Afterlife Importance

[Lord Jade Cross]

7 hours ago, GiftedWithSingleness said:

Yes, I would. And in the context of an afterlife, there wouldn't be any of the dysfunctional chaos that we've gotten used to.

 

The problem with living in a dysfunctional world is not that you're living; it's the dysfunction itself. Blaming life is barking up the wrong tree.

How do you know that the dysfunctionality doesn't carry over to an after life?

[Gifted With Singleness]

7 hours ago, Jade Cross said:

How do you know that the dysfunctionality doesn't carry over to an after life?

Pretty much by definition.

 

Just to be clear, in this context, I'm talking specifically about a heaven type of afterlife, rather than repetitive reincarnation. If you live forever, you don't die. And when I talk about dysfunctional chaos, what I have in mind is the sort of stuff that naturally leads to death.

 

In an earlier comment, you said this:

 

On 5/27/2020 at 11:36 AM, Jade Cross said:

How come a baby being born isn't generally popularized as a terrible event to happen? Why does noone freak out collectively that another human that needs resources, looking after, education, etc, will be born into this already chaotic, dysfunctional and dying world? 

You used the word "dying" here. In other words, our lives are terrible because we're in a world full of death. But there can't be any death in heaven. That contradicts the very nature of heaven. That is, unless you think people who die in heaven go to super heaven, and people who die in super heaven go to super duper heaven, but that just sounds like reincarnation with extra steps.

 

If death can't exist in heaven, then disease can't exist in heaven either, since disease is inherently deadly. Sure, most of the time we get sick, we get better, but that's largely due to modern medicine and sanitation. Even something like diarrhea can be deadly if you don't do anything about it.

 

Aging also can't exist in heaven, for pretty much the same reason. Aging means that your body is wearing down and becoming more and more crippled over time, so it's effectively a disease in and of itself. Aging inherently leads to death.

 

There also can't be various forms of evil in heaven. After all, how can you murder someone who can't die? You could also argue that evil is a form of spiritual death, since it rots and eats away at your soul.

 

Putting all that together, we end up with an eternal life devoid of death, disease, aging, and evil. What kind of dysfunction could there be?

[Lord Jade Cross]

4 hours ago, GiftedWithSingleness said:

Pretty much by definition.

 

Just to be clear, in this context, I'm talking specifically about a heaven type of afterlife, rather than repetitive reincarnation. If you live forever, you don't die. And when I talk about dysfunctional chaos, what I have in mind is the sort of stuff that naturally leads to death.

 

In an earlier comment, you said this:

 

You used the word "dying" here. In other words, our lives are terrible because we're in a world full of death. But there can't be any death in heaven. That contradicts the very nature of heaven. That is, unless you think people who die in heaven go to super heaven, and people who die in super heaven go to super duper heaven, but that just sounds like reincarnation with extra steps.

 

If death can't exist in heaven, then disease can't exist in heaven either, since disease is inherently deadly. Sure, most of the time we get sick, we get better, but that's largely due to modern medicine and sanitation. Even something like diarrhea can be deadly if you don't do anything about it.

 

Aging also can't exist in heaven, for pretty much the same reason. Aging means that your body is wearing down and becoming more and more crippled over time, so it's effectively a disease in and of itself. Aging inherently leads to death.

 

There also can't be various forms of evil in heaven. After all, how can you murder someone who can't die? You could also argue that evil is a form of spiritual death, since it rots and eats away at your soul.

 

Putting all that together, we end up with an eternal life devoid of death, disease, aging, and evil. What kind of dysfunction could there be?

I never mentioned heaven or hell. I just asked if you would choose to be eternal. Isnt it curious that the concept that people think of eternity  is in the shape of a non degenerative state where you have no need for food, air, or other worldly requirements?

 

Now isn't it interesting that death provides all that? A state where you no longer require the aspects to survive and from which, you cannot go into a deeper stare of death. You cease to exist as a system of memories and become one yourself, essentially making you immortal.

 

Death is, amusingly, even nicknamed "the eternal sleep", a nickname or title that life is never given And isn't it even more curious that in order to slip into eternity in the heaven, non degenerative sense, one must first die as oppose to living and then somehow bypassing death and jumping straight into eternity without dying first?

