Total Posts:61|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Egoism - back on topic

Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2011 2:18:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/17/2011 10:09:33 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 3/17/2011 12:06:27 AM, annhasle wrote:
Well, since egoism =/= nihilism -- a separate thread would make sense.
Yes.
Wouldn't you say that it's imperative for society to ensure that innocent life is protected, and actions that tend towards the taking of innocent life be prohibited?

Yes.
Good

So you woudn't say that a person holding your stance would feel no wrong in taking advantage of a weaker person knowing that the law would be unable to catch and punish him/her?

Guilt or remorse might ensue but would it be "wrong"? No.
How would guilt or remorse ensue if the person doesn't feel what he's doing is wrong?

Even now people do such things (mugging, conning), but at least they feel/know that what they are doing is wrong. Would this be the case for a person who follows psychological egoism combined with the idea that morals don't objectively exist?

I might have a negative reaction but that is hardly justification to NOT do something. I hate eating vegetables and rarely enjoy doing so but I still do since its beneficial. I could say the same about attacking someone.

How do you resolve this with the agreed upon assumption that innocent life should be protected? Do you mean to say that it should be illegal to take an innocent life, but it's alright as long as it's done in such a manner that it's impossible for the authorities to find out?
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2011 2:25:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/21/2011 2:18:08 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 3/17/2011 10:09:33 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 3/17/2011 12:06:27 AM, annhasle wrote:
So you woudn't say that a person holding your stance would feel no wrong in taking advantage of a weaker person knowing that the law would be unable to catch and punish him/her?

Guilt or remorse might ensue but would it be "wrong"? No.
How would guilt or remorse ensue if the person doesn't feel what he's doing is wrong?

"Might" is the operative word here. Some would feel no guilt or remorse from physical attacks. However, some are more emotional and will put themselves in the place of the victim -- even if it is not "wrong", it is an undesirable situation that most avoid.


Even now people do such things (mugging, conning), but at least they feel/know that what they are doing is wrong. Would this be the case for a person who follows psychological egoism combined with the idea that morals don't objectively exist?

I might have a negative reaction but that is hardly justification to NOT do something. I hate eating vegetables and rarely enjoy doing so but I still do since its beneficial. I could say the same about attacking someone.

How do you resolve this with the agreed upon assumption that innocent life should be protected?

Innocent life being protected is in the best interest of society since murder leads to more negative affects overall than positive.

Do you mean to say that it should be illegal to take an innocent life, but it's alright as long as it's done in such a manner that it's impossible for the authorities to find out?

I would support murder being prohibited overall since its in my self-interest and the interest of society. However, if someone can murder without being caught by authorities -- that is their feat. I will not judge it as "wrong". In fact, they're lucky or skilled instead of "wrong". Lol.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2011 2:36:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/21/2011 2:25:44 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 3/21/2011 2:18:08 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 3/17/2011 10:09:33 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 3/17/2011 12:06:27 AM, annhasle wrote:
So you woudn't say that a person holding your stance would feel no wrong in taking advantage of a weaker person knowing that the law would be unable to catch and punish him/her?

Guilt or remorse might ensue but would it be "wrong"? No.
How would guilt or remorse ensue if the person doesn't feel what he's doing is wrong?

"Might" is the operative word here. Some would feel no guilt or remorse from physical attacks. However, some are more emotional and will put themselves in the place of the victim -- even if it is not "wrong", it is an undesirable situation that most avoid.
Might is not the operative word at all. I'm saying they definitely WILL NOT feel guilt. Guilt ensues only if one does something one feels is wrong. If it's not expressly prohibited to take advantage of a weaker person, then it won't be felt as wrong, and hence wont' be an undesirable situation at all. Isn't it easier to just take money from weak persons, than to work for it?


Even now people do such things (mugging, conning), but at least they feel/know that what they are doing is wrong. Would this be the case for a person who follows psychological egoism combined with the idea that morals don't objectively exist?

I might have a negative reaction but that is hardly justification to NOT do something. I hate eating vegetables and rarely enjoy doing so but I still do since its beneficial. I could say the same about attacking someone.

How do you resolve this with the agreed upon assumption that innocent life should be protected?

Innocent life being protected is in the best interest of society since murder leads to more negative affects overall than positive.

