|
| Thread: The Death - I suggest a challenge |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
posted July 23, 2008 09:25 PM |
|
Edited by Asheera at 21:25, 23 Jul 2008.
|
Hmm, the word "self-interest" has been used 14 times ( ) on the previous page (7 times by mvass and 7 times by TheDeath) 
I used just a simple search
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 23, 2008 09:27 PM |
|
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 23, 2008 09:29 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Wrong. We can be guilty for killing other humans or other people's property (not just talking about laws), but not in general.
I don't think so. What would you call in the following situation:
"Ed could have ignored that animal, but he killed it as he pleased." That is, he had a choice, so he chose. This is guilt. This, not your weird fantasy ideas about rights, property and "progress" (as if it some kind of goal in a materialistic life, geez). It is guilt in the most universal possible way. No one denies that, except you of course.
Now I understand why you actually reject all arguments for an absolute moral viewpoint or absolute definition of words (I know some words may be banned, but heck anyway). It is because you restrict yourself. See my definition above? It is valid. Can you counter it? Sure you can, by making claims and statements without providing arguments (such as: "Ed is not guilty"). Then how would you call the above? Gu1lt?? Why complicate, it is the actual definiton of the word.
When I said "what will come next", I meant what next in mentality? Do you think that your naive idea above is what's called mental evolution???  Dude, hate will still exist, criminals will still be there, animal suffering will exist, and nature will still be twisted (or polluted, whatever). What is the point of all this if we can't get ourselves above our selfish levels? Isn't the inner peace (that is, no "feeling bad") actually the 'goal' in life (materialistically speaking)?
Or more similar, what if a human would design a virus that kills everybody without pain. Would it be ok to use? Personally, not taking religion into account, yes it would. Humans cause more suffering that happiness. A lot more. There are criminals, humans hate each other, there are wars, etc... Materialistically speaking, what's the point? It's not like you'll feel anything at all when 'dead', it's much better than the suffering we cause. We'll all end up there anyway, why torture and enslave along the way?
How do we evolve mentally if we use the same "seek pleasure" mentality and stick to it? That is just plain narrow-minded and primitive, must I add, because it halts our mental evolution COMPLETELY.
Quote:
As for not blaming a dog, a dog that attacks humans should be put down, simply from the point of safety.
What does that have to do with it having any "fault" or being "guilty"  Crazy people should be put down, but that doesn't mean they are "guilty" if they are crazy, for example.
I don't like the way you replied to my alien example. It is as if you think the only thing preventing them (the aliens) would be force, how primitive is that? (i.e defend ourselves from them). So now we have "might makes right" principle, where there's nothing stopping us from killing animals but force which doesn't exist yet.
Oh and killing animals for fun is also self-interest. You may call those people weird or psychopaths, but they are essentially the same and could say the same about you: both of you seek self-interest. You have a very weird definition of it. Pleasure is one hell of a self-interest, isn't that actually some kind of "goal" in a materialistic life?
Primitive as it gets 
I don't like this "might" attitude which refers to force. Of course by that logic, there's nothing to debate. You know, force has always been a decisive "argument" without any point at all. The one more powerful must be right, no? And at the same time, responsible? I doubt that 
|
|
Cepheus
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Far-flung Keeper
|
|
posted July 23, 2008 09:41 PM |
|
|
Quote:
both of you seek self-interest
Yawn... So much for the tie.
____________
"Those who forget their history are inevitably doomed to repeat it." —Proverb, Might and Magic VIII
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 23, 2008 09:42 PM |
|
|
Quote:
"Ed could have ignored that animal, but he killed it as he pleased."
Well, aat the most basic level, of course people are responsible for killing animals. That doesn't mean that it's wrong in all cases, though. For example, if Ed was a chicken farmer, there's nothing wrong with him killing a chicken. I mean, that's part of his job. But if he's a psycho who gets twisted pleasure directly out of killing someone, that's not all right. But I wouldn't say that he was guilty, as that implies that he did something wrong. I would say that he's responsible for it.
You keep refusing to tell me what hate has to do with self-interest. Criminals are aberrations. As for animal suffering, well, it'd probably be in our interest to minimize it. As for polluting the planet, that would certainly be idiotic of us. Why would we shoot ourselves in the foot thus? We need the planet. Imagine a patient hooked up to a breathing apparatus? Would he pick up a crowbar and smash it to pieces? For the same reason, we can't and shouldn't destroy the Earth.
Your virus-producing human would certainly not be okay, as he would be depriving everyone of life. Life, after all, is the highest value, because it enables the enjoyment of other values. If you are dead, you will never experience pleasure or happiness again.
