|
| Thread: Moral Philosophy |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
posted July 07, 2008 06:21 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Don't really understand by what you mean by "more than someone else".
When you have more than someone else, and you don't care about him (obviously I'm talking in a society where hatred doesn't exist! which is ideal thus don't take it as reality, but more like fantasy), then you are greedy, or something like that.
Ok not good explanation I'll try to find a different one.
Quote:
War is is a violation of that principle. War is aggression, and thus violates the non-aggression principle. Wars are indeed made by self-interest, but ultimately they are against self-interest.
How can they be against self-interest? Do you mean that Hitler was doing it against his self-interest? Or Stalin, more precisely?
As for the non-aggression principle, remember that it only applies to a group of selected people. Thus, Nazi Germany was using the non-aggression principle and pursuing self-interest, but only to the Nazi group. What you propose is also limited only to the human species group. Thus, while you think that the non-aggression principle is the best thing in the world, it isn't so from a different "frame of reference" (outsider groups).
Thus self-interest is not good as it favors only a specific group, unless we use your relativist idea of morals, which favors humans anyway 
Quote:
I'm not sure what you mean by "purpose". But self-interest actually minimizes suffering, since without self-interest the non-aggression and mutual aid principle wouldn't exist.
Without murder and criminals and thieves, cops wouldn't 'exist', and why is that a bad thing? The non-aggression principle is made because of self-interest, it's like trying to "enforce" and "keep it under control" to an extent.
But it's better to not have cops & criminals at all (they won't be needed), than to have criminals and cops who try to prevent them.
(obviously I'm speaking about an ideal world, I'm not that naive to think human species can be evolved like that!)
Quote:
It would have been better for us to go extinct? Better for whom? For ourselves? Certainly not. It's generally not good to lose life, so extinction would have been terrible. And self-interest causes suffering? Perhaps that is true to a certain extent, but it minimizes suffering. Even without self-interest, we would still have plenty of suffering, and I think that self-interest reduces suffering by a great deal. Also, hatred and self-interest are two different things. Now, if you're unhappy, you are, no offense, perfectly at liberty to commit suicide. I'm happy with my world view, and I think that it'd be good if more people followed it. "Selfish" has a negative connotatition, so I prefer the term "self-interested", and again I say that self-interest is a good thing.
The reason you are "happy" with your world view is because you use it from your view, not from those who suffer. Self-interest will always mean that something has to 'suffer' because of a group that benefits (that can include the whole species, but it's certainly not that way in today's society either!).
It would be better for everyone, including humans. What is the point of living with selfish desires and hatred in the world? You want to live, you call it better, but why? For what? For happiness? Remember that whenever you gain happiness via self-interest, someone else usually suffers. Of course it would be acceptable for you, but not to someone else. This is why, on a local perspective, it might be good (the one which you look through). But in the grand scheme of things, it's bad.
Self-interest has obvious advantages for the person or group in question, but it is by no means good on the grand scheme of things. Your group (humans) might benefit from enslaving aliens, but that is not good on the overall view, as someone else (aliens) suffers. Even though you like it since you feel 'good' with that, doesn't mean it's ok from an absolute point of view (the one I am using).
If we would have gone extinct (and our self-interest as well), then we wouldn't feel happiness but neither suffering -- and the problem is that we cause suffering to others (even amongst humans: e.g: nazi and simply other humans that have hatred towards something). That means, while we might feel happy at a certain point, the suffering we have caused (and even lived too) far outweights it, thus it's bad!
Remember that what I wrote above is based on my view of absolute morals -- that is, for all beings, not only a specific human society.
Quote:
Self-interest does not add more trouble than it takes away. Hate has nothing to do with self-interest. Trials and police are needed to punish those who violate the non-aggression principle, so ultimately it is not in one's self-interest to violate the non-aggression principle. As for wars, they are motivated by self-interest of a relatively small group, but they violate the non-aggression principle, which is ultimately not worth it.