Do you mean to say that it should be illegal to take an innocent life, but it's alright as long as it's done in such a manner that it's impossible for the authorities to find out?

I would support murder being prohibited overall since its in my self-interest and the interest of society. However, if someone can murder without being caught by authorities -- that is their feat. I will not judge it as "wrong". In fact, they're lucky or skilled instead of "wrong". Lol.

So you are just arguing for a "might makes right" society. And I'm sure you can't be serious enough to think that such a society can make much progress.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2011 2:53:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/21/2011 2:36:22 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 3/21/2011 2:25:44 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 3/21/2011 2:18:08 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 3/17/2011 10:09:33 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 3/17/2011 12:06:27 AM, annhasle wrote:
So you woudn't say that a person holding your stance would feel no wrong in taking advantage of a weaker person knowing that the law would be unable to catch and punish him/her?

Guilt or remorse might ensue but would it be "wrong"? No.
How would guilt or remorse ensue if the person doesn't feel what he's doing is wrong?

"Might" is the operative word here. Some would feel no guilt or remorse from physical attacks. However, some are more emotional and will put themselves in the place of the victim -- even if it is not "wrong", it is an undesirable situation that most avoid.
Might is not the operative word at all. I'm saying they definitely WILL NOT feel guilt. Guilt ensues only if one does something one feels is wrong.

Guilt can stem from the belief you have violated an ethical standard, yes. But this is not the ONLY way guilt ensues. Nihilists are not cut off from emotions -- we can still feel like the rest of you. I know some compassionate nihilists that hold off from committing offenses because of the emotional distress that results in the victim's life or the family of the victim's life. Some might feel guilt or remorse from committing an offense which strips away their freedoms and shames their family. Some might feel guilt or remorse due to losing trust after committing the offense. I could go on... Anyways, simply because it is not wrong does not mean that we are sociopaths without the capacity to feel remorse.

If it's not expressly prohibited to take advantage of a weaker person, then it won't be felt as wrong, and hence wont' be an undesirable situation at all.

Nihilists will follow different standards -- non-ethical standards -- which will most likely not support physical retribution or actions. For example, my risk/benefit analysis and psychological egoism expresses the need to avoid murder.

Isn't it easier to just take money from weak persons, than to work for it?

I follow private property rights.

Do you mean to say that it should be illegal to take an innocent life, but it's alright as long as it's done in such a manner that it's impossible for the authorities to find out?

I would support murder being prohibited overall since its in my self-interest and the interest of society. However, if someone can murder without being caught by authorities -- that is their feat. I will not judge it as "wrong". In fact, they're lucky or skilled instead of "wrong". Lol.

So you are just arguing for a "might makes right" society. And I'm sure you can't be serious enough to think that such a society can make much progress.

When did I ever deem anything right? I'll remind you -- I'm a nihilist.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2011 3:04:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/21/2011 3:02:25 PM, nonentity wrote:
Logically, if you don't believe in moral right or wrong, there should be no reason to feel guilt.

I use guilt interchangeably with remorse. Remorse does not result only from unethical actions.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
nonentity
Posts: 5,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2011 3:08:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Remorse, according to dictionary.com

"deep and painful regret for wrongdoing; compunction."

Guilt

"a feeling of responsibility or remorse for some offense, crime, wrong, etc., whether real or imagined"

How can you feel remorseful if you don't feel that something is wrong?
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2011 3:10:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/21/2011 2:53:43 PM, annhasle wrote:
Guilt can stem from the belief you have violated an ethical standard, yes. But this is not the ONLY way guilt ensues. Nihilists are not cut off from emotions -- we can still feel like the rest of you. I know some compassionate nihilists that hold off from committing offenses because of the emotional distress that results in the victim's life or the family of the victim's life. Some might feel guilt or remorse from committing an offense which strips away their freedoms and shames their family. Some might feel guilt or remorse due to losing trust after committing the offense. I could go on... Anyways, simply because it is not wrong does not mean that we are sociopaths without the capacity to feel remorse.
Okay. Try this way. During the time slavery was deemed legal, would you say the slave owners felt guilt treating the slaves like.....slaves? If not, would you then say that it was because they were cut off from emotions?
No. It would be because they didn't think it was wrong in any way. They were brought up that way. And if you are brought up that way, you won't feel any emotional distress that results in the victim's life or the family of the victim's life that you talk about.
And when you say that "some might feel guilt or remorse from committing an offense which strips away their freedoms and shames their family", what about offenses that don't strip away their freedomes and shame their family?

