|
| Thread: Moral Philosophy |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
posted July 05, 2008 05:46 PM |
|
|
Ok, I have been thinking about this subject for awhile now and I think that Morals are relative. There's no such thing a "true good" or "absolute good" since "good" is defined by humans, and is therefore subjective.
Just think about it: who defines morals? Humans. Humans have different cultures. Different cultures have different morals (somewhere may be ok to murder - this is just an example, I'm not saying it is true) and thus the morals are relative.
Now let's consider a practical example: there's a terrorist that thinks killing in the name of Allah is the right thing to do. From his point of view, killing people is actually good and moral. From our point of view (and the majority) what he does is immoral and evil. However, just because the majority doesn't agree with the terrorist doesn't mean that our views of morals are the "true and absolute" ones. It's just that he has completely different morals and views "good" and "evil" different than we do. From our point of view, he acts immoral, from his, he acts moral. Which of the above is correct? No one, or both. Morals are relative, and vary from person to person (even though some morals are agreed by a lot of people - but that doesn't mean they are the "right" ones!)
One may say that the Bible actually defines the absolute "good", "evil" and morals. This may be true, but unless the Bible and God are "proven" somehow, some people will not follow God and will create their own morals. If the Bible was indeed "correct", then those that murder will indeed be considered immoral from an absolute point of view, however, until we have confirmation from the "Creator" (be it God or Big Bang or whatever) about the morals (and thus they will become absolute, since the creator shaped this world and he/she/it knows what's "good" and what's "evil"), morals will always be relative, since they are defined by subjective opinions (the Bible is also subjective because a human wrote it, unless of course it is proven that it indeed contains God's will)
I hope I was clear in this post and please don't start to bash me
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 05, 2008 05:54 PM |
|
|
Your point is valid in a way, some philosophers use it as well (not every philosopher, which is one of the things in philosophy: there will always be discussions  ).
First of all, "right" and "wrong" are subjective, I agree. In fact, the only way you can have "wrong" to be objective is if you use that for devices, e.g:
This device doesn't work. It's design is wrong.
With my absolute idea of morals, I used the "good" word to explain not that what you do is "good" (whatever that means: e.g: feeling good). What do you define by good? Something which makes you feel pleasant? (such as pleasing Allah in the name of that terrorist)
Is that how you define "good"?
My definition is absolute much like selfish, for example, is absolute (no one uses that to explain someone who is altruistic). They are only words, what concerns me is the meaning of them.
Thus, when you say that even (what my model considers evil) evil people need to think that their actions are "good", you actually say that they think that their actions will "satisfy" them in whatever mean, right?
But my model is absolute, it's just a definition in the dictionary. Relative "good" and "evil" can't be defined, thus it's why I overloaded those definitions with mine. I could have as well used the "g00d" and "ev1l" words to explain what I meant.
The point in what I said was that you need to have a vocabulary and dictionary to be able to communicate.
Question: How do you call someone that is not thinking only about himself and treats others the same as him? How do you call this same person if he also helps others when he would want in that situation to be helped? How do you call this someone if he also is 100% altruistic?
Answer: That's the definition I use for g00d (g zero zero d, not "good" because that causes too much confusion it seems).
If I want to tell you that I saw an alien with the above characteristics, I simply say to you that the alien was g00d instead of using all the lengthy definition of it.
Similar with ev1l. This way, you see, they are only words that explain an absolute meaning. It's nothing about "seeking your own pleasure" or "satisfying yourself" (in which I believe your point targets when speaking about "good"), it's only a means of communication so, instead of typing all the characteristics that make someone g00d, I simply use the word g00d.
Hope that helps clarifying my point 
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted July 05, 2008 06:01 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Question: How do you call someone that is not thinking only about himself and treats others the same as him? How do you call this same person if he also helps others when he would want in that situation to be helped? How do you call this someone if he also is 100% altruistic?
It depends on the point of view. I mean, if a society considers altruistic people some "scourges" then that person would be viewed as "evil" and immoral (from that point of view). But if the society actually thinks altruistic people are kind and selfless (as most societies consider - I don't even know if there is a society that thinks otherwise) then that person would be considered "good".
It's really completely subjective and depends on what point of view you have, unless of course, it's God's point of view which is kinda absolute and the "true" one anyway (since He created the world). So if God was actually "proven" (and in the Bible it says that altruistic people are "good") then that person that's 100% altruistic would be indeed considered the most "good" person in the world, and objectively.