Read above what I said. The 'violation' of the non-aggression principle wouldn't exist if we were not self-interested. That principle only tries to correct it, but it's better to not have it at all than to employ some kind of force that 'corrects' it.
Quote:
Wrong. If I am in favor of self-interest, it means that I am in favor of the non-aggression principle, which means that I am against wars.
But self-interest causes wars, and I understand that you are in favor of something that corrects the thing self-interests causes. BUT when you say that self-interest is good, then why do you need to "correct" it and try to enforce some kind of punishment for it?
Reason: it's not good.
Quote:
And one unrelated side note: it's "...", not ".." .
oh yeah whatever 
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 07, 2008 06:34 PM |
|
|
Quote:
When you have more than someone else, and you don't care about him (obviously I'm talking in a society where hatred doesn't exist! which is ideal thus don't take it as reality, but more like fantasy), then you are greedy, or something like that.
When you have more than someone else, that usually means (unless you violate property rights) that you labored for it, and if you have more, that means either that your labor is worth more or that it you labored more. So you deserve more, because people trade their labor for money, and if there is more labor or if it is labor that is in high demand, then that person indeed should get more.
Quote:
How can they be against self-interest? Do you mean that Hitler was doing it against his self-interest? Or Stalin, more precisely?
You're loooking at it too specifically. You need to step back and look at it in the general. Remember that Stalin spent quite a bit of time in Siberia himself (not saying that it makes what he did okay, but...).
Quote:
What you propose is also limited only to the human species group.
Not quite. It is limited only to the reasoning group, which also includes whatever reasoning aliens there are out there. But how are non-reasoning beings going to benefit me voluntarily (other than through the emotional benefit)?
Quote:
Thus self-interest is not good as it favors only a specific group, unless we use your relativist idea of morals, which favors humans anyway
Until we find reasoning aliens, why not?
Quote:
Without murder and criminals and thieves, cops wouldn't 'exist', and why is that a bad thing?
Despite maintaining a police force costing money, it is still better to have the police and self-interest than to have neither, because the benefits of self-interest outweigh the costs of punishing those who violate the non-aggression principle.
Quote:
Self-interest will always mean that something has to 'suffer' because of a group that benefits
Ugh... It isn't a zero-sum game. Just because someone benefits doesn't mean that someone else is hurt. Returning to the example of the farmer and the blacksmith, is the farmer harmed by giving the blacksmith food in exchange for tools? Is the blacksmith harmed by giving the farmer tools in exchange for food? No. They are both helped by each other's self-interest. At whose expense? No one's. I think that this principle of voluntary exchange should be the fundamental principle of society.
Quote:
But self-interest causes wars, and I understand that you are in favor of something that corrects the thing self-interests causes. BUT when you say that self-interest is good, then why do you need to "correct" it and try to enforce some kind of punishment for it?
You're looking at my philosophy through your philosophy, and that doesn't work. Self-interest, though, is good, because the benefits that it generates outweighs the costs that it creates.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 07, 2008 06:51 PM |
|
|
Quote:
When you have more than someone else, that usually means (unless you violate property rights) that you labored for it, and if you have more, that means either that your labor is worth more or that it you labored more. So you deserve more, because people trade their labor for money, and if there is more labor or if it is labor that is in high demand, then that person indeed should get more.
That is, if you are n3utral and don't care about others as long as you work hard for it.
Quote:
Not quite. It is limited only to the reasoning group, which also includes whatever reasoning aliens there are out there. But how are non-reasoning beings going to benefit me voluntarily (other than through the emotional benefit)?
Maybe because they are 'good'. Just because you think self-interest is natural in reasoning beings doesn't mean aliens (for example) are that way.
Quote:
Despite maintaining a police force costing money, it is still better to have the police and self-interest than to have neither, because the benefits of self-interest outweigh the costs of punishing those who violate the non-aggression principle.