If it's not expressly prohibited to take advantage of a weaker person, then it won't be felt as wrong, and hence wont' be an undesirable situation at all.

Nihilists will follow different standards -- non-ethical standards -- which will most likely not support physical retribution or actions. For example, my risk/benefit analysis and psychological egoism expresses the need to avoid murder.
Exactly. If your risk/benefit analysis shows that it's profitable for you to take advantage of such situations, you most certainly will. That's my whole point. That still doesn't mean you can/should do it.

Isn't it easier to just take money from weak persons, than to work for it?

I follow private property rights.

Do you mean to say that it should be illegal to take an innocent life, but it's alright as long as it's done in such a manner that it's impossible for the authorities to find out?

I would support murder being prohibited overall since its in my self-interest and the interest of society. However, if someone can murder without being caught by authorities -- that is their feat. I will not judge it as "wrong". In fact, they're lucky or skilled instead of "wrong". Lol.

So you are just arguing for a "might makes right" society. And I'm sure you can't be serious enough to think that such a society can make much progress.

When did I ever deem anything right? I'll remind you -- I'm a nihilist.
I didn't mean right as right, this time round :) Just that, if you can get away with it, why not do it, if it's advantageous to you? Why let something like "private property rights" stop you?
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2011 3:11:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/21/2011 3:08:08 PM, nonentity wrote:
Remorse, according to dictionary.com

"deep and painful regret for wrongdoing; compunction."

Guilt

"a feeling of responsibility or remorse for some offense, crime, wrong, etc., whether real or imagined"

How can you feel remorseful if you don't feel that something is wrong?

Exactly. I don't understand how she talks about there not being right or wrong and in the same breath use words like guilt and remorse!
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
nonentity
Posts: 5,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2011 3:12:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
To be honest, I think belief in nihilism (if everyone were a nihilist) holds no benefit whatsoever to society. I'm looking forward to your debate with Vi on it.
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2011 3:12:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/21/2011 3:08:08 PM, nonentity wrote:
Remorse, according to dictionary.com

"deep and painful regret for wrongdoing; compunction."

Guilt

"a feeling of responsibility or remorse for some offense, crime, wrong, etc., whether real or imagined"

How can you feel remorseful if you don't feel that something is wrong?

"Remorse is an emotional expression of personal regret felt by a person after he or she has committed an act which they deem to be shameful, hurtful, or violent. Remorse is closely allied to guilt and self-directed resentment. When a person regrets an earlier action or failure to act, it may be because of remorse or in response to various other consequences, including being punished for the act or omission."

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Like I said, it doesn't result only from thinking something is "wrong".
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
nonentity
Posts: 5,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2011 3:15:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/21/2011 3:12:37 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 3/21/2011 3:08:08 PM, nonentity wrote:
Remorse, according to dictionary.com

"deep and painful regret for wrongdoing; compunction."

Guilt

"a feeling of responsibility or remorse for some offense, crime, wrong, etc., whether real or imagined"

How can you feel remorseful if you don't feel that something is wrong?

"Remorse is an emotional expression of personal regret felt by a person after he or she has committed an act which they deem to be shameful, hurtful, or violent. Remorse is closely allied to guilt and self-directed resentment. When a person regrets an earlier action or failure to act, it may be because of remorse or in response to various other consequences, including being punished for the act or omission."

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Like I said, it doesn't result only from thinking something is "wrong".

No. What you bolded means that regret can come from either remorse or being punished. Regret =/= remorse.
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2011 3:16:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/21/2011 3:10:28 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 3/21/2011 2:53:43 PM, annhasle wrote:
Okay. Try this way. During the time slavery was deemed legal, would you say the slave owners felt guilt treating the slaves like.....slaves? If not, would you then say that it was because they were cut off from emotions?

They didn't believe it to be unethical. Some might have felt guilt or remorse since there was evidence of whites marrying blacks and freeing them.

No. It would be because they didn't think it was wrong in any way. They were brought up that way. And if you are brought up that way, you won't feel any emotional distress that results in the victim's life or the family of the victim's life that you talk about.