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 05, 2008 06:07 PM |
|
|
What I meant was that, even if the society considers 'altruism' evil, then that doesn't mean that it is ev1l (e v one l), my definition. Unless of course you consider "altruism" subjective, in which case I shall try to find a definition.
G00d and Ev1l are, for me, only a means of communication. What you do doesn't necessarily have to be called "G00d", even if you think it's going to be "good" for you. These words are used for something such as:
You see someone being selfless and helping others. You can go to me (even if the society considers it a 'scourge') and describe it to me:
Hey, look at that guy, he is g00d -- in that moment, I understand that he is helping others and is selfless. It's just a way of communication for me, and the meaning is absolute (the word/symbol is not, since it depends on the vocabulary and language).
But in this example (where the society considers it 'scourge') I also understand that the society is against him. This is subjective, I agree, but my original meaning of the word is not, it's just a way of communication.
People always want to call their actions "good", and I do not know why. It's just a word. I tried to standardize and absolutize that word so we can understand each other when someone says: "Look at that guy, he's good!", and then everyone should understand the qualities of him, even if you do not like them! (i.e you don't like altruistic people).
Selfish, for example, is not subjective, even if it is, let's say, "good" for the society. My word, g00d, and ev1l, are only definitions that embody these qualities, so we don't need to explain lengthy each time someone is g00d whatever quality he has
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 05, 2008 10:39 PM |
|
|
TheDeath, your philosophy is a philosophy of impossibility. You say that the only thing that is good (or g00d, if you prefer) is selflessness. This is what is called in some circles as worship of the zero - that is, it is an impossibility, and yet you are setting the impossible as your ideal. Your philosophy condemns everyone to a life of misery because you tell them that their own interests are evil, but the interests of others are good. If you are able to fulfill your own wants, and do so, you are not g00d, and if you use your abilities to help others, but are motivated by the pleasure of it, you are not g00d either. The only possible way to become g00d is total oblivion and obliteration of yourself.
If your friend needs money, and you don't give him any, then you are ev1l. If you give him money, but the emotional benefit outweighs the monetary loss, then you are still ev1l. Only if you give money at your own utter ruin and destruction are you g00d.
You criminalize self-interest (not literally), and tell people that whatever they do, they can't do it with their own interests in mind. They can only do it with other people's interests in mind. But why are other people's interests more important than your own? Why should they get what they want, but you not get what you want, especially considering that you can get it by yourself? Why is it okay to be dependent on others, but not okay to be dependent on your own abilities? And, of course, people can't reach this ideal you create, and thus become miserable, because no one wants to think of themselves as evil. And the only way you can enforce your philosophy is through an authoritarian government, since people won't ruin themselves, you have to ruin them. Since people won't give their money away, you'll do it for them, at the point of a gun.
Your g00d and ev1l are not good and evil, they are just evil.
Here is what good and evil really should be defined as: good is self-interest that does not infringe upon the rights of others. Evil is self-interest at the expense of others.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 06, 2008 01:09 PM |
|
|
I'll respond with a few quotes for the paragraphs themselves.
Quote:
TheDeath, your philosophy is a philosophy of impossibility. You say that the only thing that is good (or g00d, if you prefer) is selflessness. This is what is called in some circles as worship of the zero - that is, it is an impossibility, and yet you are setting the impossible as your ideal. Your philosophy condemns everyone to a life of misery because you tell them that their own interests are evil, but the interests of others are good. If you are able to fulfill your own wants, and do so, you are not g00d, and if you use your abilities to help others, but are motivated by the pleasure of it, you are not g00d either. The only possible way to become g00d is total oblivion and obliteration of yourself.
I never said that the only thing is "selflessness" is the one that qualify as g00d. More important however, is the factor at which you put yourself. Let me make this clear: when I talk about 'altruism' I do not mean selflessness. I mean that, you should view everyone else the same as yourself -- that is, your own self is still present and important. If you see someone else with a different belief, try not to view it from your belief's perspective, try to put yourself into that person's skin, and see its beliefs. That is, you still judge by your own self, but not completely limit only to your preferences or beliefs (that is, be not only tolerant for others, but actually do charity work, for that distinguishes 'g00d' from 'n3utral' ).
For example, if you see someone starving, a pure n3utral person will not help him. G00d thinks like this: If i were in that situation (that is, still compare it to your OWN self), would I like to be helped by the guy over there? (you in this case). G00d does not place you below others, but places you at the same level. N3utral places you at the same level too, but doesn't take the 'reciprocal help' approach, and doesn't put itself into the other person's skin. The difference between tolerance and charity.
