an essay.
Lets build the idea by sharing our thoughts.

Death isn't bad, it's wonderful, it releases us from pain. Destruction can be both or either, if it's destruction of things that are graceful, beautiful and seren, like the oceans, the wildlife, the vegetation, it's bad because they are the things that make the world a beautiful place, but destruction of buldings, roads, bridges, people, I beleive are good things and needed to restore the Earth to a spledor it hasn't had since we humans learned how to strip it of it's natural resources.

[edit on 23-7-2009 by ldyserenity]

reply to post by ldyserenity


Why is the ocean, wildlife, vegetation more beautiful then buildings, roads, bridges and people?

You said that destruction of beautiful things are bad and destruction of non-beautiful things is good. So you are one of the people that I mentioned about fighting against destruction. You are basically saying that destruction is good whenever you like it to be. I guess the people that destroy what you think is beautiful think exactly in the same way.

I don't think that destruction of human life is ever a good thing. People can make all kinds of excuses and say- oh- war has brought us so much stuff. No, destruction is never good. I think that destruction of certain kinds of things- not life- but certain kinds of things can be good, but, I feel a loss of human life is irreplaceable, and, it's bad, because it really is pointless. These wars are pointless. These loss of human life do not need to persist as they do. I guess that it's bad when things get destroyed in vain. That's what I would say.

This is one of those inane topics created by bored people who are either just out to stir things up, or really don't have a brain.

Humans are instinctively conditioned to survive, as individuals, groups and nations.

Within this idea - that of survival, we unravel the heart of morality. That which promotes human life, happiness and success is good - that which threatens it is bad.

Social groups have a better chance of surviving than individuals - therefore negotiating, friendship and so on are 'good' - dissension, intolerance and hate are 'evil'.

Destruction of those forces which threaten our survival as a race is good, destruction of those things which support us, and provide us life and happiness is evil.

For this reason we should look inside ourselves and judge all our actions and thoughts against this clear basis of morality - we do not need to be told - we already know, however - we should set aside what society and religion deems to be good and evil - and affirm those things ourselves from this acid test.

If reproduction is good when we are at risk of extinction, is it still good when we are so populous that we risk destroying the land and resources upon which our existence is dependent?

What is moral changes with external conditions - rote sets of rules are not able to take this into account, and should be set aside in favor of a holistic approach to morality - based on what supports our ongoing survival as an individual, a family, a neighborhood and as a nation.

Destruction is neither good nor evil - it is the application and purpose that determine its moral basis.

To have, to Be, means LOVE.

In the midst of all the pain there is still some joy. I just saw my mother, that was joy. She left and that was sad.

Looking forward to something is what keeps us all alive. Grant it, there is not much positive, but look around, see the kids playing, planning to get married, going to have children, ....a gentle hug and an "I love you" means a lot to most of us.

We were not placed here on this Earth to experience death and destruction, and i had a similar thread, and i wondered myself, but i realize that LOVE is the main reason we all go on.

reply to post by Frankidealist35


Its funny how in the end of your post you contradict yourself.
You pointed out that some people think that war has brought us stuff. In the end you say that destruction is only bad if things get destroyed in vain. But as you said in the beginning, apparently war doesn't destroy things in vain, not for some people at least.

Everything is kind of pointless isn't? And thats what makes things enjoyable in my opinion. Everything is the end. There are no means.

Don't get me wrong. I'm against wars too. But not because people get killed. I'm against wars because so much is hidden behind them. I don't care about people. I care about truth.

Death and destruction are just the polar opposites of Life and creation so all relevant. Not bad just transmutation.

Edited to add: Yes, I am bored.

[edit on 23-7-2009 by cindymars]

Some scientists have come up with the theory that for every black hole there is a "white hole" perhaps in some other dimension, that expels everything that is consumed by a black hole. Granted, this theory is ridiculed quite often. It is a thought provoking notion.

Basically it means that even in death, there is rebirth. If there was no death on earth, we would have reached critical population limit hundreds of thousands of years ago. The thought of mortality and death is unwanted but unescapable. At least in our limited 3 dimensional understanding of material existence.

Perhaps it is taboo to think of such things because death is only a transcendence? And mortality is only an illusion? Could be a number of reasons.

I'm trying to understand your question.

Death and destruction are both inevitable because nothing lasts forever.
We are put on this Earth to be productive members of society and to help and serve our fellow man as best we can and as often as we can until death.
This is good!

