Total Posts:166|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Egoism

Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2010 9:37:11 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I am my own cause. I live only to please myself and I really do not care if you call that unjust. All things are my property. Whatever I want and covet, I will seize, if given the opportunity.

There is no right nor wrong. There is only what is expedient and what is inexpedient. What is justice? It is a chimera placed in your head by a spook. Nothing is more to me than myself.

Nothing wrong with murder, rape? Nothing. If it pleases me and it is expedient I will do such things.

I have no obligation to respect anyone or anything. All things are nothing to me.*
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2010 9:53:47 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Debating this right now on my page. They say I should be Nihilist. But my own pleasure and displeasure is my moral right and wrong.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2010 9:55:13 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/19/2010 9:53:47 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Debating this right now on my page. They say I should be Nihilist. But my own pleasure and displeasure is my moral right and wrong.

No, it's not. You clearly have a Godsands level understanding of meta-ethics.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2010 9:59:31 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
"Naturalistic fallacy again. You can't claim that you ought to perform an action merely because it makes you feel good." ~ Cody Franklin

LOL
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2010 10:02:19 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/19/2010 9:55:13 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
No, it's not. You clearly have a Godsands level understanding of meta-ethics.

At 9/19/2010 9:59:31 PM, FREEDO wrote:
"Naturalistic fallacy again. You can't claim that you ought to perform an action merely because it makes you feel good." ~ Cody Franklin

LOL

Thanks for proving my point.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2010 10:04:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/19/2010 9:53:47 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Debating this right now on my page. They say I should be Nihilist. But my own pleasure and displeasure is my moral right and wrong.

An Egoist is a kind of Moral Nihilist, yes.

"Nor does he bow the knee to Morality - Sacred Morality! Some of its precepts he may accept, if he chooses to do so; but you cannot scare him off by telling him it is not "right." He usually prefers not to kill or steal; but if he must kill or steal to save himself, he will do it with a good heart, and without any qualms of "conscience." And "morality" will never persuade him to injure others when it is of no advantage to himself. He will not be found among a band of "white caps," flogging and burning poor devils, because their actions do not conform to the dictates of "morality," though they have injured none by such actions; nor will he have any hand in persecuting helpless girls, and throwing them out into the street, when he has received no ill at their hands." - Max Stirner
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2010 10:08:20 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Continuing my conversation here since I lost my character limit on my page:
Cody Franklin:

//That's a naturalistic fallacy, actually. You're deriving the value from the fact that X gives you pleasure. The critical step for which you fail to account is the value judgment, which you cannot make because any such judgment would not be objectively true--only a function of your own preferences for pleasure. You'd make a fine nihilist, I'm sure.//

How is that the naturalistic fallacy? You're misusing that. I'm not saying it's right because it's natural. I accept pleasure as my morality because I simply KNOW it is right. I can try to deny myself by saying pleasure is not right, but that's insanity.

//You're contradicting your other assertion: that your morality is absolute for any conscious being possessing a pleasure-pain mechanism. By admitting that this mechanism isn't uniformly programmed among conscious beings, you're admitting that your morality is both subjective AND relative.//

I'm not contradicting. I said that it doesn't even matter if there are any other consciousnesses that feel pleasure and displeasure in the same way I do, I still know that my own pleasure is better than my displeasure. And I said that IF there are other consciousnesses that feel pleasure and displeasure then the rightness of their own pleasure over their displeasure would be right for them too. It would be absolute for any entity with a consciousness capable of feeling both pleasure and displeasure.

//Though you admit to J.Kenyon that you can't be absolutely certain of that knowledge.//

WTF? "I know what I know". You say I've said that I can't know what I know? You be trippin.

//Naturalistic fallacy again. You can't claim that you ought to perform an action merely because it makes you feel good.//

*FACEPALM*

//Knowing that you sense isn't knowing that what you sense is reality. All you're confirming is that you sense something - the content, and the validity thereof, remain uncertain.//

I know..

//Discern from what? The sensory data about which you cannot be absolutely certain? Even then, you're still trying to derive values from facts, which is a logical fallacy.//

That would only apply to objective facts, not subjective ones. The difference is that objective facts can exist independent of my consciousness and cannot be known with any certainty because of that. Subjective facts are certainties to myself.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2010 10:11:26 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
The concept "ought" is derived from morality. If you reject morality as a spook, as the Egoists do, then you necessarily reject the idea of "ought". Except in the limited sense of "if you want to attain X you "ought" do Y." As in, Y will lead to X, your desired goal.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2010 10:13:34 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/19/2010 10:08:20 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Continuing my conversation here since I lost my character limit on my page:
Cody Franklin:

//That's a naturalistic fallacy, actually. You're deriving the value from the fact that X gives you pleasure. The critical step for which you fail to account is the value judgment, which you cannot make because any such judgment would not be objectively true--only a function of your own preferences for pleasure. You'd make a fine nihilist, I'm sure.//

How is that the naturalistic fallacy? You're misusing that. I'm not saying it's right because it's natural. I accept pleasure as my morality because I simply KNOW it is right. I can try to deny myself by saying pleasure is not right, but that's insanity.

