Total Posts:62|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Morality does not exist.

Fungo
Posts: 8
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2010 11:53:22 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Hi, I'm a newb please don't kill me. And PoeJoe promised me you won't.

I have a little proposition to make, and I welcome all feedbacks.

I do not believe that morality or conscience exists. I believe it's called Psychological Egoism.
Demonstration: You're in a store, and you know that if the cashier gave you extra change, it'll have to come out of his pocket. He gives you $20 extra change, most people would return the money.
The same situation, except he gives you a penny; most people would NOT return the money. Why?
Some will say that because it is negligible. who cares about a penny?
The reason it is negligible is because it has low monetary value; that means that conscience hinges NOT on something innate, as most agree, but instead depends on something artificial, like monetary value.

Moreover, if a penny is negligible, and keeping the penny from the clerk not wrong, I should be also allowed to take pennies from anyone. If someone's just sitting at a table counting pennies, it is fine for me to take their penny! In both cases, 1 person loses a penny and 1 person gains a penny. Why the difference in judgement? (Please tell me if I'm not explaining this clearly)

Another scenario: There is significantly more mass murder/rape in Africa than in Western Europe. People who conduct mass murder/rape are not considered moral/have a conscience. Why are Africans more immoral? Is there something wrong with them? (This is sarcasm/question directed to proponents of morality.)

I also propose that there does not exist a free choice, and that all decisions are rational. Every single decision is made after weighing of benefits, and one ALWAYS choose the way that gives HIMSELF the most benefit. Something like predeterminism. This also makes morality invalid.

(Please try to explain things in a simple way, since I'm not very experienced with either debating or philosophy; this is just something that i thought up, I was not influenced or educated by any particular school of thought)
PoeJoe
Posts: 3,822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2010 12:13:38 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Note that the above account really is a friend of mine and not an alt... well, a friend with benefits, but w/e. The point is that I'm not multi-accounting. Kthnxbai.
Television Rot: http://tvrot.com...
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2010 12:24:24 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I agree with everything except the last paragraph. Not every choice is in one's self-interest, because they may simply fail at doing it.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2010 12:51:48 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
"I also propose that there does not exist a free choice, and that all decisions are rational."

LOL. What world are you living in? I wish that were true.
"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
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2010 1:03:30 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/15/2010 12:13:38 AM, PoeJoe wrote:
Note that the above account really is a friend of mine and not an alt... well, a friend with benefits, but w/e. The point is that I'm not multi-accounting. Kthnxbai.

I knew it.
TheSkeptic
Posts: 1,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2010 1:06:18 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/14/2010 11:53:22 PM, Fungo wrote:
Hi, I'm a newb please don't kill me. And PoeJoe promised me you won't.

Welcome.

I have a little proposition to make, and I welcome all feedbacks.

I do not believe that morality or conscience exists. I believe it's called Psychological Egoism.

Problems already. Setting to prove objective morality doesn't exist is a tough task already, but denying conscience? What a psychologist might refer to as a conscience is something almost anyone can attest to, i.e. guilt. If you mean to refer to a reliable conscience in terms of morality (similar to ethical intuitions), then that's another issue - you should clarify. Further, psychological egoism has little to do with your first two tasks; it's specifically the claim that all behavior are motivated by self-interest.

Demonstration: You're in a store, and you know that if the cashier gave you extra change, it'll have to come out of his pocket. He gives you $20 extra change, most people would return the money.
The same situation, except he gives you a penny; most people would NOT return the money. Why?
Some will say that because it is negligible. who cares about a penny?
The reason it is negligible is because it has low monetary value; that means that conscience hinges NOT on something innate, as most agree, but instead depends on something artificial, like monetary value.

Sketchy last premise, not only do you assume a reliable ethical intuition must rely on something innate, but you also assume a reliable ethical intuition is a necessary condition for morality. Even if you aren't claiming the latter, the former seem shoddy in defense.