 

Seems to me the death is actually the freeing agent whereas life is a constricting one, not the other way around; making death in other words the "good" and life the "evil"

[Gifted With Singleness]

2 hours ago, Jade Cross said:

I never mentioned heaven or hell. I just asked if you would choose to be eternal.

My point was that, in order for eternal life to be eternal life, certain conditions need to be met. Conditions like, you can't age or get sick. After all, how can you claim to be eternal if there are all sorts of things that can kill you? And the conditions I mentioned would make life virtually indistinguishable from some concept of heaven. Heaven is eternal life.

 

2 hours ago, Jade Cross said:

Now isn't it interesting that death provides all that? A state where you no longer require the aspects to survive and from which, you cannot go into a deeper stare of death.

There's something crucial that death is missing: life. My primary desire is not to be free from the burdens of life. My primary desire is to live, which I can't do if I'm dead, by definition. You seem to take it as axiomatic that life can't exist without death, and I'm not sure why, especially since we're talking about eternal life. Eternal life is by definition life free from death. You don't die, since you live forever.

 

3 hours ago, Jade Cross said:

 

Seems to me the death is actually the freeing agent whereas life is a constricting one, not the other way around; making death in other words the "good" and life the "evil"

That's like saying that unemployment is awesome because you don't have to worry about losing your job. Or that poverty is awesome because you don't have to worry about losing your money. Or that slavery is awesome because you don't have to worry about losing your freedom. It's a completely backwards way of thinking.

 

Dead people can't do anything, because they're dead. And the complete inability to do anything is the opposite of freedom, which means that life is automatically more freeing than death, no matter how burdensome it may be.

[Lord Jade Cross]

8 hours ago, GiftedWithSingleness said:

My point was that, in order for eternal life to be eternal life, certain conditions need to be met. Conditions like, you can't age or get sick. After all, how can you claim to be eternal if there are all sorts of things that can kill you? And the conditions I mentioned would make life virtually indistinguishable from some concept of heaven. Heaven is eternal life.

You can be eternal but still subjected to debilitating conditions. The non degenerative eternal life of heaven is a convenient idea but not the only form of eternity

Quote

 

There's something crucial that death is missing: life. My primary desire is not to be free from the burdens of life. My primary desire is to live, which I can't do if I'm dead, by definition. You seem to take it as axiomatic that life can't exist without death, and I'm not sure why, especially since we're talking about eternal life. Eternal life is by definition life free from death. You don't die, since you live forever.

Suppose that you did get the non degenerative state of eternity, and that everyone else did as well. That the current life you're living, with all it's burdens still continued but with that added perk. How long before the planet's, already limited resources, dry up with an ever increasing population that never dies? How long before other eternals get it in their head that they are to rule over everyone else as historically humans have always done? How long before open war is waged between groups that cannot die? 

Quote

 

 

Dead people can't do anything, because they're dead. And the complete inability to do anything is the opposite of freedom, which means that life is automatically more freeing than death, no matter how burdensome it may be.

Being dead means that there isn't a cognitive function at play. You cannot desire anything but also cannot regret anything. There is nothing to change because there is nothing that needs to change. Its an absolute state that you are never aware of so it's not limiting. Freedom from something is only by direct comparison to that something. One cannot claim to be free if dead but one can claim to want to be free in life, so I ask, free from what?

 

If you are consistently wanting or seeking freedom, it means you are therefore constantly finding yourself in states that you do not desire or feel caged or trapped. One only seeks freedom when you feel you are bound by something.

[Gifted With Singleness]

6 hours ago, Jade Cross said:

Suppose that you did get the non degenerative state of eternity, and that everyone else did as well. That the current life you're living, with all it's burdens still continued but with that added perk. How long before the planet's, already limited resources, dry up with an ever increasing population that never dies? How long before other eternals get it in their head that they are to rule over everyone else as historically humans have always done? How long before open war is waged between groups that cannot die? 

There's an inherent contradiction here that you don't seem to be picking up on. If I require sustenance to survive, and the sustenance available to me eventually and inevitably runs out, I am by definition not eternal. To say otherwise is to say that I'm already eternal, and the universe just isn't equipped to maintain that. Thus, by offering me eternal life under these conditions, you haven't actually offered me anything at all.

 

In order to actually have eternal life, either I must not require sustenance, or there must be a never-ending supply of sustenance. But neither of these conditions apply to what you described. You're describing people going to war over limited resources that they need.