There are no benefits of self-interest on the large scale. In the farmer/blacksmith example, it works exactly the same as if they were g00d.
Quote:
Ugh... It isn't a zero-sum game. Just because someone benefits doesn't mean that someone else is hurt. Returning to the example of the farmer and the blacksmith, is the farmer harmed by giving the blacksmith food in exchange for tools? Is the blacksmith harmed by giving the farmer tools in exchange for food? No. They are both helped by each other's self-interest. At whose expense? No one's. I think that this principle of voluntary exchange should be the fundamental principle of society.
It is bad because it doesn't allow compassion, or sympathy, only 'usefulness'. Would the blacksmith, for example, give tools to a helpless farmer that can't bring him food yet (let's say the blacksmith has food right now)? Based ONLY on self-interest, no. The idea is that my system is not any worse. While 5% of it is the virtues of your system, the other 95% of vices are not available. In that 'ideal' world, there is no such thing as "taking advantage of" (e.g: the farmer takes advantage of the blacksmith's kindness), because both are g00d, thus that feeling is not even present.
Either way, being proud because you can work harder than someone else who is unfortunate is not a very positive thing. Again, I repeat, in my system the g00d is reciprocal, that is no one takes advantage of another's kindness. Obviously the system is ideal and never bound to happen, but it's why this thread is called 'philosophy', right?
Quote:
You're looking at my philosophy through your philosophy, and that doesn't work. Self-interest, though, is good, because the benefits that it generates outweighs the costs that it creates.
But whatever 'good' self-interests creates is not bound to it -- that is, that 'good' can come just as well if humans were more evolved mentally and not as selfish. For example, in the blacksmith/farmer case, both would give each other when in need. If the farmer's house was stroke by a lightning bolt, for example, the blacksmith can offer him some tools he needs, even if doesn't give him anything in return at this moment. (you call it emotional benefit, but remember that when we speak about self-interest, it means every interest beside the emotional part!)
The farmer is not taking advantage of the blacksmith's kindness. If the blacksmith would have been injured badly, he would have helped him too. This system does not work in reality, where humans are not evolved at all (more than animal mentality that is), but it can work in theory in an ideal world (it's why this thread is about philosophy). If the farmer were to take advantage, then he wouldn't be 'g00d' thus the entire assumption falls.
The goal of the 'g00d' strong is to protect the weak, for that is what sets them apart from tyrants.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 07, 2008 07:03 PM |
|
|
Quote:
That is, if you are n3utral and don't care about others as long as you work hard for it.
No, I mean, you're not greedy if you work for what you get, are you? And if you give it away after you earn it, that's a separate question.
Quote:
Just because you think self-interest is natural in reasoning beings doesn't mean aliens (for example) are that way.
How could they be reasoning without self-interest?
Quote:
There are no benefits of self-interest on the large scale. In the farmer/blacksmith example, it works exactly the same as if they were g00d.
There are plenty of benefits of self-interest on a large scale. Being g00d may work on a small scale, but doesn't work on a scale larger than a small community.
Quote:
It is bad because it doesn't allow compassion, or sympathy, only 'usefulness'.
It does allow compassion and sympathy. Remember the emotional benefits?
Quote:
Would the blacksmith, for example, give tools to a helpless farmer that can't bring him food yet (let's say the blacksmith has food right now)? Based ONLY on self-interest, no.
Yes, he would, and he would have two reasons for doing so:
1. An emotional benefit (which self-interest seeks just as well as it seeks physical benefits).
2. He knows that the farmer can't produce food without tools, so he may give him the tools, so that the farmer would be able to produce, and trade with the blacksmith, so the blacksmith would be able to specialize in doing what he does best: blacksmithing, instead of farming.
Quote:
But whatever 'good' self-interests creates is not bound to it -- that is, that 'good' can come just as well if humans were more evolved mentally and not as selfish.