Moreover, if a penny is negligible, and keeping the penny from the clerk not wrong, I should be also allowed to take pennies from anyone. If someone's just sitting at a table counting pennies, it is fine for me to take their penny! In both cases, 1 person loses a penny and 1 person gains a penny. Why the difference in judgement? (Please tell me if I'm not explaining this clearly)

Well, one difference is that the situation with the clerk is an error in his fault - you have no moral obligation to return a penny or 20$ (since it is by his error that you gained more than you deserved). On the other hand, going around and robbing people is the flip.

Another scenario: There is significantly more mass murder/rape in Africa than in Western Europe. People who conduct mass murder/rape are not considered moral/have a conscience. Why are Africans more immoral? Is there something wrong with them? (This is sarcasm/question directed to proponents of morality.)

First, moral behavior can be largely affected by environmental and perhaps genetic conditions. More importantly, an issue with descriptive accounts of moral behavior has no substantial bearing on a sound prescriptive morality.

I also propose that there does not exist a free choice, and that all decisions are rational. Every single decision is made after weighing of benefits, and one ALWAYS choose the way that gives HIMSELF the most benefit. Something like predeterminism. This also makes morality invalid.

First, define decision. If you mean an "act", then going by the standard definition in the lexicon of action theory (albeit even that is under debate), any decision would be rational. Trivial point aside, it's a heavy burden to claim all acts are out of self-interest, unless you contort "self-interest" enough to allow such an expansive conception. Which, semantically, I guess you could do. Not very philosophically noteworthy at that point though.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2010 1:51:40 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/14/2010 11:53:22 PM, Fungo wrote:
Hi, I'm a newb please don't kill me. And PoeJoe promised me you won't.

I have a little proposition to make, and I welcome all feedbacks.

I do not believe that morality or conscience exists. I believe it's called Psychological Egoism.
Demonstration: You're in a store, and you know that if the cashier gave you extra change, it'll have to come out of his pocket. He gives you $20 extra change, most people would return the money.
The same situation, except he gives you a penny; most people would NOT return the money. Why?
Some will say that because it is negligible. who cares about a penny?
The reason it is negligible is because it has low monetary value; that means that conscience hinges NOT on something innate, as most agree, but instead depends on something artificial, like monetary value.

What you have done in the above example is actually prove existence of morality. However morality is dependent on circumstance and scale, a penny is inconsequential, £20 is not. In the same way someone who might quietly steal an extra slice of pizza from his chums who all contributed equally to the pizza purchase is unlikely to murder them for said pizza.

Moreover, if a penny is negligible, and keeping the penny from the clerk not wrong, I should be also allowed to take pennies from anyone. If someone's just sitting at a table counting pennies, it is fine for me to take their penny! In both cases, 1 person loses a penny and 1 person gains a penny. Why the difference in judgement? (Please tell me if I'm not explaining this clearly)

One is an omission which you know to be wrong but inconsequential.
The second example is a postive action, which you know to be wrong and has consequences.

Another scenario: There is significantly more mass murder/rape in Africa than in Western Europe. People who conduct mass murder/rape are not considered moral/have a conscience. Why are Africans more immoral? Is there something wrong with them? (This is sarcasm/question directed to proponents of morality.)

Morality is subjective, once you choose a moral paradignm other moralities that deviate from yours are immoral.

I also propose that there does not exist a free choice, and that all decisions are rational. Every single decision is made after weighing of benefits, and one ALWAYS choose the way that gives HIMSELF the most benefit. Something like predeterminism. This also makes morality invalid.

Humans are not solely rational beings, this is a non-starter.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2010 1:53:47 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
In the same way someone who might quietly steal an extra slice of pizza from his chums who all contributed equally to the pizza purchase is unlikely to murder them for said pizza.

Or even just eat the whole pizza.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
Fungo
Posts: 8
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2010 4:41:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
First I would like to thank everyone for your responses.

@GeoLaureate8
I guess I'm trying to say that all decisions are made, conscious or subconscious, to maximize a selfish gain. They are rational in the sense that all decisions can be fully and logically explained using the ultimate goal of self gain.