And I'm saying that self-interest is good in general. I'm not saying that self-interest is good 100% of the time. For example, in a society without any restrictions (legal or emotional), it would certainly be in people's self-interest to take as much as they can from others. Yet ultimately it is not in their self-interest, as they won't get far if they have to worry about protecting their stuff all the time. It's kind of like the prisoners' dillema (don't know if you've heard of it). Anyway, people that kill animals for pleasure are not good. Why? Well, people are animals, so if they were to make that connection, the results would be quite disasterous.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted July 23, 2008 09:48 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
both of you seek self-interest
Yawn... So much for the tie.
mvass:Quote:
And I'm saying that self-interest is good in general. I'm not saying that self-interest is good 100% of the time. For example, in a society without any restrictions (legal or emotional), it would certainly be in people's self-interest to take as much as they can from others. Yet ultimately it is not in their self-interest, as they won't get far if they have to worry about protecting their stuff all the time.
Yeah, so much for the tie...
Now seriously, by your (mvass) definition, if a human actually doesn't care at all about his father who, let's say, is very old and can't move and thus doesn't help the society AT ALL (on the contrary, he "consumes" resources - because he eats, etc), it is alright to kill the old man?
NOTE: I said doesn't care about his father, so don't start with emotional benefits!
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 23, 2008 10:22 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Well, aat the most basic level, of course people are responsible for killing animals. That doesn't mean that it's wrong in all cases, though. For example, if Ed was a chicken farmer, there's nothing wrong with him killing a chicken. I mean, that's part of his job. But if he's a psycho who gets twisted pleasure directly out of killing someone, that's not all right. But I wouldn't say that he was guilty, as that implies that he did something wrong. I would say that he's responsible for it.
You repeatedly use the term "wrong" when don't you see how subjective it is??? Since you're not using my superior absolute view regarding the matter (equality for all life & balance of the world), then you can't truly say that "it's wrong" or not for being guilty. The only thing that's wrong is a broken device
Actually, see the bolded part? A criminal has a "job" too. What makes your ideas about it more absolute or objective? Job doesn't justify in any way guiltiness. Some people, while guilty, also think that it's ok what they're doing (they don't care anyway).
Hate has A LOT to do with self-interest. You see, you hate someone precisely because you think of him as "inferior", that is your self-interest is better. For example, if you weren't self-interested, even an annoying sick man that needs your help constantly (every 5 minutes) will be someone who needs help. And you won't refuse it, since you would not be self-interested in this situation. If you are, you'll probably hate him.
But just so you can understand, at the end of your posts, you can give me an "example" situation of 'hate', then I'll reply with a quote to it (this is not considered a quote-war!) and explain to you at that example how self-interest is responsible. Then you may go on with another example, but there should be a limit for you to understand.
Quote:
Your virus-producing human would certainly not be okay, as he would be depriving everyone of life. Life, after all, is the highest value, because it enables the enjoyment of other values. If you are dead, you will never experience pleasure or happiness again.
Bingo, but you advocate the murder life and animals. Don't make exceptions and discriminate. Do you think you deserve to live more than them, just because "might makes right" applies?
And you might not feel anything when dead, but you won't feel suffering either. And most of all, you will not CAUSE suffering, as we have. You see, a tyrant that abuses people might not "feel" any pleasure when dead, but I'd say it's a lot better than to let him cause so much suffering. But even further, why not create a Matrix-type of system? Why not make a perfect virtual world for our selfish and ignorant self-interests and pleasures, and freaking leave the rest of the world alone? That way, the savages (us) will get pleased as they'll have pleasure (since it's the only thing that counts, it seems, from your opinion) and the rest won't suffer.
Interesting what you say about "killing for pleasure". So an Assassin has disastrous considerations since he kills for "job"? I don't see that happening. Yes of course he's bad, but your point doesn't apply. Either you have extreme subjective definitions of "job", "wrong" and "guilty", or you have no point at all.
But I said already in my previous post. We are primitive in our mentality and the reason is explained previously, because you think that "force" is the only thing that we can use to stop those aliens -- since they would be the same as us. It wouldn't be pleasant to see them and we wouldn't like it, and yet, they would be our mirror, thus that automatically means we should disgust ourselves.
No point in arguing in this thread it seems
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 24, 2008 12:36 AM |
|
|
Asheera:
Kill him? No. But to not feed him, certainly so. That is, if he's dependent on you, and not on some other source of food/money. And if you don't care about your parents, either something is really wrong with you or with them.
TheDeath:
It's wrong because it's bad for society. Things that are bad for society are wrong, and things that good for it are right. Criminals and assassins are different because their jobs in themselves are harmful for society.
And I disagree about hate. That's one possible way it could work, but I'd say that's certainly not the most common way. Many people admit that those they hate are their equals.
As for an example of hate, take a common one: idiots hating educated people. I really see no self-interest there. In fact, they're certainly acting against their self-interest, since those educated people are more productive.
Quote:
Do you think you deserve to live more than them, just because "might makes right" applies?
The question is not one of "deserve". It is simply that of social contracts. That is, we, as individuals, benefit more if we don't murder each other than otherwise.
As for tyrants, if they abuse people, then they should be duly punished. But a person that uses animals, that's different. But the question of a Matrix-like system is certainly interesting. I'll have to think about that one a little bit more. On one hand, it's appealing. On the other hand, it's basically like taking hallucenogenic drugs.
