“Imagine you are creating the fabric of human destiny, with the object of making men happy in the end, giving them peace and rest at last. But it was essential and inevitable to torture to death only one tiny creature and found that edifice on its un-avenged tears. Would you consent to be the architect on those conditions? Tell me, and tell the truth.”
Fyodor Dostoyevsky (1821 – 1881)
2006-10-28 09:10:39 · 29 answers · asked by true_strike 2 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
No, human happiness doesn't depend on torturing other living things. I couldn't do it.
2006-10-28 09:13:22 · answer #1 · answered by Older&Wiser 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Hasn't that been done? Jesus Christ? Well maybe. To answer the question, no I would not give man peace and rest. I think that perfect peace would be void of emotion, a sort of complete stoicism. I feel that emotions are a result of their opposite. Ex: Happy-Sad. Without sad, how could we know happy?
So if I were creating the fabric of human destiny, with the object of making men happy in the end, I would let them experience fear, doubt, suffering and anger so they could understand joy, peace, love and comfort in the end.
2006-10-28 16:27:52 · answer #2 · answered by C. W. 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
To save mankind id have to say NO, its not as if we contribute to the ecological system is it. we only take and never give and we never learn so why do we consider ourselves as the master race. its about time we gave someone else a chance because we have really made a mess of mother nature and she isnt happy. humans are driven by greed and will never help other species. i personally could not do it but if it went to a world wide vote then the answer would be YES. lets just thank our lucky stars we dont have to do this for real. very good question even though its from a man who was ahead of his time.
2006-10-28 16:33:58 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Without suffering there can be no standard of pleasure. Pain and discomfort would manifest itself in the wake of constant pleasure any time ones own experience was sub-standard to the typical understanding. Pain would occur regardless suffering would take root in a new way. It would be best to make an pre-set arrangement of what human comforts and conflicts are, otherwise when they do manifest themselves humans will be at a loss, they will panic and it will become worse than ever, it would slow up the progress of the end result.
Yes I would consent to the architect, it is the only way to ensure that there is nothing standing in the way of the end result.
2006-10-28 16:22:06 · answer #4 · answered by Rick R 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Some would say that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. But say the sacrifice is a beloved family pet. Could you kill it? If it meant that everyone in the WORLD would be happy for the rest of your lives, could you kill it?
Personally, I don't think so. If the animal was a cockroach, sure, I'd step on it. Otherwise, probably not.
2006-10-28 16:20:53 · answer #5 · answered by Lizzie 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
inevitable and essential? when did torture became inevitable? and i thought i was the one creating the fabric of human destiny.? But yeah, I'll be more pleasured to be an architect on the conditioin. Because in the first place, I CAN'T NEGOTIATE. Majority always wins..
2006-10-28 16:25:21 · answer #6 · answered by chics 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Your question reminds me of an anecdote in maha Bharat the Hindu epic. " The battle of kurukshetra was in full swing and Arjuna the great archer's chariot was moving ver fast around the battle field smashing the enmies and killing them enmasse.
At that time Sage Vyas who later composed the story of Mah Bharata was crossing the battle field by a side saw an ant crossing the battle field. Vyasa called out to the ant and said 'be careful Arjunas chariot may come this way any time and crush you" The ant replied
"Arjuna better be careful as to where he is going and what he is killing. It is my home in which all of you are tress passing and not me in your home"
Vyasa felt ashamed and acknowledged that the ant was justified in his statement.
So every creature has its own right for existence and it is not for us to decide whom to sacrifice for what?
2006-10-28 22:36:38 · answer #7 · answered by Brahmanda 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, I would not consent to do evil. If I had been Abraham, I would of said no to god. The fabric created from such monstrances would be the creatures revenge; no happiness, peace or rest could be produced from such as you describe.
2006-10-28 18:22:24 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sounds like good material for a book. But if you really want the Truth, try reading the New Testament from the Holy Bible.
2006-10-28 20:09:30 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. It is a specious argument, and should be beyond Dostoyevsky too.
The way to end suffereing is to destroy all religion that pruports to be 'God's Own and Only Truth". Then we might begin to realise that we are all one and masters of our own destiny and creators of our own sense of happiness.
2006-10-28 21:53:11 · answer #10 · answered by Colin A 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't see the logical connection between the two. So there's no reason to believe that such alleged torture would give way to happiness of mankind. Therefore theres no reason to believe whoever that puts forward such condition.
2006-10-28 16:22:51 · answer #11 · answered by netwalker01 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