@TheSkeptic
Sorry I should have been more clear in defining what I mean by conscience and morality. Conscience:(from dictinoary.com) the complex of ethical and moral principles that controls or inhibits the actions or thoughts of an individual. (from wikipedia) Conscience is an aptitude, faculty, intuition, or judgment of the intellect that distinguishes right from wrong.

I am disputing the existence of "ethical and moral principles" and any distinction of "right from wrong."

And I dispute this existence because of psychological egoism, that all decisions are motivated by self-interest, as opposed to morality/conscience, which implies (from my understanding) a consideration of the interests of others.

"Sketchy last premise, not only do you assume a reliable ethical intuition must rely on something innate, but you also assume a reliable ethical intuition is a necessary condition for morality. Even if you aren't claiming the latter, the former seem shoddy in defense."

I have been under the impression that most people think of conscience as something innate. I also thought that ethics and morality are in large part interchangeable. If this is not creating a big problem for you, I hope we can move past the semantics.

"Well, one difference is that the situation with the clerk is an error in his fault - you have no moral obligation to return a penny or 20$ (since it is by his error that you gained more than you deserved). On the other hand, going around and robbing people is the flip."

I'm pretty sure that most people will agree that it is a moral obligation to return the money. You have done nothing to earn the money, and as I've said in the beginning, you are under the full knowledge that the clerk will suffer a loss, and you will gain without work. In fact, it is more reasonable in some ways to steal the money, because you will actually have to work for the money.

"First, moral behavior can be largely affected by environmental and perhaps genetic conditions."

Are you supposing that Africans are inferior, psychologically?

"More importantly, an issue with descriptive accounts of moral behavior has no substantial bearing on a sound prescriptive morality."

I didn't understand this.

Decision: Can't really define it cuz it doesn't exist :p.. But what I mean is that men have always and will always act out of their express selfishness, and in all cases, there is only one possible way. The reasoning part of your brain(where it goes oh should i spend 5 dollars on ice cream or should i save it) does not actually take part in the actual "act." (of either buying iscream or saving) You are naturally and irreversibly inclined to one of those actions. Because of your previous experience, your mind has already formulated a judgement on which choice would be more beneficial. You cannot actually choose which course of action to take.

(In some ways, i guess this is actually against my own theory that every choice is rational, but I think you guys get what I mean...)

Before I continue, I would like all repliers to answer the following question:
Name one action, anything, that cannot be completely attributed to a selfish gain.

@Cerebral_Narcissist
in your first example, you are not using a similar situation as I did. In my example, when I account all losses and gains, the two situation(keeping extra change/stealing) are equal. In your comparison, the two situations(stealing pizza/murdering them for pizza) not all losses are equal, quite obviously.

"One is an omission which you know to be wrong but inconsequential.
The second example is a postive action, which you know to be wrong and has consequences."

What kind of consequences are you talking about? the pragmatic consequences are the same for each one...moral consequences..well that's kind of the whole point we're discussing here...

"Morality is subjective, once you choose a moral paradignm other moralities that deviate from yours are immoral."
I feel like this is kind of a cheat, as morality has to be objective or universal to mean something; saying that each person has a different moral system kind of defeats the purpose...but this is really besides the point, since I'm refuting all moralities.

"Humans are not solely rational beings, this is a non-starter."
Please see my explanation above; maybe rational is not quite the best word to use..

@lovelife
Pizza, mmmmmmm
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2010 4:56:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/15/2010 1:03:30 AM, innomen wrote:
At 9/15/2010 12:13:38 AM, PoeJoe wrote:
Note that the above account really is a friend of mine and not an alt... well, a friend with benefits, but w/e. The point is that I'm not multi-accounting. Kthnxbai.

I knew it.

lol... see it's less PC for me to say so... but I too found that revelation Unsurprising...
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2010 4:57:50 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/15/2010 4:56:30 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 9/15/2010 1:03:30 AM, innomen wrote:
At 9/15/2010 12:13:38 AM, PoeJoe wrote:
Note that the above account really is a friend of mine and not an alt... well, a friend with benefits, but w/e. The point is that I'm not multi-accounting. Kthnxbai.