 

6 hours ago, Jade Cross said:

One cannot claim to be free if dead but one can claim to want to be free in life, so I ask, free from what?

Freedom isn't just "freedom from". It's also "freedom to". Freedom to play. Freedom to meet people. Freedom to explore. Freedom to have an engaging philosophical discussion on an internet forum. Death is fundamentally incompatible with "freedom to", because you can't do anything if you're dead. Just because you can't claim not to be free doesn't mean you're free.

[Lord Jade Cross]

9 hours ago, GiftedWithSingleness said:

There's an inherent contradiction here that you don't seem to be picking up on. If I require sustenance to survive, and the sustenance available to me eventually and inevitably runs out, I am by definition not eternal. To say otherwise is to say that I'm already eternal, and the universe just isn't equipped to maintain that. Thus, by offering me eternal life under these conditions, you haven't actually offered me anything at all.

 

In order to actually have eternal life, either I must not require sustenance, or there must be a never-ending supply of sustenance. But neither of these conditions apply to what you described. You're describing people going to war over limited resources that they need.

But you see, I never offered you heaven, only immortality. In this scenario it's a case of a "be careful what you wish for" because wanting immortality is not the same as wanting heaven. You would have to be both immortal and also be placed in a plane of existence in which nothing happens, curiously, somewhat how death is. You only assumed that by being granted immortality, the plane in heaven was a given, it was not. So I provided you exactly what I offered.

 

Quote

 

Freedom isn't just "freedom from". It's also "freedom to". Freedom to play. Freedom to meet people. Freedom to explore. Freedom to have an engaging philosophical discussion on an internet forum. Death is fundamentally incompatible with "freedom to", because you can't do anything if you're dead. Just because you can't claim not to be free doesn't mean you're free.

"Freedom to" and "freedom from" are only a grammatical rule humans invented to try and give the world a calculus in life or of life more specifically. And in the best of case, they are really just two sides of the same coin. 

 

Just as you toss a coin and call it heads or tails, just because one side comes up, doesn't mean the other ceases.

[Gifted With Singleness]

1 hour ago, Jade Cross said:

But you see, I never offered you heaven, only immortality. In this scenario it's a case of a "be careful what you wish for" because wanting immortality is not the same as wanting heaven. You would have to be both immortal and also be placed in a plane of existence in which nothing happens, curiously, somewhat how death is. You only assumed that by being granted immortality, the plane in heaven was a given, it was not. So I provided you exactly what I offered.

 

You must have a different definition of heaven than I do. I never defined heaven as "a plane of existence in which nothing happens" or insisted that eternal life has to be free from anything happening. I never even said that eternal life has to be free from difficulty, only that it has to be free from death and the things that lead to it. Sure, working a 9-5 office job might be annoying, but it's not going to kill you. In fact, having a job is actually a good thing, because it makes you a productive member of society and it's good for your psyche. The same cannot be said for diseases, because they bring nothing but death. And as far as I'm concerned, if you don't have to worry about death, a life like that is good enough to be called heaven.

 

Your offer, on the other hand, is the equivalent of offering to make me a married bachelor. There can be no such thing, since it's a contradiction in terms. A world without sufficient sustenance to keep you alive is incompatible with eternal life. A world filled with warfare cannot be a world without death. These are contradictions, in the same way that a married bachelor is a contradiction.

 

2 hours ago, Jade Cross said:

"Freedom to" and "freedom from" are only a grammatical rule humans invented to try and give the world a calculus in life or of life more specifically. And in the best of case, they are really just two sides of the same coin. 

 

Just as you toss a coin and call it heads or tails, just because one side comes up, doesn't mean the other ceases.

I never said anything to contradict this. You could just as easily argue that life brings "freedom from" that death doesn't.

 

Living people are free to have conversations. Dead people are not.

Living people are free from the inability to have conversations. Dead people are not.

 

It works either way.

 

What kind of freedom could death possibly give you? Freedom from life? Life isn't slavery. And I hate to go here, but the fact that you're still alive posting your comments suggests to me that you still value your life. There's some part of you that recognizes the absurdity of calling death the ultimate good, even if you won't admit it.

 

Life is good. Death is bad. It really is that simple.

[Skycaptain]

22 minutes ago, GiftedWithSingleness said:

 

Life is good. Death is bad. It really is that simple.

