Why is it morally wrong to bring back the dead?

[solidbatman]

Why not close this thread already? 

1) People cannot come back to life after being ded

 

2) It will never be possible

 

3) Arguing morality on the internet is like trying to swim with sharks while covered in blood. 

 

/thread

[Kaguya]

Quoting myself cuz I kinda knew a topic of this type would end up like this.

I disagree. Debating this type of thing is pretty fun, so the point is entertainment. Well, at least to me~

 

Now, Okami, most contraception methods to stop birth are flawed, so you'd be either forcing tons of people into abortion or go killing off people to make our population stable- either way, it's not something most people would agree to. Then again, this would only be a big problem if everyone in the world had a way to revive other people and that way was relatively cheap. Make it cost 1 million dollars for person and surely less people would be revived. 

 

Otherwise, people might as well go in a revival spree. You make your grandma go back to life, she does that to her mother, who does that to her mother and etc. Population would plannet in a way faster ratio than nii-chan suggests, I believe.

[Stray Cat]

First of all globally looking we don't have overpopulation problems yet, and cetern countries had already dealt with this problem, like China they had overpopulation problems and they dealt with it by using one of forms of birth control and currently they don't have a big problem any more they even started lowering their birth control measures.

 

 

Yes if you put enough harsh punishment for breaking a role and you take serous measures to catch everyone who's breaking them they would have to respect those rules.

I'm going to post this because it's a really good explanation of the general issue. 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VcSX4ytEfcE

 

You say we don't have overpopulation problems yet.  I'm pretty sure India, Indonesia, and many other countries will disagree with you on that one.  China has managed to stop growing at the moment but they still have lots of issues, mainly providing enough food and not destroying their environment.  As Nosebleed as discussed, removing human death from the natural cycle would be a huge problem.  With the case of China, there was a lot of rebellion and protest that occurred and still occurs to this policy.  People didn't just roll-over and accept this.  They ran away from the government and had their children anyway.   These small mistakes were acceptable because people were still dying and enough people complied to make the plan a success. However, if no one died, these mistakes would be catastrophic and enough of the earth would eventually collapse. 

 

So unless you're planning on implementing a "Kill every new baby born" plan, I don't see this working.   Regardless, I don't see this working because humans will inevitably rebel. 

[Eclipsed]

I disagree. Debating this type of thing is pretty fun, so the point is entertainment. Well, at least to me~

 

But that's the thing. The only value in debating a topic of this type is as you said: entertainment, nothing else (since everything will be hypothetical and nothing will actually really happen).

Sooo yeah you're right.

I change my statement to "pointless unless you want some entertainment" xD

 

Why not close this thread already? 

1) People cannot come back to life after being ded

 

2) It will never be possible

 

3) Arguing morality on the internet is like trying to swim with sharks while covered in blood. 

 

/thread

+1

 

 

 

 

Again, I think what people don't realize is that immortality does not pertain to youth, and as such we would all look atrocious and be walking vegetables. So I ask why bringing back the dead would be a good thing for people considering the fact that everyone would be a rotted corpse.

 

Good point. I tend to assume immortality = never aging as well.

But since this whole discussion is hypothetical anyway, let's just assume so

[Okami]

Tyrant!!! 

 

Punishing serous crimes seriously is not being tyrant, in case like this breaking berth control law would be a serous crime just as mass murder because if it ware allowed it would lead to a chaos.

 

 

I suggest you read this wikipedia article, it'll explain what a coup d'état is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coup_d%27%C3%A9tat

 

 

There will always be terrorist that's not much different now.

 

 

Well since my 1st post was hidden for some odd reason even though I don't feel it was derailment, I will change how I word it.

 

Again, I think what people don't realize is that immortality does not pertain to youth, and as such we would all look atrocious and be walking vegetables. So I ask why bringing back the dead would be a good thing for people considering the fact that everyone would be a rotted corpse.

 

I think that we are assuming that we wouldn't be revived as zombies.

[Kaguya]

Well since my 1st post was hidden for some odd reason even though I don't feel it was derailment, I will change how I word it.

 

Again, I think what people don't realize is that immortality does not pertain to youth, and as such we would all look atrocious and be walking vegetables. So I ask why bringing back the dead would be a good thing for people considering the fact that everyone would be a rotted corpse.

Because the discussion isn't about immortality in the first place, it's about revival. It's pretty much a discussion on fantasy, so bringing back someone in their teenager years or something like that doesn't sound too abnormal.

[Eclipsed]

Punishing serous crimes seriously is not being tyrant, in case like this breaking berth control law would be a serous crime just as mass murder because if it ware allowed it would lead to a chaos.

 

 

But who are you to say that birth control is a serious crime, let alone on par with the caliber of a mass murder crime?

You can't just establish rules and punishments and expect people to abide by it. Hence me and Flutter saying tyrant and coup'detat. You simply brushing it off as "it's not tyrant if it's a valid rule" (who are you to say its valid in the first place) and "there will always be terrorists" if people do in fact rebel against your said rule just screams arrogance.

[Flutterz]

There will always be terrorist that's not much different now.

I think you're misunderstanding. If you try to enforce harsh punishments for something 99% of the population wants to do, you'll be killed. Simple as that.

[OriginalRen]

Good point. I tend to assume immortality = never aging as well.

But since this whole discussion is hypothetical anyway, let's just assume so

I think that we are assuming that we wouldn't be revived as zombies.

 

Fair enough.

 

Because the discussion isn't about immortality in the first place, it's about revival. It's pretty much a discussion on fantasy, so bringing back someone in their teenager years or something like that doesn't sound too abnormal.

 

My original post did pose the question as to why people would want to revive anyone.

[Kaguya]

 

My original post did pose the question as to why people would want to revive anyone.

 

I don't know. I wouldn't want to revive anyone, yet it's what the discussion is about.  

Actually, we're all derailing since the first page. It's a discussion about "why is it morally wrong to bring back the dead", which has already been answered. I'll be closing the thread now.