But your philosophy requires a fundamental change in human nature. Mine doesn't.
Quote:
For example, in the blacksmith/farmer case, both would give each other when in need. If the farmer's house was stroke by a lightning bolt, for example, the blacksmith can offer him some tools he needs, even if doesn't give him anything in return at this moment.
Or he could just want the farmer to recover so that he could return to growing food.
Quote:
when we speak about self-interest, it means every interest beside the emotional part!
Why exclude the emotional part?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 07, 2008 07:14 PM |
|
|
Quote:
How could they be reasoning without self-interest?
This question proves my point. You can't understand (and neither perhaps me in a way), because we are self-interested and we draw analogies only from ourselves.
Here a quote:Quote:
"They [the aliens] must be rational, and therefore understandable."
"Why?"
"Well - because they’re sentient."
"And that means."
"Well - that they’re rational."
"A good circular definition, absolutely meaningless. Try and give me any definition of ‘rational’ or ‘sentient’ that boils down to anything other than ‘acts like a human’."
Quote:
It does allow compassion and sympathy. Remember the emotional benefits?
Ok, so from now on, when I speak about self-interest, I am talking about any self-interest apart from the emotional benefit.
Quote:
Yes, he would, and he would have two reasons for doing so:
1. An emotional benefit (which self-interest seeks just as well as it seeks physical benefits).
2. He knows that the farmer can't produce food without tools, so he may give him the tools, so that the farmer would be able to produce, and trade with the blacksmith, so the blacksmith would be able to specialize in doing what he does best: blacksmithing, instead of farming.
Point (2) already is the thing that prevents someone from being 'g00d' and is just 'n3utral'. He has a reward in mind and is motivated by it to help the farmer (reward = any non-emotional reward).
Quote:
But your philosophy requires a fundamental change in human nature. Mine doesn't.[/quote}Obviously and I never said that it is applicable -- just because I define some things like 'g00d' doesn't mean that everyone respects them! For that matter, I define the extremes of each moral action, that is, usually things unreachable in the real world. But that doesn't mean we can't define them, which is the whole idea of this thread, no?
Quote:
Why exclude the emotional part?
Because we disagree on it. If you want, then g00d means doing something with no reward (apart from the emotional benefit) in mind and motivating that someone.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 07, 2008 07:27 PM |
|
|
Your quote uses circular reasoning. But that is not necessary. First, "acting like a human" doesn't mean the same thing as "rational", since some human actions are irrational. What, then, does "rational" mean? It means acting in one's own self-interest (including the emotional benefit). Before you say that it's not g00d, let me tell you that there is nothing rational about ignoring one's own self-interest.
Quote:
Ok, so from now on, when I speak about self-interest, I am talking about any self-interest apart from the emotional benefit.
But if you ignore the emotional benefit, you're not seeing the whole picture.
Quote:
Point (2) already is the thing that prevents someone from being 'g00d' and is just 'n3utral'. He has a reward in mind and is motivated by it to help the farmer (reward = any non-emotional reward).
And if both of them benefit from it, what's the problem with that? The blacksmith benefits. The farmer benefits. So why does it matter?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 07, 2008 07:37 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Your quote uses circular reasoning. But that is not necessary. First, "acting like a human" doesn't mean the same thing as "rational", since some human actions are irrational. What, then, does "rational" mean? It means acting in one's own self-interest (including the emotional benefit). Before you say that it's not g00d, let me tell you that there is nothing rational about ignoring one's own self-interest.
Rationality is subjective and very different from logic
Quote:
But if you ignore the emotional benefit, you're not seeing the whole picture.
Because in my opinion, the 'emotional' benefit is different than the other rewards as you do not think about it (call it subconscious whatever)
Quote:
And if both of them benefit from it, what's the problem with that? The blacksmith benefits. The farmer benefits. So why does it matter?