And since an assassin already kills people for a job, I don't think that whether he kills animals or not really matters in contrast. He's bad because he kills people already.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted July 24, 2008 11:07 AM |
|
|
I'm not sure if I can judge all of this...
...sorry (it's like a torrent)
Also I don't see how it can come to an end, except for it dwindling into lack of interest in a few weeks or so..
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 24, 2008 02:15 PM |
|
|
Quote:
It's wrong because it's bad for society. Things that are bad for society are wrong, and things that good for it are right. Criminals and assassins are different because their jobs in themselves are harmful for society.
They are not harmful for 'society', even governments can secretly hire assassins and spies. I'm talking about professionals, not psychos. They know what they're doing. It is hard to know what's good for society and what's not in cases, but either way it shouldn't matter for killings or morals. Society is like a big tyrant, you know? Selfish and abuses "inferior" ones... For me it's a very similar analogy. It is one reason why the D&D system, for example, has very different definitions of good/evil than your flawed ones, because there are a lot more races than just one. Some races are even inherently evil (mind flayers, beholders, etc) so your analogy with "good for society = good" doesn't work, since not all of the races can be good at the same time
So basically yeah, we are primitive because we rely on superiority to feast on the weak. Albeit we don't even want to evolve, since we ignore and reject whatever ability intelligence grants us (compared to animals).
Also back to "guilty" example. It more or less works like this: if you can be blamed for an action, you are guilty. Here, "blame" means that it was your decision. For example, you can't blame a child for doing something if he/she didn't know that it's harmful, since he/she would be innocent in this case. However, you can blame a mature person when he had the choice to, for example, leave an animal alone or kill it. You see, this is where "fault" comes in, and it's where you can be truly blamed and thus not innocent -- in short, you're guilty. That's the most basic definition of the word.
Of course being guilty or responsible for something doesn't mean you are "punished" if the law is a tyrant system.
Quote:
As for tyrants, if they abuse people, then they should be duly punished. But a person that uses animals, that's different. But the question of a Matrix-like system is certainly interesting. I'll have to think about that one a little bit more. On one hand, it's appealing. On the other hand, it's basically like taking hallucenogenic drugs.
So? I mean, why the hell should we "act" in this world if we only cause suffering and hate and destruction (of balance)? You know, we are the "aggressors" here. Taking hallucenogenic drugs is maybe a good solution for those that are the way you describe -- I mean, they are only after self-interest and pleasure. Why the hell should they disturb anything for that? Reason: because they are evil and tyrants and because they like it
Now regarding my alien example -- I think it would be pretty fair for them to do to us what we have done to animals & balance of nature. I think it would be fair to murder us and enslave us, breed us only to kill us, etc... just because you know, we use the "eye for an eye" principle, we should expect it back. Now I'm not talking like they should do this to all humans -- they will look at the few of us who truly care about everything else beside their own selfish species or selfish goals (since even humans murder humans!), and be amazed at the diversity of this race, and probably spare the few of us who are wise enough to use their abilities they have been blessed with and try to be different than animals -- since they know pretty well that they can be guilty for whatever they do.
Not all humans are bad and evil, but those in power are -- actually they are that way because that is the way of the "might makes right" principle -- have might and you're right; or have power and you're right, whatever. We are not in "power" because we never try to justify it with force, but with understanding. Destruction and not be healed by destruction.
---------------
As I promised, I'll reply to your examples about the hate and self-interest subject. You said:Quote:
As for an example of hate, take a common one: idiots hating educated people. I really see no self-interest there. In fact, they're certainly acting against their self-interest, since those educated people are more productive.
Ok, there are a lot of things to consider, which all boil down to "self-interest" or more likely, ego or basically anything related to your own self.
First, they hate those that are equal for different reasons. Since this is a very loose definition, I'll take one example. They hate them because (just few situations):
1) They've done something to them (usually negatively, such as insulting)
2) They won in a "competition" -- this is loosely used, that is even a 'lottery' can be considered a competition, or even if they bought the last product of a kind for example, also a competition
3) They are "better" than them, or they had more "opportunities" in life
Let's take (1) first. Well, it is obvious that without self-interest, there would be no insults -- you can't insult someone as long as you care about him the same way as you care about yourself. Think of it like this: Without self-interest, the entire human population would be a huge family, and it's rarely the case when kids hate loving parents, no? You can't insult someone if they are friendly, and they can't either... It works both ways, without self-interest, here wouldn't be hate.
(2) is similar. If someone "wins" at the lottery (even though basically without self-interest lottery wouldn't exist but anyway), then he/she should also not have any self-interest, and even if he/she does, you can't hate him/her, since you should be happy for him/her (remember: think about them the same as yourself; and you would be happy in that situation, no?). Now, it goes even deeper. Basically here it's like your mother or a member of your family winning at the lottery -- do you hate them, especially if they "love" you? I mean, that's how a world without only self-interest (selfishness) works, like a huge family, you see... There is no hate in this situation either
(3) similar to above. If they had more opportunities and for example got rich, they should help you, if they are not self-interested -- how can you hate someone who loves everybody? No matter how many "fortune" they have, they will try to share it, and you also should be happy for them, if there's no self-interest (thinking about them the same as for yourself).