Speculation. That is an incredibly broad assertion.

And when you say that "some might feel guilt or remorse from committing an offense which strips away their freedoms and shames their family", what about offenses that don't strip away their freedomes and shame their family?

Like I've said, some might not feel remorse and some do.

If it's not expressly prohibited to take advantage of a weaker person, then it won't be felt as wrong, and hence wont' be an undesirable situation at all.

Nihilists will follow different standards -- non-ethical standards -- which will most likely not support physical retribution or actions. For example, my risk/benefit analysis and psychological egoism expresses the need to avoid murder.

Exactly. If your risk/benefit analysis shows that it's profitable for you to take advantage of such situations, you most certainly will. That's my whole point. That still doesn't mean you can/should do it.

If it profits me, I'll do it.

Isn't it easier to just take money from weak persons, than to work for it?

I follow private property rights.

Do you mean to say that it should be illegal to take an innocent life, but it's alright as long as it's done in such a manner that it's impossible for the authorities to find out?

I would support murder being prohibited overall since its in my self-interest and the interest of society. However, if someone can murder without being caught by authorities -- that is their feat. I will not judge it as "wrong". In fact, they're lucky or skilled instead of "wrong". Lol.

So you are just arguing for a "might makes right" society. And I'm sure you can't be serious enough to think that such a society can make much progress.

When did I ever deem anything right? I'll remind you -- I'm a nihilist.

I didn't mean right as right, this time round :) Just that, if you can get away with it, why not do it, if it's advantageous to you?

If I can get away with it (with 100% certainty) and it's beneficial -- I'll do it.

Why let something like "private property rights" stop you?

I've repeated that such rights are for the benefit of society which then furthers my self-interest.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2011 3:17:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/21/2011 3:15:44 PM, nonentity wrote:
At 3/21/2011 3:12:37 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 3/21/2011 3:08:08 PM, nonentity wrote:
Remorse, according to dictionary.com

"deep and painful regret for wrongdoing; compunction."

Guilt

"a feeling of responsibility or remorse for some offense, crime, wrong, etc., whether real or imagined"

How can you feel remorseful if you don't feel that something is wrong?

"Remorse is an emotional expression of personal regret felt by a person after he or she has committed an act which they deem to be shameful, hurtful, or violent. Remorse is closely allied to guilt and self-directed resentment. When a person regrets an earlier action or failure to act, it may be because of remorse or in response to various other consequences, including being punished for the act or omission."

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Like I said, it doesn't result only from thinking something is "wrong".

No. What you bolded means that regret can come from either remorse or being punished. Regret =/= remorse.

Regret stems from remorse. They go hand-in-hand.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2011 3:18:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/21/2011 3:12:02 PM, nonentity wrote:
To be honest, I think belief in nihilism (if everyone were a nihilist) holds no benefit whatsoever to society. I'm looking forward to your debate with Vi on it.

There are other standards which nihilists uphold.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2011 3:28:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/21/2011 3:16:41 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 3/21/2011 3:10:28 PM, Indophile wrote:
No. It would be because they didn't think it was wrong in any way. They were brought up that way. And if you are brought up that way, you won't feel any emotional distress that results in the victim's life or the family of the victim's life that you talk about.

Speculation. That is an incredibly broad assertion.

It's a broad assertion. And it's not speculation. If you go through Indian history, and it's incredibly complex caste-sytem, you will find examples of this.

(To summarize, Indian society was divided broadly into four different castes, priest, warrior, trader, untouchable. The upper classes behaved exactly like I described towards the lower classes, for centuries, until the British along with local reformers abolished it.)
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
nonentity
Posts: 5,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2011 3:29:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/21/2011 3:17:48 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 3/21/2011 3:15:44 PM, nonentity wrote:

No. What you bolded means that regret can come from either remorse or being punished. Regret =/= remorse.

Regret stems from remorse. They go hand-in-hand.

You can regret being caught, obviously. You can regret the actions that led you to being caught. But you can only be remorseful of something you believed to be wrong.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2011 3:31:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/21/2011 3:16:41 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 3/21/2011 3:10:28 PM, Indophile wrote:
I didn't mean right as right, this time round :) Just that, if you can get away with it, why not do it, if it's advantageous to you?

