Life of Pi

[Bong Lover]

sapphi_snake said:

Bong Lover said:

You are skirting the issue or I am not framing the question clearly enough. In a world where there is nothing except physics and mechanics, why does a concept like 'progress' have any meaning? It doesn't make a difference to the atoms that make up a human if the human is alive or dead. What does gravity care about progress and coexsisiting within a society? In fact, by bringing up these justifications for norms you imply some form of 'supernatural' exsistence (perhaps "unwillingly"?). Why is progress and coexisting desirable and better than death and annihilation? In a mechanical world view there is nothing to place one as better than the other. You can't measure how 'good' something is using physics or math. (For reference, by supernatural I mean something that can't be observed and measured scientifically)

Also, this discussion really has nothing to do with religion even though you keep trying to bring this back to that topic. Religion is just an attempt by humans to frame these 'supernatural' concepts. That people have used it as a tool for thousands of years to divide, control, manipulate and murder other people is tragic, but not really relevant to the question. (Also, I think you'll find that in a world without any form of religion you would still have attrocities).

Finally, I don't think you are getting the full depth of the Life of Pi, and I am sure you feel the same about me. Let me just round out that part of the discussion by saying that I don't see Pi's actions as attrocious, rather quite heroic in all their grusomeness.

Now I fully get your question. My answer: Why not? I exist, I might as well make the best of it. If that's not good enough, you're free to kill yourself. And since I intend to be aroud 'till I naturally die, I aim to make my existence as pleasent as possible (and things like progress and coexisting make that possible). What "supernatural" existence am I "unwillingly" implying?

And since when is murdering someone and eating them a "heroic" act?

This answer does little to solve the puzzle. Fine, you aim to live a long life enhanced by progress and coexisting. What about the countless people who aim for detonating a nuclear bomb in a large city? What makes your choise 'good' and their choise 'bad'?

Without something that exsists outside of the mechanical universe there is nothing to judge the two different actions against each other. It's all just particles in motion anyway. The mechanical universe doesn't care one way or the other if I live and think or if I die and decompose. Basically, how does my desire to live carry more weight then someone elses desire for me to die? The right to life is not a law of nature. A purely mechanical universe have no normative rules what so ever. So without allowing for something that exsists outside of physical reality it's impossible to create a system of ethics  that is consistent.

It's important to note though that the fundament for normative rules doesn't have to be religion. It can be any number of things, but to my knowledge it can't be inferred from matter. If you know how that is basically what I started asking about. There has to be something outside of the physical representation of things that define what is good or bad. Be it that life has a value somehow in itself, or a rule made by a God somewhere or whatever.

And lastly, Pi survives for more than 220 days on a life raft in the pacific, with a homicidal madman that he eventually manages to kill. He stays alive by eating human flesh as a last resort. The killing of the crazed chef is completely justified both as a matter of self defense and as retribution for the chefs behavior, and eating human meat is also justifiable if it perserves your own life. To me Pi shows an unbendable will to survive which is heroic.