Quote:
If your friend needs money, and you don't give him any, then you are ev1l. If you give him money, but the emotional benefit outweighs the monetary loss, then you are still ev1l. Only if you give money at your own utter ruin and destruction are you g00d.
There is a difference between being 'n3utral' and being 'ev1l' 
It's important also to make the difference between "pure g00d" (that is 100% g00d) and somewhat g00d. Because no person I know (including me btw) has ever qualified as g00d, but no person has ever qualified as ev1l -- that is, to the extreme.
Mathematically, we can view it as a number from 0 to 100 as follows:
0% = pure ev1l
50% = pure n3utral
100% = pure g00d
Of course just because we have the above definitions does not mean that they are only for a specific attribute -- that is, these each apply to different morals. One person may like to kill women, but help men, for example. This does not qualify as g00d in the normal sense, neither as n3utral (because he is not tolerant of women). But it doesn't qualify as ev1l either, because for men he is 'g00d', even though an ev1l thought ALWAYS replaces any g00d you have.
It's much more complex than I wrote because if I were to explain it to you down to the deepest detail, it would probably take an entire book
Quote:
Here is what good and evil really should be defined as: good is self-interest that does not infringe upon the rights of others. Evil is self-interest at the expense of others.
What you define by 'g00d' is actually 'n3utral' in my book -- that is, you ignore others, don't care about them, but respect their freedom and rights. That is tolerance, and it is n3utral's quality. Charity is g00d's quality.
Or for that matter, how would you define charity if not g00d (and nor ev1l I presume)?
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 06, 2008 06:56 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I never said that the only thing is "selflessness" is the one that qualify as g00d.
Then what are some other qualities that qualify as g00d?
Quote:
I mean that, you should view everyone else the same as yourself -- that is, your own self is still present and important.
And that's sort of the whole basis of the social contract that I was talking about. But you're just saying, "This is the way it is.", while I'm trying to explain why it is that way. Except that I'm saying that it is one's own self-interest to help others, percisely for the reason that you mentioned: that you would want them to do the same for you if you needed it. And the motivation for doing so without having to think about all the time is the emotional benefit.
Quote:
There is a difference between being 'n3utral' and being 'ev1l'
All right, but you are not g00d just because you help your friend. I say that actions are more important than the reasons for which they are performed.
Quote:
What you define by 'g00d' is actually 'n3utral' in my book -- that is, you ignore others, don't care about them, but respect their freedom and rights.
No, you didn't quite understand what I meant. Self-interest that is not at the expense of others includes in itself self-interest that helps others; that is, it is often in one's self-interest to help others, because of emotional and physical benefits.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 06, 2008 07:17 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Then what are some other qualities that qualify as g00d?
Briefly:
1) altruism
2) thinking about others the same as about yourself
3) doing charity rather than just being tolerant
4) viewing others from your perspective, and see if you would like to be helped in that situation
5) above all, NOT BEING MOTIVATED BY A REWARD
there is a crucial difference between being motivated by a reward, and actually getting the reward
(oh and let's ignore the 'emotional' benefit since we disagree on that)
Quote:
And that's sort of the whole basis of the social contract that I was talking about. But you're just saying, "This is the way it is.", while I'm trying to explain why it is that way. Except that I'm saying that it is one's own self-interest to help others, percisely for the reason that you mentioned: that you would want them to do the same for you if you needed it. And the motivation for doing so without having to think about all the time is the emotional benefit.
Since I can't really argue about the emotional benefit, I'll outline that my model also includes other species when talking about "others" (e.g: aliens)
Quote:
All right, but you are not g00d just because you help your friend. I say that actions are more important than the reasons for which they are performed.
Let's suppose that people can't change (in their 'alignment')
You see someone who "cares" for kids and gives them money, so he gets to influence the media and create a good 'image' for him. When his campaign is done, he doesn't give a snow for kids anymore. Is that person g00d?
Let's see now. Does that person actually love the children? Let me tell you something, if that person were to actually benefit from killing the children, he would have done so. That means, he can't be both ev1l and g00d, thus he is not good at all, because the reasons behind his actions were selfish.
Thus g00d has not only to do with your actions, but also with the reason and the motivation -- reward should absolutely not play any role (apart from 'emotional' reward in case you will say that).