I knew it.

lol... see it's less PC for me to say so... but I too found that revelation Unsurprising...

he did start calling that CJL kid a f@g... which was unnecessary... and silly... so Clearly he was having some kind of trouble with something at the time...
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2010 8:23:56 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
They are rational in the sense that all decisions can be fully and logically explained using the ultimate goal of self gain.

Man spill own guts on floor.

Wat do?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2010 8:25:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/15/2010 1:12:06 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
It exists, it's just arbitrary.

If it's arbitrary, it doesn't exist. Are you EVER going to justify that statement or just keep repeating it like a broken record.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2010 8:30:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Or-- man refuse to eat, so he will die. It's not some kind of political protest which he expects to end before dying either.

Any definition of "self-interest" which permits such acts and more which people have actually undertaken is vacuous. To say that all human action is motivated, a basic truth, is not to establish that that motive is self-interest in any meaningful sense.

Such acts, all acts contrary to one's own interest, to one's own life, are immoral. An act which promotes one's life is moral-- i.e., in accordance with one's goals (if one has NOT chosen to pursue the promotion of one's life, one has not eaten, and one is not talking to me, having died of hunger). If one is inconsistent, they need to correct this, you can't achieve a contradiction in reality, it's just not available.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2010 8:32:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/15/2010 8:30:35 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Such acts, all acts contrary to one's own interest, to one's own life, are immoral.

How do you decide what your "interest" is... why do you value your life?
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2010 8:35:12 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/15/2010 8:32:30 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 9/15/2010 8:30:35 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Such acts, all acts contrary to one's own interest, to one's own life, are immoral.

How do you decide what your "interest" is... why do you value your life?

It's irreducible. One can't ask "why" of the source of the "why" for all other actions, it's meaningless by defnition. One can only ask "Do I choose this?" If you suddenly realize oops, you don't choose this, the option to do absolutely nothing starting now is right at your fingers, and what you don't value will cease to be there in a few days.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2010 8:45:34 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/15/2010 8:35:12 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 9/15/2010 8:32:30 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 9/15/2010 8:30:35 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Such acts, all acts contrary to one's own interest, to one's own life, are immoral.

How do you decide what your "interest" is... why do you value your life?

It's irreducible. One can't ask "why" of the source of the "why" for all other actions, it's meaningless by defnition. One can only ask "Do I choose this?" If you suddenly realize oops, you don't choose this, the option to do absolutely nothing starting now is right at your fingers, and what you don't value will cease to be there in a few days.

I choose to pursue things b/c I believe I'll get enjoyment out of them... and I avoid/ act to prevent other things from happening b/c I wouldn't like them to happen/ their happening would upset me in some manner... make me unhappy... or feel pain.

The reason I believe those things will have those results... is b/c I've had a wealth of experiences (and a framework in which they fit) which have been accompanied by Pleasant or Unpleasant feelings....

Coming to a better understanding of how all those Things interrelate I can better understand what I would have done... what's, overall, in my "interest".

I don't see the reason to value your life UNLESS you somehow find enjoyment through it... and don't see why it would be the only "interest".

Your Free Floating Choosing doesn't make much sense to me... you sound like Sarte...

why would anyone Choose anything UNLESS they cared one way or the other? what's the motivation to Act... to CHOOSE?

It seems for MOST actions... you'd say you act to pursue a goal...

If Choosing is considered an act... what's the purpose of that action? it seems silly to choose if you don't care... there's certainly no reason to.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2010 8:56:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/15/2010 8:45:34 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
you sound like Sarte...

though Sarte's talk of the Anguish of making choices (espc. important ones where lives or whatnot hang in the balance) belies HIS inconsistency... For that just shows that he ALREADY has some kind of valuations... and attatchment/cares/concerns... and he doesn't CHOOSE them as Freely as he suggests.

You don't do this... but I don't get WHY you'd decide to sit down and go about Choosing something... Much less why you'd choose any particular thing you do... or how you could go about doing so...