So from this example, hate has only to do with self-interest it seems
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 24, 2008 05:23 PM |
|
|
Certainly governments can hire assassins, but that doesn't mean that it's good for society. Remember that "society" and "government" are two different things. As for the D&D alignments, they're completely wrong. I mean, I don't know much about mind flayers, but elves aren't too different from humans, but they just place a higher value on nature than humans do.
And we're not rejecting the abilities that intelligence grants us. We're using it to further our own self-interests.
Your definition of "guilty" is one of two criteria for being guilty. For someone to be guilty he/she has to fulfill what you said, and also the action has to be bad.
Why should we act in this world? Why not? If society were to be improved, then there would be less human suffering (that is, humans wouldn't use force on humans). But as for animal suffering, it would be nice if we didn't have to use them, but currently that's impossible.
I don't know whether it'd be "fair" or not for aliens to attack us, but if they did, it'd certainly be fair for us to defend ourselves. We have nukes. They'd better have something good to counter that. Maybe mass Carriers.
Quote:
Ok, there are a lot of things to consider, which all boil down to "self-interest" or more likely, ego or basically anything related to your own self.
An excessive ego can certainly get in the way of self-interest.
1. Well, it would definitely help further our own self-interests if we were better at putting ourselves in others shoes. If we were more concerned with what others want and don't want, then our self-interest would be furthered, and they'd be better off too. It's win-win. Now, I suppose that hating someone for insults is sort of a type of self-defense: that is, if someone insults/attacks you, you respond by defending yourself. I suppose it's sort of a defense mechanism in this case, sort of like the stinger of a bee: don't insult others or they'll hate you. I don't think that people particularly want to be hated. But if there was more self-interest, people would hate less, since people would be more wary.
2. This is simply jealousy. And it might work out to everyone's self-interest anyway, because that might spur you to work harder, with you saying to yourself, "That guy won a million dollars, but it was sheer luck. I don't need luck. I'll make money by myself." And maybe you'd become a millionaire. And it's stupid to hate someone because they won the lottery. I mean, it's not related to anything you did, and it's not really related to anything they did, either.
3. Just because someone is better than somebody else doesn't give the second person any moral right to the first person's stuff. This is an extremely dangerous line of thinking. You reason that the first personn needs it less. Well, think about it like this. You're eating, and you're feeling guilty, because there's someone in the world that needs the food more than you do. You're also feeling angry and deprived, because someone in the world is eating, and that person needs the food even less than you do. Are you cheating someone or being cheated? You're concerned about the first, and outraged about the second. You'd be afraid of everyone poorer than you, and hostile to everyone richer than you. The only man with any claim to anything would be the man who does nothing, and the people that work a lot would be despised. Have you ever read Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged"? Excellent book, by the way. I recommend it, if you haven't read it. Anyway, this line of thinking reminds me of one of the events of the book.
There was a factory that was being run (for profit) by an industrialist. The workers were being paid okay wages, and they were nice to each other. When a child would be born to one of them, they'd all pitch in to take care of him/her. When one of them would get sick, they'd visit them. And they were pretty happy, and productive.
Then the industrialist died, and his socialist daughter took over. She decided that since she was richer than they were, it meant that they were being cheated out of their wages. She decided to reorganize the factory on the basis of "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." Also, she decided to hold a mass meeting every payday, so the workers could all see what each of them was making, and so everything would be fair. What ended up happening? The workers started to slander each other. When one of them would get sick, they would lie about the extent of the illness, to minimize that worker's need, and so the rest would get more. When one of them would have a child, they would become resentful and angry, since that increased that person's need. And when someone worked harder than the others, that person got no reward for it, since rewards were distributed according to "need", and that person would be forced to work harder, since his abilities were greater. One time (if you're going to read the book, this is somewhat of a spoiler) a guy invented an engine that could work off of static electricity in the air, thus solving the energy problem. What happened to him? He was forced to work extra, since his abilities were greater. He ended up leaving the factory, and so it ended up worse for both the business and the guy. And, after a while, it went out of business, thus losing those people all of their jobs. So much for "from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs."
Of course it's different when a person helps others voluntarily, but no man should ever think that he deserves to be helped.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted July 24, 2008 05:57 PM |
|
|
Quote:
And we're not rejecting the abilities that intelligence grants us. We're using it to further our own self-interests.
Let's clear things up: intelligence grants us two things:
1) the ability to fulfill our interests better (what you want)
2) the ability to think wisely and not be based on our instincts
Your suggestion would limit the humanity to only (1), while TheDeath proposed to use our intelligence to maximum capacity
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 24, 2008 05:58 PM |
|
|
No, TheDeath is suggesting that we use only the second one. We can't really use both of them.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted July 24, 2008 06:01 PM |
|
|
Quote:
And it's stupid to hate someone because they won the lottery. I mean, it's not related to anything you did, and it's not really related to anything they did, either.
