Why shouldn't I eat a baby?

Okay, let me try to understand what the hell you're saying: You want to eat a baby because you think all life is meaningless? Have you even considered that the life that your considering to take might be meaningful to someone else, like the child's parents and family?

If you think life is so damn meaningless, do us all a favor and go roast (and eat) yourself.

Isn't it a bit of a paradox to say something is objectively meaningless? To declare presence or absence of a meaning is in itself subjective. Would you aim to be 'completely objective', you couldn't call anything meaningless or meaningful, good or bad, right or wrong, yadda yadda.

Personally I would see killing a baby abandoned in a dumbster as a merciful act, and what happens to the body is not a matter of concern. The reasons why people usually don't usually eat babies is much more of a psychological question than anything else, and can be explain at the same manner than the other things people do or don't do. Starting from our genetical traits as humans and ending to socialization and other similar stuff that my highschool level knowledge about the subject isn't enough to cover.

Humans have a habit of forgetting they are humans, I guess.

If that is what you wish then I shall try debating with you and see if we can reach a mutual conclusion.

You say moral ethics vary from person to person. As you say, if eating babies is immoral to many people, it isn't to you. Therefore, I shall present to you this argument: You should not eat a baby because human morality dictates that killing your own kind, one that is infantile and defenseless and poses no harm to you even, is wrong.

The only way your morality would be acceptable is if you become something less, or greater, than a human. Otherwise, you are bound by a subconscious moral code against killing. After all, instinctively we protect the weak and defenseless of our kind. It is our minds that can either believe it or otherwise.

I think this is a Troll's thread. Nobody in the right mind would ever consider eating a baby.

Although I did say, the right mind.

I think all philosophy was made to troll people...

Because that's disgusting and it will likely make you sick. /thread

This is SO going on my list of favorite quotes

The meaning of life is subjective, but even if it wasn't, your "eat a baby" analogy does't fit; that analogy would only be accurate if everyone else's life had no meaning, not all life having no meaning

Well I don't really care if you eat a random baby. I mean so many people I don't know die every day what is one more? As long as it not someone I know or has conections with people I know it won't affect me at all.

Though from the point of view of society or law every human life has equal rights so you would be punished as to discourage others from doing the same.

Utilitarianism philosophy is what laws are based upon, so that's all fine and dandy.

Nihilism like OP however, is just plain stupid.

exactly. The OP made a logical leap that added up into a complete nonsequitor.

1. There is no objective value to human life.
Conclusion: there is no value to human life.

WAIT A MINUTE! YOU SKIPPED A STEP! You have to determine that there's no SUBJECTIVE value too, before you decide there's no meaning altogether. If there is no objective value to life, it follows that there never was. Which means we came up with laws for a different reason than presupposing an objective absolute value of life. That standard being, "I value life, and you value life, so let's make sure peopel that don't, don't take part in our society."

Nothing wrong with nihilism by itself, and OP does carry a point in his statement. However, as I earlier said, OP's question is pointless, since he is looking for logic within such a subjective topic, and subjectivism is never completely logical.

Ah yes, i meant moral nihilism sorry.

Oh, yes of course, i should have gotten that. Indeed, 'moral nihilism'* is retarded, as the concept of morals completely counteracts the core idea of nihilism itself.**

*I might add that I use the term 'moral nihilism' for those nihilists that believe in morals, rather than the opposite. It has come to my attention that wikipedia lists 'moral nihilism' together with amoralism, contrary to what I meant.

**Debatable perhaps, but w/e.

I believe its our emotions that govern our morals. If I killed someone in a crowded bus, everyone would freak out because their emotions (fear, confusion, anxiety..) would be telling them something about that particular action was wrong (Immoral). Soldiers who have experience killing end up coming back home fucked up psychologically/emotionally. To make matters more complex, there are people who are living in violent environments 24/7. The norms of a modern civilization doesn't apply to them, so you might read stories about 3rd world civilians resorting to cannibalism just to survive (they wouldn't resort to something like that without good reason).

With that said, the most dangerous person is one devoid of emotions (especially one in power). Without emotions, that person's values are warped (Perhaps even nonexistent). Those are the type of people who wouldn't mind eating a dumpster baby without a cause. They are incapable of looking at things from a subjective point of view (which is vital for a human to have since we are social animals).

I thin My question is sufficiently answered then. The subjective meaning of human life is sufficient for me to care about it. Thanks BigLundi for clearing that up. Perhaps emotions should be considered after all. Thanks to everyone who took the topic seriously without asking me to kill myself. If It wasn't clear before, I am an absurdist, but as a person with feelings who naturally places subjective value on things and can recognize the subjective value others place I still treat people in a reasonably kind manner. I was merely wondering whether that was sufficient reason to warrant my actions. Okay so my next question is: Does the inevitable end to the universe mean that all human action is irrelevant, except for one that might perhaps stop the end of the universe?

That was my serious answer.

Oh sorry. I didn't think t was serious because you implied I was being hypocritical which I don't see how I was being. I was stating that no life is meaningful or has any value so actions like eating a baby are permissible. Telling me to kill myself doesn't resolve the question as suicide is also permissible under this framework though not necessarily obligatory.

I think that question depends on people who dwell in the past, live for the present or focus on the future. I focus more on the future (I think you do as well OP) and I think the universe dies and get reborn like a phoenix (This idea is a part of my personal religion). Everything has a purpose regardless of what we may think. Someday the Earth will be obliterated by the very sun that provides life. However, that destruction may breed creation on some other planet(s)/satellite(s). The laws of the universe are laws for a reason, and that is to keep order and balance for the sake of longevity. Humans and other living creatures are a byproduct of energy and matter (I guess you could say we are mini-verses), but we easily forget that without them we wouldn't function.

So, if our actions are irrelevant, then so is the universe, but that isn't the case. Through the workings of the universe we evolved into beings that think, socialize and reproduce (rinse and repeat). Even through death we contribute to the earth by providing it fertilizer for plants (the circle of life).

Firstly, y're welcome...Iguess...for helping you realize...why you ought not eat babies. *shrug*

And secondly, as to your second question...irrelevant to what?

that was the point.