Humanism

Fellow Unbelievers,

There is another consideration to account for here: Gravesites are real property mixed with human labor, enclosed, and claimed from the state of Nature.

All real property is owned by someone, and ownership means the right of the owner to set the terms and conditions for the real property’s use and, above all, the right to…[Read more]

Simon Paynton wrote:

Davis wrote:

I think the possibility of hurting or upsetting other people is significant enough to make an easily avoidable pointless activity one I wouldn’t do.

You’re talking about upsetting people (i.e., causing harm) for intangible rather than tangible reasons. Sometimes this seems acceptable, sometimes it doe…

[Read more]

Davis wrote:

I think the possibility of hurting or upsetting other people is significant enough to make an easily avoidable pointless activity one I wouldn’t do.

You’re talking about upsetting people (i.e., causing harm) for intangible rather than tangible reasons.  Sometimes this seems acceptable, sometimes it doesn’t.

Davis wrote:

I think the possibility of hurting or upsetting other people is significant enough to make an easily avoidable pointless activity one I wouldn’t do. If there are 1,000,000 equally good places to picnic and I instead choose 1 location where my activity could potentially hurt/upset a person, with no added value to doing it there…I thi…

[Read more]

Different norms (benefit/harm; respecting the dead; etc.) can clash or have different goals or structures.

This is certainly the case but I don’t think this would invalidate the rule. I mean, if suddenly a large number of people started getting upset if I used the words “marble, pickle and mirror” in the same sentence…I wouldn’t go out of my way…[Read more]

I think the possibility of hurting or upsetting other people is significant enough to make an easily avoidable pointless activity one I wouldn’t do. If there are 1,000,000 equally good places to picnic and I instead choose 1 location where my activity could potentially hurt/upset a person, with no added value to doing it there…I think it’s a…[Read more]

Kristina wrote:

relying on norms to govern behaviour has some questionable utility. I am sure there are cases where it is valuable, but I can also point to cases where it is causing harm. I would suggest that erring on the side of caution would be to rely on such norms as sparingly as possible, or at the very least to invest more in keeping…

[Read more]

Simon Paynton wrote:

Kristina wrote:

But when it’s being posed as an ethical hypothetical, I do think it is important to not pander to normative values too much.

But what if it’s a potential reality? There would be no transgressive benefit in having a picnic on someone’s grave, it wouldn’t benefit anybody, except that the people having the pic…

[Read more]

Kristina wrote:

But when it’s being posed as an ethical hypothetical, I do think it is important to not pander to normative values too much.

But what if it’s a potential reality?  There would be no transgressive benefit in having a picnic on someone’s grave, it wouldn’t benefit anybody, except that the people having the picnic would have a ni…[Read more]

Davis wrote:

I would agree with you Kristina. But this is a deontological moral law. So it is always relative to the person to frames the law (even if they will that others also follow that law). In that sense, if you do have a good reason to challenge it then the law wouldn’t follow.

I guess what I am getting as is I don’t think I could form a r…[Read more]

I would agree with you Kristina. But this is a deontological moral law. So it is always relative to the person to frames the law (even if they will that others also follow that law). In that sense, if you do have a good reason to challenge it then the law wouldn’t follow. Since I cannot for the life of me think of a reason why having a picnic on…[Read more]

Kristina wrote:

The problem is, the suffering of the bereaved and what causes it is variable. It may seem like a simple issue to resolve when we consider that no one is likely offended that people don’t have picnics on their loved one’s grave sites, whereas at least some (many?) people are offended when people do have picnics on their loved one…

[Read more]

 are heavily outweighed by the consequences to the bereaved family. In other words it is difficult to imagine how “someone feeling empowered to have a picnic in place x when a million other places are just as convenient at the cost of hurting the bereaved and violating a solemn space” could contribute in any way to the maximising general soci…

[Read more]

I understand the resistance to saying: yes it is immoral or no it is not. Because it is a difficult one to defend (not because it is necessarily relative). It seems  the general answer here is: it is in bad taste.

However I do believe it is immoral in some moral systems. Deontological, utilitarian or virtue ethics to name just three (though it…[Read more]

Robert and Reg,

You are both right here too.  Quality people as company should be an understood in fine dining outdoors.

Eduard Manet had a possible right idea in his Déjeuner Sur l’Herbe (Luncheon on the Grass) which, of course, you could vary to taste:

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Edouard_Manet_024.jpg

Over the last year I have moved some people I was acquainted with into my “poison pool”. I will no longer seek to engage with them in any format.  These are people who always seem to want something from me or if not, have nothing positive to say about other people.  I had time to reflect and had a few “Hang on a minute” moments.

I suppose I do t…[Read more]

All due respect to the dead, of course, but they just aren’t good, fun conversation over great food.

The dead in their silence are much more pleasant than many of the people around here. The plague has taught me again that I am happier without them and I that I should be more selective with my associations. I learned this once before when trying t…[Read more]

Davis and Fellow Unbelievers,

I’d much rather be surrounded by life and lively things on an outdoor eating excursion.

All due respect to the dead, of course, but they just aren’t good, fun conversation over great food.

I see what you might be doing, Simon, but let the non-existent bury the non-existent. 😉

Simon Paynton wrote:

I wouldn’t sit on somebody’s tomb and have a picnic, unless it was about 2000 years old.

A 2000 year old gravesite would likely be a national monument or world historical site, so you’d probably be subject to arrest.