You present it like an act... a conscious choice... but don't have any explanation of the process... can't explain HOW you go about evaluating the options....

To me it either doesn't sound conscious... or it sounds like You (like sarte) are deluding yourself as to the process...

I think this is relevant to the thread.... as I think Morals are rooted in what things you enjoy/dislike...

if you enjoy and dislike a broader array of things than life and death.... Morality would encompass more than the "Rational Self Interest" which you and the OP seem to cling to (In your case at least: w/o any explanation, as to why you choose it/cling to it, at all)
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2010 9:10:17 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/15/2010 8:35:12 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 9/15/2010 8:32:30 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 9/15/2010 8:30:35 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Such acts, all acts contrary to one's own interest, to one's own life, are immoral.

How do you decide what your "interest" is... why do you value your life?

It's irreducible. One can't ask "why" of the source of the "why" for all other actions, it's meaningless by defnition.

I don't ask WHY of Biology/physics...

and don't ask WHY as to my shirking away from intense heat.. or WHY as to enjoying those things I do...

I ask WHY of Rational Choices... and Reasoning of any sort...
I like the conclusions/decisions to be based in fact...

Decisions being based upon the apparent Facts regarding what I enjoy.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Fungo
Posts: 8
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2010 10:15:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
@Ragner
"Or-- man refuse to eat, so he will die. It's not some kind of political protest which he expects to end before dying either."
source? i've never heard of that happening....

@mattrodstrom
"I choose to pursue things b/c I believe I'll get enjoyment out of them... and I avoid/ act to prevent other things from happening b/c I wouldn't like them to happen/ their happening would upset me in some manner... make me unhappy... or feel pain.

The reason I believe those things will have those results... is b/c I've had a wealth of experiences (and a framework in which they fit) which have been accompanied by Pleasant or Unpleasant feelings...."

Ok i'm very confused, I'm not sure if you're on my side or opposing me, but no matter! What you've said here I completely agree. You will always choose the single option that gives you the most enjoyment, and that decision is framed solely by your past experiences...thanks for putting it in a clear way
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2010 12:39:02 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Before I continue, I would like all repliers to answer the following question:
Name one action, anything, that cannot be completely attributed to a selfish gain.

Here's one that I did. I saw a fly drowning, I took it out of the koolaid let it rest on my hand walk around and when it was ready to fly again released it outside.

No clue what I gained, but it was the most moral thing to do.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2010 1:01:33 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
What about countless examples of people risking, even giving their life to save anothers? What about teachers that spend thousands of dollars to get a degree and make less then min wage overall?
They clearly dhose things just because it helps others, even tho it puts themselves at a disadvantage.

What about giving to charity?
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
Sobriquet
Posts: 390
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2010 1:12:06 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/16/2010 12:39:02 AM, lovelife wrote:
Before I continue, I would like all repliers to answer the following question:
Name one action, anything, that cannot be completely attributed to a selfish gain.

Here's one that I did. I saw a fly drowning, I took it out of the koolaid let it rest on my hand walk around and when it was ready to fly again released it outside.

No clue what I gained, but it was the most moral thing to do.

I dislike egoism, but I thought I'd contribute an idea anyways

You had nothing to gain from letting it die, and saving it made you feel happier. You saved the fly to benefit your mood.
"Bullsh!t is unavoidable whenever circumstance require someone to talk without knowing what he is talking about."
— Harry G. Frankfurt
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2010 1:34:13 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/15/2010 10:15:03 PM, Fungo wrote:
@Ragner
"Or-- man refuse to eat, so he will die. It's not some kind of political protest which he expects to end before dying either."
source? i've never heard of that happening....
http://en.wikipedia.org...
I can't remember where,but I remember reading somewhere that it was once a common way to die. Some of the stuff the wiki mentions for it is political but not all of it.

No clue what I gained, but it was the most moral thing to do.
No it wasn't, Lovelife. Flies are bad.