Actually that's incorrect. You see, if they didn't buy tickets, maybe yours would have been picked
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 24, 2008 06:03 PM |
|
|
Well, you still can't blame them. After all, you had exactly the same chances,, and it wasn't either of you that selected which ticket would win.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
posted July 24, 2008 06:13 PM |
|
|
I'll use like 4 quotes below, but that's only because I make too many points and will probably confuse you otherwise (too many paragraphs already).
Mind flayers, in D&D, are inherently evil, even though they form up societies -- does that mean that they are not, since from their society's point of view they are doing "the good of it"? Example: Suppose there are two races: A and B.
Race A is peaceful and loves everyone and everything and not wants war.
Race B enslaves Race A, so they live better off (like we do to animals). Race B wants only themselves to feel good, screw the others.
Seriously, even someone with 60 IQ will see which one is more "evil" (and I think you know what I mean with it).
By the way, is it impossible for ourselves to be peaceful? Not at all, but we don't want it. Everything is possible. You say, for example, that it's impossible to live without cars? How foolish is that. Maybe, you would want to say "we don't want to live without cars" (that is for pollution)... Please don't try to use the word impossible without actually implying that it truly is impossible. For all I know, we can suicide and leave the world alone -- that's a possibility too (not that I agree with it!)... Be careful when you make statements next time, as you might imply some kind of truth religious people had
just because we don't want to give away some "luxury" doesn't mean that it's impossible -- it actually means we're tyrants. Mind you, luxury is not a bad thing, as long as it's not done on the expense of something else.
Quote:
And we're not rejecting the abilities that intelligence grants us. We're using it to further our own self-interests.
Do you even read what I say? Let me spell it out easier *sigh*
Self-interest = stuff that the most primitive animals have
Now evolution grants some animals intelligence...
Intelligence allows them to choose:
1) Continue as before
2) Suppress their instincts
You see, if you "use" intelligence to pursue (1), you will simply stay at the same level and not evolving. Is that so hard to understand?
Intelligence gives you that ability. You refuse. That's what it's about. It's not about "efficiency", it's not about "pursuing" self-interest -- that is actually NOT using what intelligence gives us. Do you think that being more efficient at the same stuff that animals want to accomplish is a mental evolution???
just tell me, where is the change in mentality? Where is the evolution in mentality? As far as I can see, there's no change. How can we possibly evolve mentally if we are going to do the same stuff animals (less evolved mentally) do?
Even worse, actually because we can choose -- it's like you selectively ignore this part. We are guilty, they are not.
I don't get what you mean with "guilty" and "bad" actions, but you are being purely subjective on the matter. Guilty (the word) has absolutely nothing to do with law, or society -- it's just some kind of remorse you have. If you can be blamed for something, you are guilty. Plain and simple. There's no such thing as "bad" action influencing it.
Quote:
I don't know whether it'd be "fair" or not for aliens to attack us, but if they did, it'd certainly be fair for us to defend ourselves. We have nukes. They'd better have something good to counter that. Maybe mass Carriers.
Perfect, "might makes right" again.. I'm sorry but I already explained that to you -- this ideology makes us primitive. Don't you get what I'm saying? What you're suggesting is to use force, that is, our "might" is the only thing that makes us better
We should "defend" ourselves, but with understanding -- if we don't want them to sweep us, we should play nice, by understanding that we are not the freaking king pins of the universe. If we go by your ideology, I don't think there's anything left to discuss. You go by this:
- We, humans, are right!! We kill others for our own pleasure (self-interest)
- Why?
- Shut up, don't question, we have force, we have nukes.. Might MAKES right!!!!
To be honest, if you are going to keep away this sick mentality I don't think we can discuss this. You know "might" has always been a decisive "point" in discussions: "I am right, because I am mighty! You dare question me?". Similar to what religion has done in the past. I'm sorry to inform you that you have become what you hate.
There's no point in arguing over force, now is it? Why am I even trying to make my point across when you say that we can defend ourselves with force, rather than understanding... that is, in my example, aliens wouldn't hurt us if we were "good kids". But with your mentality, we have to be put up in an asylum, since we're devastating everything else, like we're "crazy" of some sort (ask a crazy person and see what he thinks).
Moonlith was right about you it seems
but of course you don't even know what "civilized" means, since we're using basically the same methods as cavemen did -- FORCE and FORCE and MIGHT MAKES RIGHT... yeah 
Quote:
An excessive ego can certainly get in the way of self-interest.
You missed the entire point of my explanation. imagine, for example, that every human out there is your family (that loves you, and you love them). Now, emotional benefits aside (that is questionable, and you didn't even use them, so don't start by saying it's an argument), we are not self-interested in that situation. How can hate arise from such a world? How can you be jealous?
Do you even read what I write, because I'm tired of repeating myself. If you put yourself in someone else's shoes, you are automatically removing any hate you have for that person. I mean, your example with that book is completely off point.