If I can get away with it (with 100% certainty) and it's beneficial -- I'll do it.

Why let something like "private property rights" stop you?

I've repeated that such rights are for the benefit of society which then furthers my self-interest.

What this sounds to me is, it's beneficial to you if somebody does not practise your brand of philosophy on you! Or else, how would you stop someone taking advantage of you when it's to their benefit?
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2011 3:32:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/21/2011 3:29:01 PM, nonentity wrote:
At 3/21/2011 3:17:48 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 3/21/2011 3:15:44 PM, nonentity wrote:

No. What you bolded means that regret can come from either remorse or being punished. Regret =/= remorse.

Regret stems from remorse. They go hand-in-hand.

You can regret being caught, obviously. You can regret the actions that led you to being caught. But you can only be remorseful of something you believed to be wrong.

I've already demonstrated that remorse can result from violent actions even if they are judged as amoral.

For example, if I shot a neighbor -- I know its not "wrong". But I'd feel remorse for being caught, losing the trust of family and committing a violent action when it could have been solved in a peaceful alternative.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2011 3:33:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/21/2011 3:31:10 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 3/21/2011 3:16:41 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 3/21/2011 3:10:28 PM, Indophile wrote:
I didn't mean right as right, this time round :) Just that, if you can get away with it, why not do it, if it's advantageous to you?

If I can get away with it (with 100% certainty) and it's beneficial -- I'll do it.

Why let something like "private property rights" stop you?

I've repeated that such rights are for the benefit of society which then furthers my self-interest.

What this sounds to me is, it's beneficial to you if somebody does not practise your brand of philosophy on you! Or else, how would you stop someone taking advantage of you when it's to their benefit?

We all act with our self-interest in mind already -- and society has functioned well enough.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2011 3:34:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/21/2011 3:28:47 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 3/21/2011 3:16:41 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 3/21/2011 3:10:28 PM, Indophile wrote:
No. It would be because they didn't think it was wrong in any way. They were brought up that way. And if you are brought up that way, you won't feel any emotional distress that results in the victim's life or the family of the victim's life that you talk about.

Speculation. That is an incredibly broad assertion.

It's a broad assertion. And it's not speculation. If you go through Indian history, and it's incredibly complex caste-sytem, you will find examples of this.

(To summarize, Indian society was divided broadly into four different castes, priest, warrior, trader, untouchable. The upper classes behaved exactly like I described towards the lower classes, for centuries, until the British along with local reformers abolished it.)

And your point is...?
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2011 3:35:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/21/2011 3:34:17 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 3/21/2011 3:28:47 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 3/21/2011 3:16:41 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 3/21/2011 3:10:28 PM, Indophile wrote:
No. It would be because they didn't think it was wrong in any way. They were brought up that way. And if you are brought up that way, you won't feel any emotional distress that results in the victim's life or the family of the victim's life that you talk about.

Speculation. That is an incredibly broad assertion.

It's a broad assertion. And it's not speculation. If you go through Indian history, and it's incredibly complex caste-sytem, you will find examples of this.

(To summarize, Indian society was divided broadly into four different castes, priest, warrior, trader, untouchable. The upper classes behaved exactly like I described towards the lower classes, for centuries, until the British along with local reformers abolished it.)

And your point is...?

That it's not speculation.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2011 3:36:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/21/2011 3:33:44 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 3/21/2011 3:31:10 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 3/21/2011 3:16:41 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 3/21/2011 3:10:28 PM, Indophile wrote:
I didn't mean right as right, this time round :) Just that, if you can get away with it, why not do it, if it's advantageous to you?

If I can get away with it (with 100% certainty) and it's beneficial -- I'll do it.

Why let something like "private property rights" stop you?

I've repeated that such rights are for the benefit of society which then furthers my self-interest.

What this sounds to me is, it's beneficial to you if somebody does not practise your brand of philosophy on you! Or else, how would you stop someone taking advantage of you when it's to their benefit?

We all act with our self-interest in mind already -- and society has functioned well enough.

Yes. But along with self-interest, it's because people know certain acts to be wrong. Which is what I've been contending all along.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2011 3:40:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/21/2011 3:36:26 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 3/21/2011 3:33:44 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 3/21/2011 3:31:10 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 3/21/2011 3:16:41 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 3/21/2011 3:10:28 PM, Indophile wrote:
I didn't mean right as right, this time round :) Just that, if you can get away with it, why not do it, if it's advantageous to you?