This is a case where the outcome is not bad. But it is obviously a bit ideal. (self-interest outcome, I mean)
Also make the difference between the outcome and the mentality. The outcome may be g00d even by accident, but the mentality of the one making it might be ev1l for example (but it was an accident, thus the outcome was g00d, even though he is ev1l).
In my posts I am talking about the mentality, of EVERY scale, not only small and not only large, but both including medium scales. That is, if someone dies on the street, it is insignificant, just another victim of society, thus it's irrelevant on the LARGE scale's outcome. My aim is to include both.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 08, 2008 12:47 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Rationality is subjective and very different from logic
But isn't rationality the ability to use logic?
Quote:
Because in my opinion, the 'emotional' benefit is different than the other rewards as you do not think about it (call it subconscious whatever)
It's often subconscious, but not always. And just because you aren't thinking about it (consciously) doesn't mean that you aren't seeking it.
Quote:
But it is obviously a bit ideal.
It's a simplification, of course. But add a third person to that group, say a carpenter. Then a fourth person, an agriculturalist. Then a fifth person, a guy who makes mouse traps. And so on. Eventually, this system gets too complicated for simple exchange. Let's say that the farmer needs some tools from the blacksmith, but the blacksmith already has enough food, and doesn't need any more, so he won't exchange any more tools for food. But let's say that the blacksmith needs a chair, but he can't get one, since the carpenter already has all the tools that he needs. But the carpenter wants food. So the farmer goes to the carpenter, trades food for a chair, then goes to the blacksmith, and trades the chair for tools. Clearly, this is an inefficient way to spend one's time, and it would become more and more time-consuming as there became more and more people. So money was thought of. No longer would the farmer need to go to the carpenter to get tools from the blacksmith. Money was a thing that everyone accepted. Goods could be exchanged for money, and money exchanged for goods. Looking at it this way, how can one call money evil?
Quote:
The outcome may be g00d even by accident, but the mentality of the one making it might be ev1l for example (but it was an accident, thus the outcome was g00d, even though he is ev1l).
But it is the outcome, not the mentality, that ultimately matters. If someone drops a bomb on my head and kills me, I don't care if it's an air raid or an accident. If someone gives me a thousand dollars, I don't care if they want me to use it to buy a gun and kill myself.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 08, 2008 01:32 PM |
|
|
Quote:
But isn't rationality the ability to use logic?
Ah, but logic does not say anything about self-interest at all. And rationality is far beyond logic, it may include logic but it's only a small part of it -- many things are considered rational and illogical at the same time (see some wiki article).
Quote:
It's often subconscious, but not always. And just because you aren't thinking about it (consciously) doesn't mean that you aren't seeking it.
My definition of good is only for the conscious, thus it's why i said we should not include the emotional benefits in here.
Quote:
It's a simplification, of course. But add a third person to that group, say a carpenter. Then a fourth person, an agriculturalist. Then a fifth person, a guy who makes mouse traps. And so on. Eventually, this system gets too complicated for simple exchange. Let's say that the farmer needs some tools from the blacksmith, but the blacksmith already has enough food, and doesn't need any more, so he won't exchange any more tools for food. But let's say that the blacksmith needs a chair, but he can't get one, since the carpenter already has all the tools that he needs. But the carpenter wants food. So the farmer goes to the carpenter, trades food for a chair, then goes to the blacksmith, and trades the chair for tools. Clearly, this is an inefficient way to spend one's time, and it would become more and more time-consuming as there became more and more people. So money was thought of. No longer would the farmer need to go to the carpenter to get tools from the blacksmith. Money was a thing that everyone accepted. Goods could be exchanged for money, and money exchanged for goods. Looking at it this way, how can one call money evil?
I like your definition here but you seem to think that democracy is the best system, which would lead to a different thread subject. While I will not comment much on this, I'd say that the 'pure social' type of system, without a government however (my 'ideal' gift system) can still apply and a lot better than democracy. This is getting into a politics system but suffice to say that these things can exist on simulations (I saw a documentary once on TV about it) thus it would be much better than the current one, obviously if humans were good, which is not the case -- thus it's still only an ideal theory, not anything applicable to the real world.