*Facepalm*

You're confusing the naturalistic fallacy (http://plato.stanford.edu...) with the appeal to nature (http://www.fallacyfiles.org...).
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2010 10:23:00 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I KNOW my pleasure is right. I cannot deny this. That would be insanity.

Any entity that may feel pleasure and displeasure as I do would also be insane if they denied this to themself.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2010 10:23:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I may give to the poor, as charity stimulates parts of my brain that make me feel happy, but I do so for purely egoistic reasons. I do it because I want to, not because I ought to.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2010 10:25:50 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/19/2010 10:08:20 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Continuing my conversation here since I lost my character limit on my page:
Cody Franklin:

//That's a naturalistic fallacy, actually. You're deriving the value from the fact that X gives you pleasure. The critical step for which you fail to account is the value judgment, which you cannot make because any such judgment would not be objectively true--only a function of your own preferences for pleasure. You'd make a fine nihilist, I'm sure.//

How is that the naturalistic fallacy? You're misusing that. I'm not saying it's right because it's natural. I accept pleasure as my morality because I simply KNOW it is right. I can try to deny myself by saying pleasure is not right, but that's insanity.

The naturalistic fallacy, while often equated with the "appeal to nature", is not synonymous with it. The naturalistic fallacy occurs when a person tries to derive a value/ought from a fact/is. Saying "X is pleasurable; therefore, I ought to do X", which I take as being your creed, is a prime example of the naturalistic fallacy.

//You're contradicting your other assertion: that your morality is absolute for any conscious being possessing a pleasure-pain mechanism. By admitting that this mechanism isn't uniformly programmed among conscious beings, you're admitting that your morality is both subjective AND relative.//

I'm not contradicting. I said that it doesn't even matter if there are any other consciousnesses that feel pleasure and displeasure in the same way I do, I still know that my own pleasure is better than my displeasure.

That means that you like pleasure--not that anything pleasurable is ethically justified.

And I said that IF there are other consciousnesses that feel pleasure and displeasure then the rightness of their own pleasure over their displeasure would be right for them too. It would be absolute for any entity with a consciousness capable of feeling both pleasure and displeasure.

That creates a problem. If one person evaluates something as "good", and the other "not good", they cannot simultaneously be correct.

//Though you admit to J.Kenyon that you can't be absolutely certain of that knowledge.//

WTF? "I know what I know". You say I've said that I can't know what I know? You be trippin.

How do you know what you know? Because you know it? That's quite circular.

//Naturalistic fallacy again. You can't claim that you ought to perform an action merely because it makes you feel good.//

*FACEPALM*

Indeed.

//Knowing that you sense isn't knowing that what you sense is reality. All you're confirming is that you sense something - the content, and the validity thereof, remain uncertain.//

I know.

Though this might become a little convoluted: if you "know" that what you say you know you know is not 100% certain, then you cannot say that you know you know it, because to know something is to be absolutely certain of it. If you say you know reality, and simultaneously admit that what you sense may not be reality at all, you're contradicting yourself.

//Discern from what? The sensory data about which you cannot be absolutely certain? Even then, you're still trying to derive values from facts, which is a logical fallacy.//

That would only apply to objective facts, not subjective ones.

A "subjective fact" is not a fact at all, but a contradiction in terms.

The difference is that objective facts can exist independent of my consciousness and cannot be known with any certainty because of that. Subjective facts are certainties to myself.

For something to be a fact, it must be objectively true. If the only way that you know something is by constantly reassuring yourself, the proposition in question becomes not a "subjective fact", but a stubborn dogma of which you refuse to rid yourself. You know? ;)
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2010 10:28:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/19/2010 10:23:03 PM, Reasoning wrote:
I may give to the poor, as charity stimulates parts of my brain that make me feel happy, but I do so for purely egoistic reasons. I do it because I want to, not because I ought to.

CHA-CHING!
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2010 10:29:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Pleasure is NOT your highest value. Suppose we could construct a machine that directly stimulates your dopamine receptors, giving you limitless pleasure. The machine is so well designed, that you never tire of this constant bliss, it's just an unending good feeling. Should you plug in?
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2010 10:33:27 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/19/2010 10:29:38 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
Pleasure is NOT your highest value. Suppose we could construct a machine that directly stimulates your dopamine receptors, giving you limitless pleasure. The machine is so well designed, that you never tire of this constant bliss, it's just an unending good feeling. Should you plug in?

