Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2018
- Messages
- 5,167
@KappaNanpa It's alright and thx for listening
Isekai Transporter
- Thread starter MangaDex
- Start date
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2018
- Messages
- 774
Member
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2019
- Messages
- 66
😂😂 great satire 😂😂
@Oeconomist It's murder if you have to die first and get a new body. 🤣
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2018
- Messages
- 5,156
@Mapax—
The legal definition of “die” and hence of “murder” has varied across time and across jurisdictions. The moral definition of “murder” requires a definition of “die” appropriate to morality. The victims in this case do not cease to be persons with agency, so I think that it's quite misleading to refer to them as having “died” or having been “murdered”, though they are still victimized and in some cases very greatly victimized.
The legal definition of “die” and hence of “murder” has varied across time and across jurisdictions. The moral definition of “murder” requires a definition of “die” appropriate to morality. The victims in this case do not cease to be persons with agency, so I think that it's quite misleading to refer to them as having “died” or having been “murdered”, though they are still victimized and in some cases very greatly victimized.
@Oeconomist How is it misleading? It is not a matter of moral definition, it's a matter of medical definition. If they botch the job and the victim goes into a coma, he/she does not cross over, therefore he/she needs to die, and making that happen is cold-blooded murder. In fact, plenty of Isekai mange explicitly states that the main character was killed.
If you must discuss the morality of it, then one might argue that it is a fate worse than death. As there are deities in this universe, it is conceivable that there is heaven as well. So instead of going to heaven, the victims is forced to fight for an entity he/she has no relation to. The fact that they earn a lot for brining someone over makes it worse. Essentially, they kill a person and make him/her a slave; morality wise, that's worse than murder!
If you must discuss the morality of it, then one might argue that it is a fate worse than death. As there are deities in this universe, it is conceivable that there is heaven as well. So instead of going to heaven, the victims is forced to fight for an entity he/she has no relation to. The fact that they earn a lot for brining someone over makes it worse. Essentially, they kill a person and make him/her a slave; morality wise, that's worse than murder!
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2018
- Messages
- 5,156
@Mapax—
It's misleading because the victim continues to live.
The medical definition of “die” has also changed over time, and there is no medical definition of “murder”. You're not merely trying to misapply the lexicon of one sort of discussion to discussion of a different sort; you're mixing and matching different lexica to try to make your case.
It isn't enough to say that the writer him- or herself uses the word “die”. One has to know what the writer meant by that word in that context, and what word would carry the same meaning in the relevant context. In the context of a discussion of morality — which was what was underway — the word “die” is misleading because the victim continues to live.
And, yes, some victims may suffer a fate worse than death. That's also true in the real world of some victims who do not die.
It's misleading because the victim continues to live.
The medical definition of “die” has also changed over time, and there is no medical definition of “murder”. You're not merely trying to misapply the lexicon of one sort of discussion to discussion of a different sort; you're mixing and matching different lexica to try to make your case.
It isn't enough to say that the writer him- or herself uses the word “die”. One has to know what the writer meant by that word in that context, and what word would carry the same meaning in the relevant context. In the context of a discussion of morality — which was what was underway — the word “die” is misleading because the victim continues to live.
And, yes, some victims may suffer a fate worse than death. That's also true in the real world of some victims who do not die.
Member
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2019
- Messages
- 30
Marvel Director: Avengers is most ambitious crossover in the world.
This Manga: Hold my truck.
This Manga: Hold my truck.
@Oeconomist The victim does NOT continue to live, he/she is reborn. If reincarnation is considered continued living, then there would be no murder or death in Buddhism or other religions; yet in medieval times when such religions was practiced by whole civilizations, there was no misleading of the definition of murder and death in the context of law. You do not see the coroner equivalent of such cultures at such times saying "This is not murder, the victim continues to live"
The medical definition of death has changed with time, yes, yet in each of the said definitions of death, they all apply to the victims in this manga. If anything the modern medical definition of death is the most stringent yet, it is explained in terms of heart beats and brain activity, instead of how loose the definition was in the past that people would tie a string on the toe of buried deceased and tie it to a bell where "saved by the bell" comes from.
And yes, of course there are no medical definitions of murder, that's a law term; in which case, is the unlawful killing of a person, which applies here.