"No man should think that it deserves to be helped" you say? I'm sorry to bring news to you, but that's exactly what happens in a non-self-interest society, and if you re-read my previous post you'll see that. The flaw in your thinking here, and thus the incapability of understanding what I'm saying, is that you look at it from your self-interest model.
Remember that were people not self-interested at all, they wouldn't value themselves over anyone else. That is, when someone else got a brand new TV, you wouldn't be jealous or anything, you can't hate him. You would actually be happy for him -- since you think about himself the same about yourself, and you'd be happy with a TV, no?
This works both ways -- that is, if that guy was fortunate to get the TV, he could help you as well, if he obviously was not self-interested.
Your idea about people "lying" when getting sick in that example (from the book) is disgusting -- how can you possibly lie if you are not self-interested? Would you lie to yourself? Remember that you think about others the same about yourself.
Just think for a moment, that everyone else is your family which you love. If they aren't self-interested (as I assume in this example), they also love you. Now, how can you possibly hate your family if you love them (no self-interest remember?) and they love you??
Simply put, self-interest is present when you do something to others (I mean, emotional) that you wouldn't to yourself. Lie? You wouldn't lie to yourself, so without self-interest, it wouldn't even happen. Hate? You wouldn't truly "hate" yourself (unless you're emo) so without self-interest, you wouldn't hate anyone else either (if they aren't self-interest that is).
I say: Without self-interest, we wouldn't have hate. this speaks about the WHOLE world, that is no single human EVER is self-interested.
Mind you, I'm not saying here that humans work that way -- they don't even value each other and murder. What I'm saying, is that self-interest leads to hate -- and hate without self-interest doesn't exist. Period.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 24, 2008 06:37 PM |
|
|
Regarding Race A and Race B, from a neutral (non-aligned) point of view, Race A is good, and Race B is evil. Same from Race A's point of view. But we are not a neutral group, nor are we Race A. We are Race B, and we think that we are good, and rightly so.
All right, it's not impossible for us to live completely without "violence", but undesirable.
Quote:
Intelligence allows them to choose:
1) Continue as before
2) Suppress their instincts
Umm... No. Intelligence also allows us to have a similar goal as before, but reach it differently. This is not continuing as before.
As for "guilty", and "bad actions", yes, you are guilty if you can be blamed, but you can only be blamed for a bad action. You wouldn't blame a philanthropist for giving a lot of money away, because that's not a bad action.
And if we don't want the aliens to sweep us, we'd better be able to defend ourselves against them. If they're set on destroying us, we should be set on destroying them (or at least making them go away).
You can certainly be jealous of your family. And, as I have explained, hate has nothing to do with self-interest. Hate is bad. Self-interest (if in a properly arranged system) is good.
An extremely major problem with your view is that you talk not about what the government or even society should be like, but what individuals should be like. They should give themselves up for self-immolation. They should disregard their own self-interest. Well, there are two problems with that: first, that's not how it works. All animals, including humans, are naturally self-interested, so they will act in their own self-interest, no matter how you try to convince them. Has Communism taught you nothing? Second, in a properly arranged society, self-interest is good, and can accomplish more than disregard for the self can. My philosophy is that of how to deal with the situation. Your philosophy is either escapist or pointless.
The problem is that people are naturally self-interested (not that I think that it's a problem, of course). So when you set up a system that relies on their not being self-interested, it's going to fail.
And I have told you why hate has nothing to do with self-interest. You have refused to respond to those arguments.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 24, 2008 07:02 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Regarding Race A and Race B, from a neutral (non-aligned) point of view, Race A is good, and Race B is evil. Same from Race A's point of view. But we are not a neutral group, nor are we Race A. We are Race B, and we think that we are good, and rightly so.
All right, it's not impossible for us to live completely without "violence", but undesirable.
Bingo, "desirable" is the key word for distinguishing between evil and good. You see, tyrant evil has desires without caring much for those outside his pleasures. And besides, no we are not "good" from our own point of view, and certainly not "rightly so". If we think we are good, we are crazy -- you know, crazy people don't think they're crazy either
Quote:
As for "guilty", and "bad actions", yes, you are guilty if you can be blamed, but you can only be blamed for a bad action. You wouldn't blame a philanthropist for giving a lot of money away, because that's not a bad action.
And if we don't want the aliens to sweep us, we'd better be able to defend ourselves against them. If they're set on destroying us, we should be set on destroying them (or at least making them go away).
They have a very good reason to sweep us. You know, they are our reflection in the mirror -- it's what we do to animals. But again you use the "might makes right" principle, it's so easy to win arguments with force... I dare not question the authority of the human race!
You see, it's not like they are aggressors (as in Mind Flayers example), but they are doing the exact same thing that we do. Now, cavemen did it too, it's why they are called primitive. Are we primitive? What does "civilized" mean? I think it's called mental evolution -- where you don't resort to force. If the aliens were "evil" and we were "good", I would be for defending ourselves, but with more understanding. However, in this case, they are our reflection. What, are you scared of yourself?