In a heartbeat.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2010 10:34:00 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/19/2010 10:29:38 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
Pleasure is NOT your highest value. Suppose we could construct a machine that directly stimulates your dopamine receptors, giving you limitless pleasure. The machine is so well designed, that you never tire of this constant bliss, it's just an unending good feeling. Should you plug in?

Absolutely.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2010 10:34:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/19/2010 10:28:04 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 9/19/2010 10:23:03 PM, Reasoning wrote:
I may give to the poor, as charity stimulates parts of my brain that make me feel happy, but I do so for purely egoistic reasons. I do it because I want to, not because I ought to.

CHA-CHING!

Then you're a nihilist. Why is this so difficult for you to comprehend?

1. "Ought" implies a moral imperative (premise)
2. X does not believe in a moral imperative. (premise)
3. Therefore, X is a nihilist (1,2 by modus tollens)

Simple logic is simple, no?
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2010 10:35:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/19/2010 9:37:11 PM, Reasoning wrote:
I am my own cause. I live only to please myself and I really do not care if you call that unjust. All things are my property. Whatever I want and covet, I will seize, if given the opportunity.

There is no right nor wrong. There is only what is expedient and what is inexpedient. What is justice? It is a chimera placed in your head by a spook. Nothing is more to me than myself.

Nothing wrong with murder, rape? Nothing. If it pleases me and it is expedient I will do such things.

I have no obligation to respect anyone or anything. All things are nothing to me.*

It is in your best interest to be altruistic towards others.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2010 10:36:25 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/19/2010 10:23:00 PM, FREEDO wrote:
I KNOW my pleasure is right. I cannot deny this. That would be insanity.

I think you're confusing standard and purpose. Suppose you're looking at a mathematical equation. You know the answer to the equation, but your teacher insists that you solve it to prove that your answer is indeed correct. The purpose, then, is to come up with the correct answer; however, that does not mean that any means of finding the right answer are true. You cannot violate the nature of mathematics by dividing by zero, failing to maintain equality on both sides of the equation, and so forth. You cannot, for example, subtract y from one side, and not the other. So, although your purpose is to obtain the correct answer, there are certain boundaries within which you may properly seek it. The standard, then, is where mathematics comes into play, with various theorems, formulas, procedures, and the like. Similarly, while the purpose of morality is to produce happiness, one cannot hope to advocate the contradiction of a standard whereby "whatever makes you happy" is ethically legitimate. This leads to conflicts in terms of what can properly be evaluated as moral, right, or good. You need a standard proper to your pursuit; however, a rational being would never truly be able to advocate a system within which the only moral principle is "do what brings pleasure", for such a license is in fact detrimental to the suit of pleasure. Ethics proposes principles which are best suited, given man's nature, to the pursuit of pleasure. And I guarantee you that this optimum principle is not a hedonistic free-for-all.

Any entity that may feel pleasure and displeasure as I do would also be insane if they denied this to themself.

Straw man, big time. Denying outright Hedonism is in no way denying the pursuit of pleasure. The intention of ethics is to provide guidelines which help to maximize the efficacy and intensity of one's pursuit of eudaimonia, which I would argue is probably the greatest sort of pleasure possible.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2010 10:37:16 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/19/2010 10:35:38 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 9/19/2010 9:37:11 PM, Reasoning wrote:
I am my own cause. I live only to please myself and I really do not care if you call that unjust. All things are my property. Whatever I want and covet, I will seize, if given the opportunity.

There is no right nor wrong. There is only what is expedient and what is inexpedient. What is justice? It is a chimera placed in your head by a spook. Nothing is more to me than myself.

Nothing wrong with murder, rape? Nothing. If it pleases me and it is expedient I will do such things.

I have no obligation to respect anyone or anything. All things are nothing to me.*

It is in your best interest to be altruistic towards others.

Altruism, by definition, is a doctrine which requires you to place the interests of others above your own.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2010 10:38:42 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/19/2010 10:36:21 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 9/19/2010 10:33:27 PM, Reasoning wrote:

In a heartbeat.

At 9/19/2010 10:34:00 PM, FREEDO wrote:

Absolutely.

Why?

That's a stupid question.

"The machine is so well designed, that you never tire of this constant bliss, it's just an unending good feeling."

What more is there to life?
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2010 10:43:24 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/19/2010 10:38:42 PM, Reasoning wrote:

That's a stupid question.

"The machine is so well designed, that you never tire of this constant bliss, it's just an unending good feeling."

What more is there to life?

1. You're limiting yourself to a confined world and eliminating the possibility making contact with something deeper.

2. Often, we want to be a certain type of person (ie. knowledgeable, caring, brave). By plugging in to the machine, you become an indeterminate blob, possessing no defining qualities, attributes, or virtues.

