5 ms·

It is interesting that the first two comments on here are in relation to the living. Yes we should strive to reduce the suffering of the living to the fullest e

by scop 3y ago

It is interesting that the first two comments on here are in relation to the living. Yes we should strive to reduce the suffering of the living to the fullest extent possible. But, just as much, the dead do deserve our attention and respect. Is it “pointless” from some sort of “efficient use of time and resources”? Of course it is. That isn’t the point. Much of what gives meaning and purpose in life can be deemed “pointless” (music, fiction, liturgy). As Aristotle said: > we are unleisurely in order to have leisure The dignity of a person doesn’t cease when they are dead.

lukas099 3y ago
I used to look down on the "spiritual, but not religious" thing. But now I think that being spiritual means choosing to keep some things sacred. You can do this without believing in anything supernatural (I believe we all do to some extent or another).
hfsh 3y ago
> But, just as much, the dead do deserve our attention and respect. They do in a way, but don't fool yourself that it's actually about the individual dead. It's about humanity in general, and the contribution – good, bad, or meaningless – that every single human life has made to our collective existence. It's good that we admire rainbows, but that doesn't mean we should revere every droplet of water. > The dignity of a person doesn’t cease when they are dead. It doesn't 'cease' inasmuch as it becomes a meaningless term. The dead don't have dignity, they are no longer people. It's the memories of the dead have dignity. Those memories are not a part of the dead, they are a part of the living that remember them.
- DiggyJohnson 3y ago
  I'm not sure you believe what you're saying. The dead don't have dignity? They aren't people anymore? Treating the dead with dignity isn't solely for the sake of the dead, it's literally one of the oldest cultural norms of homo sapiens and perhaps even our homonid ancestors. A homeless man is found dead outside city hall. He is nominally identified, but no relatives can be identified. What should the city do with him or - excuse me - his remains?
  - shrimp_emoji 3y ago
    > Treating the dead with dignity isn't solely for the sake of the dead, it's literally one of the oldest cultural norms of homo sapiens and perhaps even our homonid ancestors. When people thought the dead were in an afterlife wherein their circumstances depend on how good their funerary arrangements are? (There's people who still think that, by the way.)
toasterlovin 3y ago
> Is it “pointless” from some sort of “efficient use of time and resources”? Of course it is. That isn’t the point. Small nitpick, but the "pointlessness" of it is actually the point! It's the sacrifice for no other reason that makes it a sacrifice and, thus, worthwhile.
- scop 3y ago
  You are absolutely correct. Thanks for catching that.

by scop 3y ago

lukas099 3y ago

I used to look down on the "spiritual, but not religious" thing. But now I think that being spiritual means choosing to keep some things sacred. You can do this without believing in anything supernatural (I believe we all do to some extent or another).

hfsh 3y ago

> But, just as much, the dead do deserve our attention and respect. They do in a way, but don't fool yourself that it's actually about the individual dead. It's about humanity in general, and the contribution – good, bad, or meaningless – that every single human life has made to our collective existence. It's good that we admire rainbows, but that doesn't mean we should revere every droplet of water. > The dignity of a person doesn’t cease when they are dead. It doesn't 'cease' inasmuch as it becomes a meaningless term. The dead don't have dignity, they are no longer people. It's the memories of the dead have dignity. Those memories are not a part of the dead, they are a part of the living that remember them.

DiggyJohnson 3y ago
I'm not sure you believe what you're saying. The dead don't have dignity? They aren't people anymore? Treating the dead with dignity isn't solely for the sake of the dead, it's literally one of the oldest cultural norms of homo sapiens and perhaps even our homonid ancestors. A homeless man is found dead outside city hall. He is nominally identified, but no relatives can be identified. What should the city do with him or - excuse me - his remains?
- shrimp_emoji 3y ago
  > Treating the dead with dignity isn't solely for the sake of the dead, it's literally one of the oldest cultural norms of homo sapiens and perhaps even our homonid ancestors. When people thought the dead were in an afterlife wherein their circumstances depend on how good their funerary arrangements are? (There's people who still think that, by the way.)

toasterlovin 3y ago

> Is it “pointless” from some sort of “efficient use of time and resources”? Of course it is. That isn’t the point. Small nitpick, but the "pointlessness" of it is actually the point! It's the sacrifice for no other reason that makes it a sacrifice and, thus, worthwhile.

scop 3y ago
You are absolutely correct. Thanks for catching that.