Depends on your belief system. Some people believe that people have been resurrected, seen the afterlife, received a message from a deity, etc, painting a heaven/hell dichotomy. Salvation/damnation.

 

Others like me just believe that nobody has come back from the dead to say what it's like, or if there's even anything there.

 

Also, slightly deviating from the main theme, those of us who are pro-euthanasia see a point where it's cruel to prolong life. Death can be seen as good, life bad. Not that simple.

[Lord Jade Cross]

4 hours ago, GiftedWithSingleness said:

You must have a different definition of heaven than I do. I never defined heaven as "a plane of existence in which nothing happens" or insisted that eternal life has to be free from anything happening. I never even said that eternal life has to be free from difficulty, only that it has to be free from death and the things that lead to it. Sure, working a 9-5 office job might be annoying, but it's not going to kill you. In fact, having a job is actually a good thing, because it makes you a productive member of society and it's good for your psyche. The same cannot be said for diseases, because they bring nothing but death. And as far as I'm concerned, if you don't have to worry about death, a life like that is good enough to be called heaven.

You seem to be contradicting yourself here. In a scenario where you are immortal and exist in a plane where everything is everlasting, things such as a job would not be necessary. The reason you do a job is to get money which is then used to pay for things that permit you to continue living. That is the nature of a job.

 

By inserting this dynamic into the equation, you are systemically inducing that there is a finite proportion of things which in turn cause the effect that without so the existence could not be continued as so, effectively bringing death into this.

 

If you are then saying now that a life where you don't have to worry about death is heaven, how is that different from what I stated about granting immortality but not heaven?

 

Quote

 

Your offer, on the other hand, is the equivalent of offering to make me a married bachelor. There can be no such thing, since it's a contradiction in terms. A world without sufficient sustenance to keep you alive is incompatible with eternal life. A world filled with warfare cannot be a world without death. These are contradictions, in the same way that a married bachelor is a contradiction.

Again, you seem to be contradicting yourself here. I also did mention before, or rather asked, what would happen if warfare broke out between eternals. A war without casualties, strictly speaking in terms of lives, is still a war regardless.

 

 

Quote

 

I never said anything to contradict this. You could just as easily argue that life brings "freedom from" that death doesn't.

 

Living people are free to have conversations. Dead people are not.

Living people are free from the inability to have conversations. Dead people are not.

 

It works either way.

 

What kind of freedom could death possibly give you? Freedom from life? Life isn't slavery. And I hate to go here, but the fact that you're still alive posting your comments suggests to me that you still value your life. There's some part of you that recognizes the absurdity of calling death the ultimate good, even if you won't admit it.

 

Life is good. Death is bad. It really is that simple.

Actually, you're wrong on these as well. Life is slavery, no matter how you want to go about it. You are bound by your needs and wants both physical and emotional, it's the reason we have phrases like "we are slaves to our desires".

 

Those needs and wants are like chains that you cannot break free from with life itself, only death brings you freedom from the chains of life. In death you have no wants or needs, therefore you will not and cannot pursue them, breaking those chains that keep you bound while you still breathe.

 

As for the discussion, that I post here isn't really indicative that I value my life. Life is essentially worthless or meaningless outside of what we each personally wish to give it. Which is one of the things I never have quite been able to grasp in the sense of understanding the stance people take on it. One moment they say life is what you make of it, but if you don't want to make anything that strictly abides by the collective standings, suddenly people get all bent out of shape instantly. Doesn't sound like they believe much, if anything of what they say and just mindlessly regurgitate information they have been told because they have been told it and because it earns them the favor of others. The peer pressure is real.

 

If death were to grace me with it's presence and told me "it's time to go" I would respond with "about damn time, you sure took your sweet time dragging your ass here"

 

 

[Gifted With Singleness]

9 hours ago, Jade Cross said:

Actually, you're wrong on these as well. Life is slavery, no matter how you want to go about it. You are bound by your needs and wants both physical and emotional, it's the reason we have phrases like "we are slaves to our desires".

 

Those needs and wants are like chains that you cannot break free from with life itself, only death brings you freedom from the chains of life. In death you have no wants or needs, therefore you will not and cannot pursue them, breaking those chains that keep you bound while you still breathe.