3. Often, the pleasure of experiencing a certain action is secondary to our desire to perform the action itself.

Those are Nozick's reasons. I'm sure I could think of more, but all in all, I pity you if pleasure is all you really value.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2010 10:44:59 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/19/2010 10:37:16 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 9/19/2010 10:35:38 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 9/19/2010 9:37:11 PM, Reasoning wrote:
I am my own cause. I live only to please myself and I really do not care if you call that unjust. All things are my property. Whatever I want and covet, I will seize, if given the opportunity.

There is no right nor wrong. There is only what is expedient and what is inexpedient. What is justice? It is a chimera placed in your head by a spook. Nothing is more to me than myself.

Nothing wrong with murder, rape? Nothing. If it pleases me and it is expedient I will do such things.

I have no obligation to respect anyone or anything. All things are nothing to me.*

It is in your best interest to be altruistic towards others.

Altruism, by definition, is a doctrine which requires you to place the interests of others above your own.

"Altruism is selfless concern for the welfare of others." -- Wikipedia

If having concern for the welfare of others benefits you, you are doing it out of your own self-interest.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2010 10:47:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/19/2010 10:38:14 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
Give it up, Cody. It's like trying to convert DATCMOTO to atheism.

Who are you referring to? I'm relatively undecided concerning morality and ethics.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2010 10:47:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/19/2010 10:44:59 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 9/19/2010 10:37:16 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 9/19/2010 10:35:38 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 9/19/2010 9:37:11 PM, Reasoning wrote:
I am my own cause. I live only to please myself and I really do not care if you call that unjust. All things are my property. Whatever I want and covet, I will seize, if given the opportunity.

There is no right nor wrong. There is only what is expedient and what is inexpedient. What is justice? It is a chimera placed in your head by a spook. Nothing is more to me than myself.

Nothing wrong with murder, rape? Nothing. If it pleases me and it is expedient I will do such things.

I have no obligation to respect anyone or anything. All things are nothing to me.*

It is in your best interest to be altruistic towards others.

Altruism, by definition, is a doctrine which requires you to place the interests of others above your own.

"Altruism is selfless concern for the welfare of others." -- Wikipedia

If having concern for the welfare of others benefits you, you are doing it out of your own self-interest.

Let me put it this way:

"Altruism is selfless concern for the welfare of others." -- Wikipedia

"Altruism is selfless concern"

"selfless concern"

"selfless"

"selfless"

"selfless"

"selfless"

"selfless"

"selfless"

"selfless"

Is it starting to make sense that the notion doing something selfless because it's in one's self-interest is a complete contradiction?
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2010 10:48:26 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/19/2010 10:43:24 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 9/19/2010 10:38:42 PM, Reasoning wrote:

That's a stupid question.

"The machine is so well designed, that you never tire of this constant bliss, it's just an unending good feeling."

What more is there to life?

1. You're limiting yourself to a confined world and eliminating the possibility making contact with something deeper.

There is nothing deeper. I will have all the pleasure imaginable.

2. Often, we want to be a certain type of person (ie. knowledgeable, caring, brave). By plugging in to the machine, you become an indeterminate blob, possessing no defining qualities, attributes, or virtues.

But I will have all the pleasure that would come from having these qualities plus more.

3. Often, the pleasure of experiencing a certain action is secondary to our desire to perform the action itself.

It's secondary to the pleasure we take in performing the action, yes. But I will still receive that.

Those are Nozick's reasons. I'm sure I could think of more, but all in all, I pity you if pleasure is all you really value.

I pity you for not realizing that it is all you value, as well.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2010 10:48:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/19/2010 10:47:43 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 9/19/2010 10:38:14 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
Give it up, Cody. It's like trying to convert DATCMOTO to atheism.

Who are you referring to? I'm relatively undecided concerning morality and ethics.

He's talking about FREEDO, I'd imagine. Reasoning too, perhaps.
Atheism
Posts: 2,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2010 10:48:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/19/2010 10:43:24 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 9/19/2010 10:38:42 PM, Reasoning wrote:

That's a stupid question.

"The machine is so well designed, that you never tire of this constant bliss, it's just an unending good feeling."

What more is there to life?

1. You're limiting yourself to a confined world and eliminating the possibility making contact with something deeper.

2. Often, we want to be a certain type of person (ie. knowledgeable, caring, brave). By plugging in to the machine, you become an indeterminate blob, possessing no defining qualities, attributes, or virtues.

3. Often, the pleasure of experiencing a certain action is secondary to our desire to perform the action itself.

Those are Nozick's reasons. I'm sure I could think of more, but all in all, I pity you if pleasure is all you really value.
Not that I'm agree with you or them, but why would they care in the first place?

They are already in permanent bliss, so why would they want to risk that certain pleasure in place of something that may not be there at all?

For the second one, they are in permanent bliss. They would not care.

The third? It was granted that this machine would give them permanent pleasure in the first place. Invalid point, since the pleasure is not mitigated as they are already certain to grasp it.
I miss the old members.