The medical definition of death has changed with time, yes, yet in each of the said definitions of death, they all apply to the victims in this manga. If anything the modern medical definition of death is the most stringent yet, it is explained in terms of heart beats and brain activity, instead of how loose the definition was in the past that people would tie a string on the toe of buried deceased and tie it to a bell where "saved by the bell" comes from.
And yes, of course there are no medical definitions of murder, that's a law term; in which case, is the unlawful killing of a person, which applies here.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2018
- Messages
- 5,156
@Mapax—
You shouldn't confuse religions that believe in reincarnation involving no sense of past life with those that believe in an immortal (=undying) soul that retains that sense. More importantly, you shouldn't presuppose that these religions are generally metaphysically or morally coherent. Saying that lots of religions assert something and therefore I must accept it is not much better than saying that your religion asserts it and therefore I must accept it.
Yes, “murder” is a legal term; so is “die”. But, as a legal term, “die” means something different in law from what it means in medicine. And, in everyday discourse, “murder” means something different from what it means in law, while “die” has a meaning different both from the medical sense and from the legal sense. As I said, you're mixing and matching lexica in an attempt to defend your position, but the result is just an abuse of language. For a proper discussion of morality, one doesn't thoughtlessly confuse the vocabulary of medicine with that of law nor either with that of everyday conversation.
We have seen it argued in court that a person has died or not died, because the legal definition of death had involved stoppage of the heart, but hearts have been successfully transplanted. The legal definition of “die” has at times failed for purposes of morality; the legal definition of “murder” has at times failed for purposes of morality.
You insist that people in these stories do not continue to live, because they do not live continuously; well, actually, there are things that are continual without being continuous; but, so far, you haven't shown that there is any discontinuity — that there is any moment in which the victim is not alive somewhere. You've just sort-of … presumed it, as if it were obvious.
When the alternate world exists in a different space-time, there is literally no meaning to any claim that the person was dead for some time between leaving one space-time and arriving in another, because time has no meaning outside of a space-time.
(In the case where there is time-travel into the future within the same space-time, we could say that the victim was not alive from the time at which she leapt until the time that she arrived, but that would be true in any story of travel into the future, with or without Truck-kun. In the case of time-travel into the past, the person would cease to be alive from the moment that she leapt, perhaps without ever being alive again in the future, but again this is true with or without Truck-kun. In either case, it would be silly to claim that time travel kills the person simply because he or she is not continuously alive.)
What is relevant for the moral question in these stories of whether the person has been murdered or otherwise has died is whether there is an internal experience that is not followed by another. If there is, then he or she has died; otherwise, the victimization is of a different sort.
You shouldn't confuse religions that believe in reincarnation involving no sense of past life with those that believe in an immortal (=undying) soul that retains that sense. More importantly, you shouldn't presuppose that these religions are generally metaphysically or morally coherent. Saying that lots of religions assert something and therefore I must accept it is not much better than saying that your religion asserts it and therefore I must accept it.
Yes, “murder” is a legal term; so is “die”. But, as a legal term, “die” means something different in law from what it means in medicine. And, in everyday discourse, “murder” means something different from what it means in law, while “die” has a meaning different both from the medical sense and from the legal sense. As I said, you're mixing and matching lexica in an attempt to defend your position, but the result is just an abuse of language. For a proper discussion of morality, one doesn't thoughtlessly confuse the vocabulary of medicine with that of law nor either with that of everyday conversation.
We have seen it argued in court that a person has died or not died, because the legal definition of death had involved stoppage of the heart, but hearts have been successfully transplanted. The legal definition of “die” has at times failed for purposes of morality; the legal definition of “murder” has at times failed for purposes of morality.
You insist that people in these stories do not continue to live, because they do not live continuously; well, actually, there are things that are continual without being continuous; but, so far, you haven't shown that there is any discontinuity — that there is any moment in which the victim is not alive somewhere. You've just sort-of … presumed it, as if it were obvious.
When the alternate world exists in a different space-time, there is literally no meaning to any claim that the person was dead for some time between leaving one space-time and arriving in another, because time has no meaning outside of a space-time.
(In the case where there is time-travel into the future within the same space-time, we could say that the victim was not alive from the time at which she leapt until the time that she arrived, but that would be true in any story of travel into the future, with or without Truck-kun. In the case of time-travel into the past, the person would cease to be alive from the moment that she leapt, perhaps without ever being alive again in the future, but again this is true with or without Truck-kun. In either case, it would be silly to claim that time travel kills the person simply because he or she is not continuously alive.)