How is everything you said here NOT a moral justification for murder? Let me reiterate a point I made earlier. According to your beliefs, hospitals are the ultimate evil, since they perpetuate the slavery that is life, and genocide is the ultimate good, since it frees people from said slavery.

 

Honestly, everything else you've said is a moot point if we can't be on the same page on this. You seem to have this idea that life is only worth living if everything is absolutely 100% perfect and nothing bad ever happens ever. I fundamentally reject that notion. And no, we are not slaves to our desires. We have the ability to say no to our desires if we recognize that they're bad for us. It's called self-discipline.

[Lord Jade Cross]

2 hours ago, GiftedWithSingleness said:

How is everything you said here NOT a moral justification for murder? Let me reiterate a point I made earlier. According to your beliefs, hospitals are the ultimate evil, since they perpetuate the slavery that is life, and genocide is the ultimate good, since it frees people from said slavery.

I never said at any moment anything about murder nor encourage that one should go commit the act. What we've been discussing is life vs death. You stand on the side of life and I stand on the side of death.

Quote

 

Honestly, everything else you've said is a moot point if we can't be on the same page on this. You seem to have this idea that life is only worth living if everything is absolutely 100% perfect and nothing bad ever happens ever. I fundamentally reject that notion. And no, we are not slaves to our desires. We have the ability to say no to our desires if we recognize that they're bad for us. It's called self-discipline.

Self discipline is somewhat rarely employed by people, even if they know a particular desire is detrimental to them. Also when you are able to conciously stop being hungry, tired, apart from other things, I will believe one can rid themselves of their desires.

[Gifted With Singleness]

1 hour ago, Jade Cross said:

I never said at any moment anything about murder nor encourage that one should go commit the act. What we've been discussing is life vs death. You stand on the side of life and I stand on the side of death.

To believe that death is intrinsically good is to believe that murder is intrinsically good. Those beliefs are inseparable, because if death is good, then murder is a form of generosity. Unless you think generosity is evil, but that's an entirely different can of worms.

[ThePoint]

In my observation, many more people believe in afterlife for the sake of others, than for their own. That is, they miss their deceased loved ones and hope that they are now in a "better place". Some religious scholars claim that humans were practising burial for religious reasons (i.e. suggesting belief in an afterlife of some sort) up to 100k years ago. If you ask me, I find this fairly likely. They must have thought that "if mom is not here, she must have gone somewhere else", especially if they were later "visited" in their dreams. As someone else mentioned earlier, sleep and death look very alike and would likely even more so for primitive people. However it probably wasn't until many thousands years later that mysticism has flourished and people began to experience different states of mind that they have interpreted as afterlife and this idea of paradise could really take off.

[Lord Jade Cross]

19 hours ago, GiftedWithSingleness said:

To believe that death is intrinsically good is to believe that murder is intrinsically good. Those beliefs are inseparable

By who's standards?

[Gifted With Singleness]

1 hour ago, Jade Cross said:

By who's standards?

I literally explained in my previous comment, if you had bothered to read past what you quoted.

[Lord Jade Cross]

24 minutes ago, GiftedWithSingleness said:

I literally explained in my previous comment, if you had bothered to read past what you quoted.

I quoted because it didn't make sense. Just because I believe death to be a good thing, doesn't mean, nor does it imply that I'm telling people to go out and murder someone. A belief and an act are two separate things. Besides why would it be useful to murder? I'm only interested in my own. Others can deal with their lives however they please

 

[SithLord]

On ‎5‎/‎30‎/‎2020 at 3:46 PM, GiftedWithSingleness said:

Life is good. Death is bad. It really is that simple.

Even within Christianity, which I'm assuming you believe in based on your heaven-like afterlife preference, this is not necessarily the case. I don't really know anyone who would think poorly of a heaven-like afterlife, therefore I know some legitimate Christians who think positively about the idea of dying and moving on, and poorly about the thought of continuing to live. Hell, I've met some people who consider Earth to be Hell that they have to suffer through to get to Heaven with God. 

 

But personally I think such an afterlife doesn't make sense. I can generally understand reincarnation when it's like the world recycling souls, but not the morality judgement some involve where if you were bad you're reincarnated as an ant or something. But a heaven? Feels strange to me. 

[Gifted With Singleness]

48 minutes ago, Jade Cross said:

Besides why would it be useful to murder?