If I can get away with it (with 100% certainty) and it's beneficial -- I'll do it.

Why let something like "private property rights" stop you?

I've repeated that such rights are for the benefit of society which then furthers my self-interest.

What this sounds to me is, it's beneficial to you if somebody does not practise your brand of philosophy on you! Or else, how would you stop someone taking advantage of you when it's to their benefit?

We all act with our self-interest in mind already -- and society has functioned well enough.

Yes. But along with self-interest, it's because people know certain acts to be wrong. Which is what I've been contending all along.

Moral imperatives do not ensure moral actions. Even with laws, unlawful actions are imposed on the "innocent". The only thing which truly guides our actions is self-interest.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2011 3:42:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/21/2011 3:35:29 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 3/21/2011 3:34:17 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 3/21/2011 3:28:47 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 3/21/2011 3:16:41 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 3/21/2011 3:10:28 PM, Indophile wrote:
No. It would be because they didn't think it was wrong in any way. They were brought up that way. And if you are brought up that way, you won't feel any emotional distress that results in the victim's life or the family of the victim's life that you talk about.

Speculation. That is an incredibly broad assertion.

It's a broad assertion. And it's not speculation. If you go through Indian history, and it's incredibly complex caste-sytem, you will find examples of this.

(To summarize, Indian society was divided broadly into four different castes, priest, warrior, trader, untouchable. The upper classes behaved exactly like I described towards the lower classes, for centuries, until the British along with local reformers abolished it.)

And your point is...?

That it's not speculation.

Oh, it still is. You are assuming that they did not care about the actions imposed on the "lesser classes" and asserting that ALL were uncaring as well. Can you know this for sure? No. Therefore, it is speculative.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
nonentity
Posts: 5,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2011 3:46:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/21/2011 3:32:26 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 3/21/2011 3:29:01 PM, nonentity wrote:
At 3/21/2011 3:17:48 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 3/21/2011 3:15:44 PM, nonentity wrote:

No. What you bolded means that regret can come from either remorse or being punished. Regret =/= remorse.

Regret stems from remorse. They go hand-in-hand.

You can regret being caught, obviously. You can regret the actions that led you to being caught. But you can only be remorseful of something you believed to be wrong.

I've already demonstrated that remorse can result from violent actions even if they are judged as amoral.

For example, if I shot a neighbor -- I know its not "wrong". But I'd feel remorse for being caught, losing the trust of family and committing a violent action when it could have been solved in a peaceful alternative.

That's still not remorse, it's just regret. Belief that something was wrong is the implicit definition of remorse.

Psychopaths don't feel remorse. Of course they would regret being caught.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2011 3:46:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/21/2011 3:40:48 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 3/21/2011 3:36:26 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 3/21/2011 3:33:44 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 3/21/2011 3:31:10 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 3/21/2011 3:16:41 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 3/21/2011 3:10:28 PM, Indophile wrote:
I didn't mean right as right, this time round :) Just that, if you can get away with it, why not do it, if it's advantageous to you?

If I can get away with it (with 100% certainty) and it's beneficial -- I'll do it.

Why let something like "private property rights" stop you?

I've repeated that such rights are for the benefit of society which then furthers my self-interest.

What this sounds to me is, it's beneficial to you if somebody does not practise your brand of philosophy on you! Or else, how would you stop someone taking advantage of you when it's to their benefit?

We all act with our self-interest in mind already -- and society has functioned well enough.

Yes. But along with self-interest, it's because people know certain acts to be wrong. Which is what I've been contending all along.

Moral imperatives do not ensure moral actions. Even with laws, unlawful actions are imposed on the "innocent". The only thing which truly guides our actions is self-interest.

Of course. But the whole point of society functioning properly is to ensure that people don't actually act on their self-interest, all the time. Acting on self-interest all the time would result in unfortunate consequences for other people.