Now suppose that we can't defend ourselves. What will you think? Do you like it that the aliens came over us, and they are greedy and their "desires" need to be met, by enslaving us. Then, remember, that they are our reflection. Now, we are the hopeless animals, and they are the tyrants. Not really hard to imagine. And you dare to call religion subjective? Give me a break.
What you say with desires is the very thing that makes someone evil. If evil people have desires to see others suffer, they will do so (especially if they are primitive and resort to "might makes right", as we do to animals). That only makes them evil, because of desires. Simply put, our desires makes us tyrants.
We can "want" and "want" and "want" -- a tyrant does the same. You never have taken this into account it seems. A tyrant uses his power and force to enslave others, we do the same. Are we different? Then why are we scared of those aliens and wish to defend ourselves -- since they are greater tyrants than us, in that example, are we afraid of ourselves? Then why do we do it?
It's quite philosophical but if you get it you'll see why good/evil are 100% objective, even without religion. As far as I can tell, when you place 100 races together, you can easily classify them as evil or good. it has nothing to do with their societies.
It's simply like the following experiment: You take one of the races, and then you (as a some kind of God) try to do the same to them as to what they did to the other races or to the world's balance. Then, you see if they are accepting of their fate or not. If they are, they're regretting. If they are not, they are evil. It's a very simple psychological experiment, and since you replied with "we need to use FORCE to defend ourselves from the aliens", then we're evil -- it's the very definition of it, not your fairy-tales about society.
WHY do we need to defend from the aliens, since we do NOT want the animals to defend from ourselves? (yes we want it to be "easy", since we are "force" and primitive cavemen using that principle).
Quote:
You can certainly be jealous of your family. And, as I have explained, hate has nothing to do with self-interest. Hate is bad. Self-interest (if in a properly arranged system) is good.
An extremely major problem with your view is that you talk not about what the government or even society should be like, but what individuals should be like. They should give themselves up for self-immolation. They should disregard their own self-interest. Well, there are two problems with that: first, that's not how it works. All animals, including humans, are naturally self-interested, so they will act in their own self-interest, no matter how you try to convince them. Has Communism taught you nothing? Second, in a properly arranged society, self-interest is good, and can accomplish more than disregard for the self can. My philosophy is that of how to deal with the situation. Your philosophy is either escapist or pointless.
The problem is that people are naturally self-interested (not that I think that it's a problem, of course). So when you set up a system that relies on their not being self-interested, it's going to fail.
And I have told you why hate has nothing to do with self-interest. You have refused to respond to those arguments.
*sigh* yes if you re-read my posts you'll see how hate has everything to do with self-interest. Listen, to make this straight for you:
If we wouldn't have self-interest, then others == ourselves. Get it??
Before you make any claims for jealousy and all that -- ask yourself: "Can you be jealous of yourself?" If the answer is no, then it means you can't be jealous on anyone if you are not self-interested. Geez man is that so hard to understand?
Without self-interest -> others are the same as you, in your mind. That means, they are not less deserving of anything. Can you hate yourself? Can you be jealous of yourself? It's why without self-interest, we couldn't be on someone else either!
Oh btw, I'm not trying to make up any system, I only simply responded to the phrase: "Self-interest is the reason we have hate, wars, murder and devastations"...
If you will, think of it like this: A robot society. A factory, for example, with it's own will. A factory is made up of a lot of machines. Now, are those machines supposed to be self-interested? Let's say that the factory is Terminators (skynet).. Are terminators hating each other? How could they, if they are not self-interested, they don't value themselves above, they all think of them as the same ONE PIECE. That's no self-interest for you.
Do you see terminators hating each other? Do you see terminators fighting with each other (unless reprogrammed obviously)? It is so obvious yet you refuse to see it, either that or you want to keep this argument up for no reason
In short, without self-interest, then someone else is just as important as you, from YOUR perspective. You can't hate yourself, so naturally without self-interest you wouldn't hate others.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 24, 2008 07:24 PM |
|
|
You are clearly mistaken. We should be considerate toward the human race, but we really have no reason (other than emotional benefits) to go any further. We are good as long as we don't mistreat humans.
But if the aliens do what we do, only to us, then from our point of view they are aggressors, and so we'll defend ourselves.Quote:
However, in this case, they are our reflection. What, are you scared of yourself?
How so? If anyone, alien, man, or beast, tries to kill me, I am willing to kill them in self-defense. Plain and simple. And I wouldn't expect anything else if the situation were to be reversed.
Now, if we were unable to defend ourselves, and they succeeded in enslaving us, sure, it would suck, but there's nothing that we could do about it. From our point of view, they would be wrong. From their point of view, they would be right.
Quote:
We can "want" and "want" and "want" -- a tyrant does the same. You never have taken this into account it seems. A tyrant uses his power and force to enslave others, we do the same. Are we different? Then why are we scared of those aliens and wish to defend ourselves -- since they are greater tyrants than us, in that example, are we afraid of ourselves? Then why do we do it?