But just because it isn't doesn't mean that we can't define it. A definition can exist even if we'll never be able to reach it.
Quote:
But it is the outcome, not the mentality, that ultimately matters. If someone drops a bomb on my head and kills me, I don't care if it's an air raid or an accident. If someone gives me a thousand dollars, I don't care if they want me to use it to buy a gun and kill myself.
You are confusing the matters here. You say "that ultimately matters" -- to who? To you? Obviously, what 'matters' is subjective, but what does matter to morals? Hardly the outcome, because a criminal is still a criminal even though he makes an 'accident' and cures cancer, for example (which he did not intend). Even though the outcome is good, he is still immoral.
Thus, what 'matters' is dependent on which angle we see from. If we see from morals, then the thought matters, not the outcome 
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 08, 2008 03:12 PM |
|
|
Quote:
logic does not say anything about self-interest at all
To use logic, you have to be alive. And to stay alive, don't you have to be self-interested?
Quote:
many things are considered rational and illogical at the same time
Like what? Give me an example.
Quote:
I like your definition here but you seem to think that democracy is the best system, which would lead to a different thread subject.
Actually, what I wrote was an accurate description of capitalism, not democracy. Capitalism can exist without democracy, and democracy can exist without capitalism.
Quote:
This is getting into a politics system but suffice to say that these things can exist on simulations (I saw a documentary once on TV about it) thus it would be much better than the current one, obviously if humans were good, which is not the case -- thus it's still only an ideal theory, not anything applicable to the real world.
Well, if you change humanity at such a fundamental level, you'll get rid of the incentives problem, I guess, but you'll still have the pricing problem. Without prices, you wouldn't be able to find out how much a given action costs. And your philosophy requires a fundamental change in the nature of humanity, while mine doesn't.
Quote:
You are confusing the matters here. You say "that ultimately matters" -- to who? To you?
To everybody as individuals. Let's say that someone drops a bomb on your head. Are you going to care why they did it?
Quote:
what does matter to morals?
Well, to morals, obviously it is the intent that matters, since they can shape the intent but they can't shape the outcome (except through the intent). But we can't punish someone who does something good while intending to do something evil, and we should punish those who harm by accident.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 08, 2008 03:17 PM |
|
|
Quote:
To use logic, you have to be alive. And to stay alive, don't you have to be self-interested?
So sacrifices are illogical? 
Quote:
Like what? Give me an example.
From wikipedia:Quote:
However, rationality is a much broader term than logic, as it includes "uncertain but sensible" arguments based on probability, expectation, personal experience and the like, whereas logic deals principally with provable facts and demonstrably valid relations between them. For example, ad hominem arguments are logically unsound, but in many cases they may be rational.
Quote:
Actually, what I wrote was an accurate description of capitalism, not democracy. Capitalism can exist without democracy, and democracy can exist without capitalism.
Yeah perhaps, I'm not that good at politics
Quote:
Well, if you change humanity at such a fundamental level, you'll get rid of the incentives problem, I guess, but you'll still have the pricing problem. Without prices, you wouldn't be able to find out how much a given action costs. And your philosophy requires a fundamental change in the nature of humanity, while mine doesn't.
Again, I never said that we should change and it was certainly not my intent. What I proposed were only definitions. That doesn't mean that they are reachable totally (that is 100%), but we can use those to measure "how good" someone is (for example), since it's not black and white.
Quote:
To everybody as individuals. Let's say that someone drops a bomb on your head. Are you going to care why they did it?
When I said 'who' I also included 'morals' for example, not only individuals.
Quote:
Well, to morals, obviously it is the intent that matters, since they can shape the intent but they can't shape the outcome (except through the intent). But we can't punish someone who does something good while intending to do something evil, and we should punish those who harm by accident.