Doing g00d actions and having a reward in mind does not make you ev1l, it only makes you n3utral, because the end result is still in your own benefit.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 06, 2008 08:27 PM |
|
|
Quote:
(oh and let's ignore the 'emotional' benefit since we disagree on that)
If we ignore the emotional benefit, there isn't much left to talk about.
Quote:
I'll outline that my model also includes other species when talking about "others"
So does mine, in certain cases. We get an emotional benefit, for example, from having pets. And my model applies to all creatures able to reason, not just humans.
Quote:
You see someone who "cares" for kids and gives them money, so he gets to influence the media and create a good 'image' for him. When his campaign is done, he doesn't give a **** for kids anymore. Is that person g00d?
He is not g00d by your definition, but he does what benefits others, so he is a good person by my definition. If someone just gives me a thousand dollars (without any strings attached), I'm happy regardless of what their reason for giving me the money is, whether it's an emotional benefit or if they're secretly hoping that I'll buy a gun and shoot myself.
Quote:
that person were to actually benefit from killing the children, he would have done so
Ah, but that is self-interest that harms others, so that is evil by my definition.
Quote:
the end result is still in your own benefit
And if others are impacted positively, why is that not a g00d thing (just because it benefitted you)?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 06, 2008 08:30 PM |
|
|
There is a difference between an action being 'good' and a person being 'good'. A person that does good actions is not necessarily good, if the respective person has some specific selfish goal in mind. It does not mean it's 'evil', but most times it's just 'neutral'.
But if you think those people are good, then how do you define someone that does so without a reward (apart from the emotional one)?
As for the other species able to 'reason' that is disputable, I mean, reason is such a loose term when applied to things we don't know
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 06, 2008 09:00 PM |
|
|
But people are defined by their actions. (Words and thoughts are actions too, sort of).
Quote:
But if you think those people are good, then how do you define someone that does so without a reward (apart from the emotional one)?
They are also good. But they are not inherently and more good or less good than those who do it for other benefits. For example, let us say that there are two people in the world: a blacksmith and a farmer. The blacksmith makes tools, while the farmer farms. Let us say that the blacksmith wants food, and the farmer wants tools, so they start trading. Thus, the blacksmith gives tools in exchange for food. Is he good, bad, or neutral here? I'd say that he's good, since he's not infringing on anyone's rights, and helping others, even though he's motivated by his self-interest. Now imagine that the blacksmith just decides to be "nice" and give the tools to the farmer without asking for food in return. Here, then, he is motivated by the emotional benefit. So how is his being motivated by food any better than his being motivated by an emotional benefit?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 06, 2008 09:02 PM |
|
|
|
Remember that my view of good does not involve the 'emotional' benefits. Then, that is a special case. Thus, g00d actions should not be motivated by any other reward apart from emotional benefits. Of course, if the farmer was also good, he would have given the blacksmith food too.
|
|
Lord_Woock
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Daddy Cool with a $90 smile
|
|
posted July 06, 2008 10:00 PM |
|
|
Sorry to disrupt the discussion, but...
Quote:
Am I a moral relativist or a moral absolutist? It depends on which way you look at it.
Am I the only one to see the irony here?
____________
Yolk and God bless.
---
My buddy's doing a webcomic and would certainly appreciate it if you checked it out!
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 06, 2008 10:08 PM |
|
|
TheDeath:
What you seem to be ultimately advocating is a gift economy, possibly the only system less realistic than Communism. People aren't going to labor without a reward. And if everyone gives the fruits of their labors to each other, then it's not really a gift economy, is it?
If an action benefits others, why does it matter why that action was performed?
Lord_Woock:
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 06, 2008 10:12 PM |
|
|
Quote:
What you seem to be ultimately advocating is a gift economy, possibly the only system less realistic than Communism. People aren't going to labor without a reward.
Few things to consider:
1) who said 'people' are g00d?
2) I wasn't talking about an 'economy' at all
I don't say how we should be -- heck if we were all good, then we would be in total anarchy and still not kill each other. I'm not talking about systems because I know that is impossible in a human society where we have flaws like greed, etc.
Quote:
If an action benefits others, why does it matter why that action was performed?
Because that is what makes the difference between n3utral and g00d
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 06, 2008 10:18 PM |
|
|
Quote:
1) who said 'people' are g00d?
As I said, you advocate worship of the impossible.
Quote:
2) I wasn't talking about an 'economy' at all
You said that the farmer should give the blacksmith food without expecting anything in return, and that the blacksmith should give the farmer tools without expecting anything in return. That's called a gift economy (at least that's a gift economy nominally).