Says the person who literally thinks death is freedom from slavery.

 

If you had merely said that death is neutral, I never would have brought up the "murder is good" point. But that's not what you said. You said death is GOOD. There's a world of difference between something being neutral and something being good.

[Lord Jade Cross]

57 minutes ago, GiftedWithSingleness said:

Says the person who literally thinks death is freedom from slavery.

 

If you had merely said that death is neutral, I never would have brought up the "murder is good" point. But that's not what you said. You said death is GOOD. There's a world of difference between something being neutral and something being good.

It sounds more like you're taking the stance of the collective ideal whereby if someone doesn't agree with an idea that the masses believe, they must automatically be attributed any and all negative characteristics. 

 

In this case you're pretty much calling me a murderer and I have never killed anyone nor am I interested in that. As I mentioned before Im only interested in my own. 

[Gifted With Singleness]

59 minutes ago, Jade Cross said:

It sounds more like you're taking the stance if the collective ideal whereby if someone doesn't agree with an idea that the masses believe, they must automatically be attributed any and all negative characteristics. In this case you're pretty much calling me a murderer and I have never killed anyone nor am I interested in that. As I mentioned before Im only interested in my own. 

I wasn't accusing you of murder. What I said was, if you think death is good but murder is bad, then your beliefs are logically inconsistent. That's what I was accusing you of: logical inconsistency.

 

Let's recap:

You said that death is good. You didn't make any caveats, nor did you restrict this to yourself. You didn't say that death is only good if you consent to it. You didn't say that death is only good if you're guilty of a crime that warrants it. No, your position is that death is a universal good, meaning that literally every single instance of death is a good thing. No ifs, ands, or buts. It logically follows from this that every instance of killing causes a good thing to happen and is therefore good.

 

To put it another way: Suppose that a random person kills me completely out of nowhere. A bunch of people gather at my funeral and shout, "Hip hip hooray! GiftedWithSingleness is dead! This is the best day ever!" They are unbelievably ecstatic, and they can't help but jump up and down with joy. To clarify, they don't believe I have gone to a better place. They believe I will stay dead for all eternity, and they could not be happier.

 

If these people are right to cheer, then what justification does anyone have to be mad at my killer? What reason is there to push him through the criminal justice system so that he can be punished? What evil has he committed? After all, he has given me the best thing anyone can possibly give me: death. He has freed me from the life that enslaves me. He is my savior and my hero.

 

Now let's change the story a bit. Let's suppose that I didn't actually die in the first place. I was simply in a deep sleep. However, I manage to wake up in my casket at the beginning of the funeral, and I hear all of the very loud rejoicing that takes place. Then, at the end of the funeral, I open my casket and reveal myself to still be alive. Everyone is horrified, not because of the element of surprise or because they think I'm a zombie or something, but simply because I am alive. They were having such a great time celebrating my death, and now everything's ruined. They all shout, "Why are you still alive? This is horrible!"

 

Am I supposed to believe that these people love me? That they want what's best for me? Because I can tell you right now that, if a situation like this were to ever happen in real life, I'd be extremely pissed off.

[Skipper Valvoline]

Some things I've mused to myself on lazy days:

 

There is no death where there is no life. As such, the concept of death could only have been introduced simultaneously with the concept of life.

 

Does a rock die? No. It can be crushed and melted down, but that is not 'death'... that is a change the rock undergoes. Does a star die? We may call it a 'death' but it is really another change, since a star is not technically 'alive' to die in the first place. It is another change. Atoms join and separate, chemical reactions occur, energy is lost to heat... these have all been happening since the beginning of the universe, but they are all changes, not death.

 

So, then, if death was introduced when life was introduced, why wouldn't some idea spring up that it is not the end? Why wouldn't some thinkers conclude that death is yet just another change in this universe? And if death is a change of state, from one life to the next, or on to an 'afterlife', then that means...

 

It's all very curious to consider.

[Lord Jade Cross]

1 hour ago, GiftedWithSingleness said:

I wasn't accusing you of murder. What I said was, if you think death is good but murder is bad, then your beliefs are logically inconsistent. That's what I was accusing you of: logical inconsistency.