What is relevant for the moral question in these stories of whether the person has been murdered or otherwise has died is whether there is an internal experience that is not followed by another. If there is, then he or she has died; otherwise, the victimization is of a different sort.
@Oeconomist If one's existence or life, is preserved by the retention of memory; given that there are gods in this fictional universe, and therefore the likely existence of heaven and hell; are you saying there is essentially no murder in this universe given that memories and souls are retained?
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2018
- Messages
- 5,156
@Mapax—
First, the notion that Heaven and Hell become likely if there are gods is purely an artefact of your culture.
Second, if persons merely inhabit bodies, and continue after their bodies are rendered uninhabited (and perhaps uninhabitable), then rendering bodies uninhabitable is a fundamentally different violation than one that brings those persons to an end. But one might imagine a universe in which an afterlife were possible, but not not necessary, which is to say a universe in which each violation were a possibility.
Imagine a device in Colorado that worked in a peculiar way. If you were thrown into this device, two things would happen. One, you would be teleported to Switzerland; and, two, a duplicate of your body would be created in the device, except that its skull would be crushed and its brain reduced to a mess. Did throwing you into the device murder you? Operationally, this device is quite indistinguishable from one that makes a wreck of your original body while creating a living, breathing duplicate of you in Switzerland.
The Isekai Transporter does pretty much the same thing, except that people are sent to someplace other than Switzerland. Given the possibility of an Isekai Transporter, it might do everything that it does in this story except that the victims went to Switzerland instead of to some alternate world.
First, the notion that Heaven and Hell become likely if there are gods is purely an artefact of your culture.
Second, if persons merely inhabit bodies, and continue after their bodies are rendered uninhabited (and perhaps uninhabitable), then rendering bodies uninhabitable is a fundamentally different violation than one that brings those persons to an end. But one might imagine a universe in which an afterlife were possible, but not not necessary, which is to say a universe in which each violation were a possibility.
Imagine a device in Colorado that worked in a peculiar way. If you were thrown into this device, two things would happen. One, you would be teleported to Switzerland; and, two, a duplicate of your body would be created in the device, except that its skull would be crushed and its brain reduced to a mess. Did throwing you into the device murder you? Operationally, this device is quite indistinguishable from one that makes a wreck of your original body while creating a living, breathing duplicate of you in Switzerland.
The Isekai Transporter does pretty much the same thing, except that people are sent to someplace other than Switzerland. Given the possibility of an Isekai Transporter, it might do everything that it does in this story except that the victims went to Switzerland instead of to some alternate world.
@Oeconomist you know, it's a simple yes or no question.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2018
- Messages
- 5,156
@Oeconomist It's fine if you do not want to answer because you know you are in the wrong, it is not like anyone is judging you other than yourself.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2018
- Messages
- 5,156
@Mapax—
Nope: [ul]First, you asked a question both [ul]that slips-in one or two mistaken assumptions and
that isn't clear because it isn't grammatic (which is why I can't even tell whether you are slipping in one mistaken assumption or two mistaken assumptions). [/ul]Second, you in particular are trying to persuade any reader to judge me both as wrong and as knowing that I'm wrong.
Third, in spite of the mess that you made of your question, I did my best to provide what would be needed to arrive at an answer to whatever question you intended or to whatever question some other reader might think that you intended.
Finally, you haven't subsequently tried asking a proper question. I'll let people judge for themselves what to make of that failure.[/ul]
Nope: [ul]First, you asked a question both [ul]that slips-in one or two mistaken assumptions and
that isn't clear because it isn't grammatic (which is why I can't even tell whether you are slipping in one mistaken assumption or two mistaken assumptions). [/ul]Second, you in particular are trying to persuade any reader to judge me both as wrong and as knowing that I'm wrong.
Third, in spite of the mess that you made of your question, I did my best to provide what would be needed to arrive at an answer to whatever question you intended or to whatever question some other reader might think that you intended.
Finally, you haven't subsequently tried asking a proper question. I'll let people judge for themselves what to make of that failure.[/ul]
@Oeconomist Let me make it simple for you. Your entire premises of the morality of murder is based upon the retention of a sense of self and memory, is that correct?
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2018
- Messages
- 5,156
Similar threads