My definition of absolute morals has absolutely nothing to do with punishment -- that is the law's job, and as I told, they are not directly related at all (see page 1 posts).
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 08, 2008 03:22 PM |
|
|
Quote:
So sacrifices are illogical?
What do you mean by sacrifices?
Quote:
rationality is a much broader term than logic, as it includes "uncertain but sensible" arguments based on probability, expectation, personal experience and the like, whereas logic deals principally with provable facts and demonstrably valid relations between them
All right, the difference is basically a semantic one. 
Quote:
Again, I never said that we should change and it was certainly not my intent.
So, wait, you don't think that your philosophy should be applied?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 08, 2008 03:28 PM |
|
|
Quote:
What do you mean by sacrifices?
When you sacrifice for your child, for example, even though the 'emotional' benefit might be there, you are ultimately going to be dead anyway -- it's illogical if logic only composed of serving your own self-interest.
Quote:
All right, the difference is basically a semantic one.
No actually not at all. Here is the wiki article. Example:Quote:
Sometimes, in this context, rationality is equated with behavior that is self-interested to the point of being selfish. Sometimes rationality implies having complete knowledge about all the details of a given situation.
This is what you do, but what about this:Quote:
There is a clear tendency to view our own thoughts, words, and actions as rational and to see those who disagree as irrational.
From the irrational article.
Basically, it's quite common to express what you say because most people will like it (they like self-interest), but it is subjective
Quote:
So, wait, you don't think that your philosophy should be applied?
It should be applied, but not forcing anyone -- it is, actually, just a matter of measuring, which is why it's absolute. Like I said, law is subjective, and it is law which decides whether we should act 'g00d' or 'ev1l' or 'n3utral'. The definitions of those are not subjective, but when we use force to apply one given of them, it is. Law may be dependent on morals or not, but they are not related directly!
Of course most laws I know use the 'n3utral' approach
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 08, 2008 03:33 PM |
|
|
Quote:
When you sacrifice for your child, for example, even though the 'emotional' benefit might be there, you are ultimately going to be dead anyway -- it's illogical if logic only composed of serving your own self-interest.
It is illogical. Not saying that it's wrong, of course, just illogical.
Quote:
It should be applied, but not forcing anyone -- it is, actually, just a matter of measuring, which is why it's absolute.
That makes as much sense as using a thermometer to measure the humidity. Or measuring mass in meters.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 08, 2008 03:49 PM |
|
|
Quote:
That makes as much sense as using a thermometer to measure the humidity. Or measuring mass in meters.
Ok think like this: there are 30 degrees outside. Let's call 30 degrees 'good' (just a word again), and -30 degrees 'evil'.
You see the thermometer measuring 30 degrees. You go to me and say "The temperature is good", and then I realize that it is 30 degrees (since that's the definition of 'good' in THIS example).
You see the thermometer measuring -30 degrees. You likewise go to me and say "The temperature is evil", and then I realize that it is -30 degrees.
These are absolute definitions. It does not necessarily mean that 'good' temperature is "good" for your health, for example. A person might stay outside in -30 degrees naked not suffering at all from sickness and cold (let's say he is resistant to that), and even though you see him there, you can call him "evil" -- that does not mean he is to be punished. Law and morals are two different things. The former does what it thinks benefits society. The latter is applied to human thought. Thus, why should a human be 'good'? Answer: maybe because he is that way, that is he likes to think about others, etc... it's just a matter of human decision, but the definitions themselves are universally.
|
|
Lexxan
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Unimpressed by your logic
|
|
posted July 08, 2008 04:09 PM |
|
|
Sorry to interupt your little Quote War, Death Vader and Mvass Solo.
But I'd like to add my philosophy.
If it doesn't bother of course
____________
Coincidence? I think not!!!!
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 08, 2008 04:11 PM |
|
|
Go ahead, I'd like to hear some other opinions.