Also, how do you propose you stop your neighbor from stealing stuff from your house if you are not there? Let's assume he has your alarm figured out. You'll rely on law and order? Don't you think it's best if people were brought up such that they know stealing is not done?
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2011 3:49:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/21/2011 3:42:03 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 3/21/2011 3:35:29 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 3/21/2011 3:34:17 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 3/21/2011 3:28:47 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 3/21/2011 3:16:41 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 3/21/2011 3:10:28 PM, Indophile wrote:
No. It would be because they didn't think it was wrong in any way. They were brought up that way. And if you are brought up that way, you won't feel any emotional distress that results in the victim's life or the family of the victim's life that you talk about.

Speculation. That is an incredibly broad assertion.

It's a broad assertion. And it's not speculation. If you go through Indian history, and it's incredibly complex caste-sytem, you will find examples of this.

(To summarize, Indian society was divided broadly into four different castes, priest, warrior, trader, untouchable. The upper classes behaved exactly like I described towards the lower classes, for centuries, until the British along with local reformers abolished it.)

And your point is...?

That it's not speculation.

Oh, it still is. You are assuming that they did not care about the actions imposed on the "lesser classes" and asserting that ALL were uncaring as well. Can you know this for sure? No. Therefore, it is speculative.

Oh well, it must be so comforting for the lower classes that there were some upper class people that cared about them. That makes it all worthwhile.

Seriously, I don't get your point this time. What difference does it make if some people cared? Doesn't the fact that almost all of the others did not even think there was anything amiss count for anything towards the point I'm making?
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2011 3:49:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/21/2011 3:46:01 PM, nonentity wrote:
At 3/21/2011 3:32:26 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 3/21/2011 3:29:01 PM, nonentity wrote:
At 3/21/2011 3:17:48 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 3/21/2011 3:15:44 PM, nonentity wrote:

No. What you bolded means that regret can come from either remorse or being punished. Regret =/= remorse.

Regret stems from remorse. They go hand-in-hand.

You can regret being caught, obviously. You can regret the actions that led you to being caught. But you can only be remorseful of something you believed to be wrong.

I've already demonstrated that remorse can result from violent actions even if they are judged as amoral.

For example, if I shot a neighbor -- I know its not "wrong". But I'd feel remorse for being caught, losing the trust of family and committing a violent action when it could have been solved in a peaceful alternative.

That's still not remorse, it's just regret.

"Remorse is an emotional expression of personal regret "

Belief that something was wrong is the implicit definition of remorse.

That can cause remorse. But so can other triggers -- such as consequence or realization of the tactic used on the victim. I've already described those possibilities.

Psychopaths don't feel remorse. Of course they would regret being caught.

No, they don't. Your point is?
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2011 3:53:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/21/2011 3:46:04 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 3/21/2011 3:40:48 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 3/21/2011 3:36:26 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 3/21/2011 3:33:44 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 3/21/2011 3:31:10 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 3/21/2011 3:16:41 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 3/21/2011 3:10:28 PM, Indophile wrote:
I didn't mean right as right, this time round :) Just that, if you can get away with it, why not do it, if it's advantageous to you?

If I can get away with it (with 100% certainty) and it's beneficial -- I'll do it.

Why let something like "private property rights" stop you?

I've repeated that such rights are for the benefit of society which then furthers my self-interest.

What this sounds to me is, it's beneficial to you if somebody does not practise your brand of philosophy on you! Or else, how would you stop someone taking advantage of you when it's to their benefit?

We all act with our self-interest in mind already -- and society has functioned well enough.

Yes. But along with self-interest, it's because people know certain acts to be wrong. Which is what I've been contending all along.

Moral imperatives do not ensure moral actions. Even with laws, unlawful actions are imposed on the "innocent". The only thing which truly guides our actions is self-interest.

Of course. But the whole point of society functioning properly is to ensure that people don't actually act on their self-interest, all the time. Acting on self-interest all the time would result in unfortunate consequences for other people.

They create laws to ensure that the actions that are committed are not at the expense of others self-interest in a detrimental way. This causes our self-interest to be realigned.

Also, how do you propose you stop your neighbor from stealing stuff from your house if you are not there? Let's assume he has your alarm figured out. You'll rely on law and order? Don't you think it's best if people were brought up such that they know stealing is not done?

Yes, I'd rely on the proper legal actions be put forth and that compensation is given to me. But having a kid smacked on the hand for stealing when younger isn't going to keep him from stealing forever -- you do what you want, even with laws and order.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.