Quote:
I don't say how we should be
Should people try to be g00d? If the answer is yes, then you are.
Quote:
we have flaws like greed
Since we've already talked about this, let's try a slightly different tack: define "greed".
Quote:
Because that is what makes the difference between n3utral and g00d
But I'd say that your definition of g00d is fundamentally flawed and, if universally adopted, would result in the collapse of civliziation.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 06, 2008 10:24 PM |
|
|
Bleh quote wars 
Quote:
You said that the farmer should give the blacksmith food without expecting anything in return, and that the blacksmith should give the farmer tools without expecting anything in return. That's called a gift economy (at least that's a gift economy nominally).
Of course that is what they should do if they are g00d. Obviously I do not expect anyone to do that nor force them 
Where's the economy system? I said that's how they would do if they were g00d, not because I say so.
Quote:
Since we've already talked about this, let's try a slightly different tack: define "greed".
Greed from dictionary.com
Quote:
But I'd say that your definition of g00d is fundamentally flawed and, if universally adopted, would result in the collapse of civliziation.
Do people like you actually are against wars? It makes me turn my head 
If we were all 'good' as I said, we wouldn't need any kind of police, any kind of hatred and never need 'force' to be 'equal' or respect each other. We wouldn't need trials, we won't know the word 'sue', etc.. (i'm not saying that I am 'good', hardly, only saying how a good world would look like, which is frankly impossible with our self-interests).
Your biggest problem is that you try to view my model with your system, in which we are all pursuing self-interests (includes emotional benefits). Let's put emotional benefits aside, as they are not considered 'rewards' or 'greed' in my system.
Guys like you actually think wars are 'needed' 
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 06, 2008 10:56 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Where's the economy system?
You're advocating production and labor without expectation of rewards. That's an economic system called a gift economy.
Quote:
excessive desire to acquire or possess more (especially more material wealth) than one needs or deserves
Isn't "excessive" extremely subjective?
Quote:
Do people like you actually are against wars?
Of course I'm against war. War is a violation of the non-aggression principle, and thus ultimately harmful.
Quote:
only saying how a good world would look like, which is frankly impossible with our self-interests
On the contrary. Self-interest enables progress. Without self-interest, life would have gone extinct before any evolution could've occured. Self-interest is a very good thing. The problem with it is that sometimes people's pursuit of self-interest interferes with other people's ability to pursue their own interest, but self-interest from a societal point of view can help us out of that problem.
Quote:
Guys like you actually think wars are 'needed'
I certainly don't.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 07, 2008 01:35 PM |
|
|
Quote:
You're advocating production and labor without expectation of rewards. That's an economic system called a gift economy.
Ok then never heard about it. It would be the best system if humans were not 'flawed' (you know what I mean by that). But of course I never even expected it to show since it would be practically impossible with human species. This allows all of us to feel happy, enlightened (because hatred wouldn't be in our way) and accomplished with ourselves and the ones surrounding us.
Quote:
Isn't "excessive" extremely subjective?
I think it means "more than someone else" that should have the same, etc..
Quote:
Of course I'm against war. War is a violation of the non-aggression principle, and thus ultimately harmful.
War is not a violation of that principle, on a nation's basis (since a nation usually does not care about another if it is 'harmful' to its economy, whatever). Basically, wars are made because of the self-interests in humans or human groups.
Quote:
On the contrary. Self-interest enables progress. Without self-interest, life would have gone extinct before any evolution could've occured. Self-interest is a very good thing.
For one that doesn't believe in anything after death, I'm amazed by what 'purpose' in life you assign. Even though self-interest adds so much 'suffering' and problems, you still say these are insignificant to 'progress' or whatever that means (thus, it's like a goal in life for you). If we would have gone extinct, it would have been better, for our self-interests have caused more trouble and harm than it would be naturally possible in such an amount of time. Not to mention that we, as humans, suffer and live with hatred/self-interest each day -- I wonder if it wouldn't be better if we didn't live at all? If all humans were to think like you 100% (and let's say religion is false), I think it would probably be better for humans to not exist at all -- not only from the other beings' point of view, but also from humans' point of view. If every day we live with such selfish attitudes, every day we know hatred, or pain, etc.. it's much worse than not being at all and disturbing everything.