 

Let's recap:

You said that death is good. You didn't make any caveats, nor did you restrict this to yourself. You didn't say that death is only good if you consent to it. You didn't say that death is only good if you're guilty of a crime that warrants it. No, your position is that death is a universal good, meaning that literally every single instance of death is a good thing. No ifs, ands, or buts. It logically follows from this that every instance of killing causes a good thing to happen and is therefore good.

 

To put it another way: Suppose that a random person kills me completely out of nowhere. A bunch of people gather at my funeral and shout, "Hip hip hooray! GiftedWithSingleness is dead! This is the best day ever!" They are unbelievably ecstatic, and they can't help but jump up and down with joy. To clarify, they don't believe I have gone to a better place. They believe I will stay dead for all eternity, and they could not be happier.

 

If these people are right to cheer, then what justification does anyone have to be mad at my killer? What reason is there to push him through the criminal justice system so that he can be punished? What evil has he committed? After all, he has given me the best thing anyone can possibly give me: death. He has freed me from the life that enslaves me. He is my savior and my hero.

 

Now let's change the story a bit. Let's suppose that I didn't actually die in the first place. I was simply in a deep sleep. However, I manage to wake up in my casket at the beginning of the funeral, and I hear all of the very loud rejoicing that takes place. Then, at the end of the funeral, I open my casket and reveal myself to still be alive. Everyone is horrified, not because of the element of surprise or because they think I'm a zombie or something, but simply because I am alive. They were having such a great time celebrating my death, and now everything's ruined. They all shout, "Why are you still alive? This is horrible!"

 

Am I supposed to believe that these people love me? That they want what's best for me? Because I can tell you right now that, if a situation like this were to ever happen in real life, I'd be extremely pissed off.

You've already answered your own question here so whatever I say will be of little consequence.

 

However I'll raise you an example, which may prove interesting, that will follow the same rules but with the outcome that follows the news of death as it is now in the world; sadness, grief, regret, etc

 

Say you're very sick and your only salvation is immediate, medical surgery. Now the process is available but unfortunately it costs quite the large amount of money that you cannot pay for nor have any type of assistance you can resort to in order to achieve it.

In essence you are left with two options: pay or die.

 

Now a hospital and medical personnel are supposed to be agents that study to prolong life, in fact that's kind of a given oath of sorts and when asked, every hospital employee says that they are there to help you; yet here you are, on the verge of losing yours because you simply don't have the monetary resources to cover a life saving operation. If you die because you could not pay the operation, is the hospital shut down?, the doctors/med personnel fined, fired and/or jailed? Are your funeral expenses paid for by the hospital?

 

You can also consider this alternate scenario. Say you are under treatment but are basically severely limited/confined to a hospital bed. You cannot do much of anything, however keeping you alive, with any and all matter of methods is possible, at the expense of pain ever day for as long as you live. You are given the option of assisted suicide. Do you take it?

[Gifted With Singleness]

12 minutes ago, Jade Cross said:

Say you're very sick and your only salvation is immediate, medical surgery. Now the process is available but unfortunately it costs quite the large amount of money that you cannot pay for nor have any type of assistance you can resort to in order to achieve it. In essence you are left with two options pay or die. Now a hospital and medical personnel are supposed to be agents that study to prolong life, yet here you are, on the verge of losing yours because you simply don't have the monetary resources to cover a life saving operation. If you die because you could not pay the operation, is the hospital shut down?, the doctors/med personnel fined and/or jailed? Are your funeral expenses paid?

Withholding treatment is not the same thing as actively killing someone. So, while this situation would be tragic, it is not criminal, unless some other aspect of the story changes the moral calculus.

 

Besides, hospitals have limited resources and aren't able to heal everyone they would like to. Just look at what happened when COVID-19 first hit Italy. People kept catching the disease way too quickly for hospitals to keep up with. Tragedies like these are not the fault of hospitals. Murder is the fault of the murderer. That's the difference.

 

Speaking of which, I never said that your beliefs regarding death made murder obligatory (like you seem to want to make me say regarding hospital treatment). Rather, the implication of your beliefs is that murder, when it happens, is a cause for celebration. Just like I can celebrate hospital treatment without mandating it.

[Lord Jade Cross]

2 minutes ago, GiftedWithSingleness said:

So, while this situation would be tragic, it is not criminal, unless some other aspect of the story changes the moral calculus.

This is the key phrase

[Gifted With Singleness]

14 minutes ago, Jade Cross said:

This is the key phrase

What's your point?