I ask WHY of Rational Choices... and Reasoning of any sort...
I like the conclusions/decisions to be based in fact...
Decisions being based upon the apparent Facts regarding what I enjoy.
One cannot reason until one has first decided to reason.
And you agree with me, since you can't say "Why" you care about enjoyment (pursuing happiness, valuing life-- the terms are, again, inextricably bound, assuming you mean a long-term integrated enjoyment, not a fleeting pleasure of body alone, though that last is in itself something of a bonus to the former if not counteracted).

I don't see the reason to value your life UNLESS you somehow find enjoyment through it
I said "live" not "survive." Valuing one's life is inextricably bound with seeking happiness through it, or it wouldn't be valuing.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2010 5:03:05 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/16/2010 1:12:06 AM, Sobriquet wrote:
At 9/16/2010 12:39:02 AM, lovelife wrote:
Before I continue, I would like all repliers to answer the following question:
Name one action, anything, that cannot be completely attributed to a selfish gain.

Here's one that I did. I saw a fly drowning, I took it out of the koolaid let it rest on my hand walk around and when it was ready to fly again released it outside.

No clue what I gained, but it was the most moral thing to do.

I dislike egoism, but I thought I'd contribute an idea anyways

You had nothing to gain from letting it die, and saving it made you feel happier. You saved the fly to benefit your mood.

And why does it help with my mood?

No it wasn't, Lovelife. Flies are bad.

Just different, not bad.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
xxdarkxx
Posts: 3,090
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2010 6:05:59 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/16/2010 1:01:33 AM, lovelife wrote:
What about countless examples of people risking, even giving their life to save anothers? What about teachers that spend thousands of dollars to get a degree and make less then min wage overall?
They clearly dhose things just because it helps others, even tho it puts themselves at a disadvantage.

What about giving to charity?

ummm no, thats most likely because they care deeply about that person.

I know for myself I would only risk myself or try to save someone else if I deeply cared about them.
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2010 6:22:18 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/16/2010 5:03:05 AM, lovelife wrote:

Just different, not bad.

Was Hitler not bad, just different? Flies spread nasty diseases that kill people.
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2010 6:43:44 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/16/2010 6:22:18 AM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 9/16/2010 5:03:05 AM, lovelife wrote:

Just different, not bad.

Was Hitler not bad, just different? Flies spread nasty diseases that kill people.

Hitler was not unique. He helped some of the germans by being a d!ckwad to the others. People do stuff like that all the time, smaller scale.

Ann said something about one of her cousins dying saving a kids life. In Iraq I believe. Its not always someone you care deeply about, its about your morality.

Not all flies spread disease. Honestly by that I could say "Humans spread disease, I should be allowed to kill them then."
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2010 8:21:06 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/15/2010 4:41:36 PM, Fungo wrote:
@Cerebral_Narcissist
in your first example, you are not using a similar situation as I did. In my example, when I account all losses and gains, the two situation(keeping extra change/stealing) are equal. In your comparison, the two situations(stealing pizza/murdering them for pizza) not all losses are equal, quite obviously.


Your two examples are not equal and I clearly clarified that. One is an omission without consequences, the second is an act with consequences.

"One is an omission which you know to be wrong but inconsequential.
The second example is a postive action, which you know to be wrong and has consequences."

What kind of consequences are you talking about? the pragmatic consequences are the same for each one...moral consequences..well that's kind of the whole point we're discussing here...

If the example of the clerk there are no consequences to you, you are enriched by a penny. In the example of the theft the consequence is a confrontation with the man.

"Morality is subjective, once you choose a moral paradignm other moralities that deviate from yours are immoral."
I feel like this is kind of a cheat, as morality has to be objective or universal to mean something; saying that each person has a different moral system kind of defeats the purpose...but this is really besides the point, since I'm refuting all moralities.

We have a clear break down in terms here, morality does not mean anything in an objective manner, your original terms did not address this. You set out to deny the existence of morality.

Morality is subjective it is taste, an opinion, a point of few, a conditioned reflex. It is not objective, not universal. A black hole does not care if you feel guilty, one act that make one person happy creates guilt in another.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.