I read yours at the Celestial Heavens, it's quite similar to mine (in the respect that it is based on the good will of the people, thus ideal too  ). It seems interesting 
This made me reconsider my activity in this thread. Ok, I'll let others present theirs now, I'm tired of turning every single thread into a solo TheDeath-mvass discussion
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Lexxan
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Unimpressed by your logic
|
|
posted July 08, 2008 04:16 PM |
|
|
My Moralist Point of view
As some of you might know already, I'm someone who values morals very highly. However, I'm somewhat in favour to an Universal Code of Morals; but only somewhat, as one might find something unacceptable, while another finds this agreeable.
I, myself am a fundamental Liberal: I support Abortion, Same Sex Mariages, Death Penalties and so on. The things I don't support are those that are explictly or potentially harmfull to the population; Drugs are one of them. I also am suspicious towards adoption by homosexual couples. The first case, because I really dispise drugs and stuff, the second case because I don't know what the consequences are.
Being a fundamental Moralistic Liberal, has led (in my case) to the almost admiration towards Chaos. I'm an atheist, but I believe in Chaos; or better: Positive Chaos. This Chaos is the absolute free society; no rules, no rulers, no government, every one does whatever he likes and is equal to eachother. This idea, wonderfull as it is, is extremely naïve; to achieve this, no one should harm others and no one should commit crimes. There are no laws; Instead, there should be an universal code of Morals, which ensures people don't kill, cheat, take drugs, lie, steal etc. However, you mut rely on the goodwill of the people... something that doesn't come for free...
Anyway, I voted for the Code of Morals, that in fact is a better alternative to rules and law IMO... if people follow it that is.
Creating a code of Morals isn't easy. People think differently about things in different parts on the world. To create one we need a degree of mutual understanding
that's all for now
Note: Copied from CH
____________
Coincidence? I think not!!!!
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 08, 2008 04:31 PM |
|
|
|
I agree almost completely, except for abortion (because I think it harms babies, thus it's like murder but not exactly the same, not because of other reason), but let's not turn into that.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 08, 2008 04:57 PM |
|
|
TheDeath:
Quote:
These are absolute definitions.
No, these are definitions that we just made. They are relative definitions. 30 degrees might be good for some and bad for others. -30 degrees might be good for some and bad for others. The point is that independently of people, whether 30 and -30 are good or evil is irrelevant.
Also, you didn't understand what I meant. What I meant was that you're trying to measure (not literally) people's morality with your idea of morals, while they may not be adhering to your idea of morals in the first place! It's like you're trying to measure the humidity with a thermometer, or the mass of an object in meters. It just doesn't work. It's like trying to smell the color 9, as someone in "I gave up on believing in God" said.
Quote:
This made me reconsider my activity in this thread. Ok, I'll let others present theirs now, I'm tired of turning every single thread into a solo TheDeath-mvass discussion
I think we may be scaring some people off. But it's their fault if they don't participate.
Lexxan:
Quote:
The things I don't support are those that are explictly or potentially harmfull to the population; Drugs are one of them.
But no one forces the people to take drugs; they do it themselves (of course, there may be pressures in their communities, but that's a separate question). So if the people want to do something like that to themselves, it's their problem. I depsise drugs too, but if people want to be stupid, I don't have the right to stop them. Unless, of course, they do something that violates somebody else's rights, but they should be punished for that regardless of whether that's caused by drugs or not.
Quote:
This Chaos is the absolute free society; no rules, no rulers, no government, every one does whatever he likes and is equal to eachother.
This chaos sounds like anarchy. And you're going to run into several problems with that. First, people wouldn't be able to do whatever they like, because they have to labor, as they do now. Second, you're also going to find that some of what people are going to do is violate each other's rights. (But I agree that there shouldn't be laws preventing people from doing something that doesn't harm others). Third, how would there be any enforcement of personal rights?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
| |
|
|