If self-interests adds more trouble than otherwise, and it indeed adds, that's why we have hate, trials, police, enforcers, and WARS. Self-interest is in no way beneficial. I'm not even talking about religion right now (where obviously material stuff is worthless much like life is worthless to atheists -- i.e it has no purpose). It, obviously, may be beneficial to the respective 'human', or the respective group of humans (e.g a nation), but not for the entire scheme of things.
Thus, you might feel better with it, but ultimately a lot more suffer (not necessarily physical, can be emotional too). Self-interest is the reason we have wars, the reason we hate each other, and the reason some people are 'inferior'. If we, e.g: enslave aliens (that would never have helped us anyway), then you cannot possibly say that self-interest is good.
It may be from the wretched human society's point of view, but from the aliens' point of view it's only suffering and torment. Just because self-interest makes you feel more advantageous does not mean it applies to all beings.
Quote:
Quote:
Guys like you actually think wars are 'needed'
I certainly don't.
But self-interest causes wars. You, like in the abortion case, want something that causes another. And then you say you don't want the result. But the respective thing itself (e.g: self-interests) leads to the other, so thus whatever you say, you can't put your hand in fire and expect not to be burned. Thus, if you are in favor of self-interest, you also implicitly are in wars
oh and please don't reply with quote wars (that means, cutting my phrases or paragraphs at a tiem)
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 07, 2008 05:28 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I think it means "more than someone else" that should have the same, etc...
Don't really understand by what you mean by "more than someone else".
Quote:
War is not a violation of that principle, on a nation's basis (since a nation usually does not care about another if it is 'harmful' to its economy, whatever). Basically, wars are made because of the self-interests in humans or human groups.
War is is a violation of that principle. War is aggression, and thus violates the non-aggression principle. Wars are indeed made by self-interest, but ultimately they are against self-interest.
Quote:
For one that doesn't believe in anything after death, I'm amazed by what 'purpose' in life you assign. Even though self-interest adds so much 'suffering' and problems, you still say these are insignificant to 'progress' or whatever that means (thus, it's like a goal in life for you).
I'm not sure what you mean by "purpose". But self-interest actually minimizes suffering, since without self-interest the non-aggression and mutual aid principle wouldn't exist.
Quote:
If we would have gone extinct, it would have been better, for our self-interests have caused more trouble and harm than it would be naturally possible in such an amount of time. Not to mention that we, as humans, suffer and live with hatred/self-interest each day -- I wonder if it wouldn't be better if we didn't live at all? If all humans were to think like you 100% (and let's say religion is false), I think it would probably be better for humans to not exist at all -- not only from the other beings' point of view, but also from humans' point of view. If every day we live with such selfish attitudes, every day we know hatred, or pain, etc... it's much worse than not being at all and disturbing everything.
It would have been better for us to go extinct? Better for whom? For ourselves? Certainly not. It's generally not good to lose life, so extinction would have been terrible. And self-interest causes suffering? Perhaps that is true to a certain extent, but it minimizes suffering. Even without self-interest, we would still have plenty of suffering, and I think that self-interest reduces suffering by a great deal. Also, hatred and self-interest are two different things. Now, if you're unhappy, you are, no offense, perfectly at liberty to commit suicide. I'm happy with my world view, and I think that it'd be good if more people followed it. "Selfish" has a negative connotatition, so I prefer the term "self-interested", and again I say that self-interest is a good thing.
Quote:
If self-interests adds more trouble than otherwise, and it indeed adds, that's why we have hate, trials, police, enforcers, and WARS. Self-interest is in no way beneficial. I'm not even talking about religion right now (where obviously material stuff is worthless much like life is worthless to atheists -- i.e it has no purpose). It, obviously, may be beneficial to the respective 'human', or the respective group of humans (e.g a nation), but not for the entire scheme of things.
Self-interest does not add more trouble than it takes away. Hate has nothing to do with self-interest. Trials and police are needed to punish those who violate the non-aggression principle, so ultimately it is not in one's self-interest to violate the non-aggression principle. As for wars, they are motivated by self-interest of a relatively small group, but they violate the non-aggression principle, which is ultimately not worth it.
Quote:
But the respective thing itself (e.g: self-interests) leads to the other, so thus whatever you say, you can't put your hand in fire and expect not to be burned. Thus, if you are in favor of self-interest, you also implicitly are in wars
Wrong. If I am in favor of self-interest, it means that I am in favor of the non-aggression principle, which means that I am against wars.
And one unrelated side note: it's "...", not ".." .
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
| |
|
|