However, if one hastens death and destruction on others then they are destructive members of society, plain and simple.
This is definitely wrong and I sure hope you agree with me.

It all depends on how we choose to live our lives.
If one chooses to be indifferent about everything around them, feeling they have no control over anything, then they are just like the Eloi, no better than a pimple on a dogs arse.

reply to post by Amagnon


Excuse me, but your first sentence was really unnecessary. What do you expect from a philosophy board? Silly questions of course! No need to offend.

Well, so your entire explanation springs from the "conditioning". I have to say that I believe the "conditioning" is not our fate as you seem to believe. I understand the conditioning as being the great opportunity or challenge. If the conditioning wasn't there it wouldn't be as fun to grow.

Instincts are an obstacle to the realization of truth. Have you heard of "temptations"?

So by your logic, someone that breaks free from the conditioning and transcend the instincts is automatically evil? I mean, that person doesn't care about survival anymore, and as I understood your idea, survival is what defines goodness.

I also find an intriguing contradiction in your reasoning. Lets suppose someone is about to kill me. Now I am confronted with two choices. 1) Let them kill me and let evil prevail. 2) Kill them before they kill you and become evil. So by your thinking in a practical situation it seems like evil prevails inevitably.

Did I miss something?

reply to post by Geladinhu


I didn't really contradict myself. I think everyone who dies in war dies in vain. I was talking about other things. Like, with cities, and artifacts, and stuff like that.

Originally posted by Frankidealist35
reply to post by Geladinhu

 

I think everyone who dies in war dies in vain.

That's not exactly true frank.
Soldiers from the greatest generation died so that you can have the right to voice the opinion you just posted.

reply to post by Alxandro


That's just your opinion. I think all of those soldiers died in vain. No US soldier other than the ones that fought in WWII in my opinion had died for our freedom. These other wars- did not need to happen, and, in my mind were unjust wars. We could talk on and on about what I think about what unjust wars are, but, that's a story for another thread.

reply to post by Frankidealist35


In his memoirs, Churchill, who led Britain to victory in World War II, wrote:

One day President Roosevelt told me that he was asking publicly for suggestions about what the war should be called. I said at once, "The Unnecessary War."

There never was a war more easy to stop than that which has just wrecked what was left of the world from the previous struggle.
The war was unnecessary, Churchill said, because of the constant blunders before the war that got us into it. It was the easiest war to avoid in all of history. That's what Churchill told Franklin Roosevelt and he was right. What he didn't say was a number of those blunders had been committed by Winston Churchill himself.

reply to post by Frankidealist35


I think you just contradicted yourself again.

Soldiers who fought in WWII are the ones from the greatest generation

Those are the soldiers I was referring to.

reply to post by Geladinhu


There's that one poem by Baudelaire, I'll mistranslate (I always do, it's my nature):

Death is the medicine that gives us the strength to keep walking until it is dark.

Death is that famous hotel we read about in the book...a place where they let you eat, sleep, sit down...

Death is the bank for poor people, it's their old home country.

Death is the angel that makes the bed that the poor naked people can lie in.

Death is a little door, when it opens it leads you to the place where they can't find you any more.

reply to post by Alxandro


I didn't really contradict myself again. I'm just saying that's the only war in which US soldiers fought for our freedom. The war didn't really have to take place. And if World War I didn't happen- we wouldn't have had to go in the war at all.

reply to post by OmegaPoint


My position stands that the war could have been avoided if people didn't romanticize about war so much during World War I that they went to war in the manner that they did. People just acted stupid. It lead up to people feeling resentful, and, economies being damaged, and, World War II happened as a result of the indecision from World War I. That's my understanding of it. I don't blame any one person for it.

Originally posted by Geladinhu
reply to post by ldyserenity

 

Why is the ocean, wildlife, vegetation more beautiful then buildings, roads, bridges and people?

You said that destruction of beautiful things are bad and destruction of non-beautiful things is good. So you are one of the people that I mentioned about fighting against destruction. You are basically saying that destruction is good whenever you like it to be. I guess the people that destroy what you think is beautiful think exactly in the same way.

That's true, they could think that way. Every one has an opinion, and not all them are the same. I gave mine. Although I don't see anything beautiful in skyscrapers and highways and biways I am sure there are people who do.