Several things here. A tyrant enslaves humans. I do not suggest that humans should be enslaved. Those aliens can certainly come and try to take us over, but we'll fight and defend ourselves. Animals, if they were more intelligent, could defend themselves better and in a more organized way, too. I'm not saying that they shouldn't.
We may not want the animals to defend themselves, just as the aliens don't want them to defend ourselves. But that doesn't mean that the animals and we can't defend ourselves.
I don't see how self-interest conflicts with being considerate of others. I just don't see it. If you want us to live in a hive-mind like bees or Terminators, then I will not agree to do so. You see, for self-interest to function well, you have to take other people's interests into account too.
And, finally, think about this. Imagine that I am some sort of "unusual" person who thinks that every time you take a step, you are crushing and killing an elf. Thus, I want you to stop walking. Does that mean that you should? If the answer to this is "no", then I shouldn't impose my preferences upon you. I may not want to walk, but I shouldn't be able to stop you from doing so. Now, if I can't prevent you from killing elves which I'm sure exist, why can you prevent me from using animals, when you think that they have rights, and I disagree? And don't tell me anything about "the animals definitely exist." What if I'm sure that the elves exist too?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 24, 2008 07:48 PM |
|
|
Quote:
You are clearly mistaken. We should be considerate toward the human race, but we really have no reason (other than emotional benefits) to go any further. We are good as long as we don't mistreat humans.
But if the aliens do what we do, only to us, then from our point of view they are aggressors, and so we'll defend ourselves.
We ARE aggressors for animals. You know, this is your problem, and it's why you don't even understand why morals can be absolute. You are too relative and I honestly can't believe that you hate religion for being "subjective" in that respect. You use only "our perspective" and all that -- regardless of the number of arguments I bring up, now I understand why you can't even understand absolute morals, because you don't even THINK from an absolute standpoint, but only from "society view" so to speak
For the record, I never said that we have "obligation" to "help" nature or animals --> we can be neutral just as fine. However, there's a fine point between being neutral (not disturbing it, but not helping it either) which is perfectly fine, and being EVIL, or more simply, tyrants.
Quote:
How so? If anyone, alien, man, or beast, tries to kill me, I am willing to kill them in self-defense. Plain and simple. And I wouldn't expect anything else if the situation were to be reversed.
Now, if we were unable to defend ourselves, and they succeeded in enslaving us, sure, it would suck, but there's nothing that we could do about it. From our point of view, they would be wrong. From their point of view, they would be right.
Well this proves how evolved you are mentally. You see, animals think the same as you -- so where is your mental evolution?
Now there is a difference which makes you a lot worse -- you can read this forum, and understand the "choices" you have, but you refuse and still cling to your primitive instincts. That marks you as being guilty in a way. You see, you have been allowed to choose, and you chose the animal way. If an animal was allowed to choose (meaning that it understood that) it would be the same, but it is not, therefore you are worse since you were offered.
I was thinking about playing with you, replacing "society" with a "nation" and "human" with the respective citizens in that nation, just so you see the similarities. But there's no point in it, it's not like you'll understand (not necessarily agree), since you think your ideas are superior since it deals with all humans -- well, it doesn't deal with everything else beside that. It's not like nationalists don't think that they have the perfect superior thinking (they think they are right).
Quote:
Several things here. A tyrant enslaves humans. I do not suggest that humans should be enslaved. Those aliens can certainly come and try to take us over, but we'll fight and defend ourselves. Animals, if they were more intelligent, could defend themselves better and in a more organized way, too. I'm not saying that they shouldn't.
We may not want the animals to defend themselves, just as the aliens don't want them to defend ourselves. But that doesn't mean that the animals and we can't defend ourselves.
Dude you are SOOO subjective, pretty much like nationalists are for a nation You may think you're better, but if you philosophize at it, you'll disagree with yourself easily. Humans are not "divine" and they can be tyrants to anyone else (not only humans) just as easily. That's just pure discrimination -- I don't care if you'll say that it's "no good for society" otherwise -- just replace 'society' with 'nation', and you'll see the remarkable similarities. Trust me, nationalists are just as stubborn and narrow-minded as you (society-lists) are, they all think they're doing it for the "good" of society you see? But of course they all think (including you) that what they think is superior without doing analogies (as above) or arguments apart from "we -- the nation (or humans, in your case) are special"
Actually you could expect the aliens to be "kind" if we were -- do you need to be kind to a criminal? Why would aliens be kind if we are not. See, we can solve it without primitive force like you're used to think. Actually looking at it this way, I can hardly think that we are more evolved than animals.
Quote:
I don't see how self-interest conflicts with being considerate of others. I just don't see it. If you want us to live in a hive-mind like bees or Terminators, then I will not agree to do so. You see, for self-interest to function well, you have to take other people's interests into account too.
Actually I'm only saying some arguments. You see, I can imagine how a world without self-interest is, and it's precisely why I can say things like hate wouldn't exist with it.
A society without self-interest == a "terminator" or "bee" society, but without a "queen" or authority... Good analogy, and do bees "hate" each other?
So I proved my point, that hate only exists because of self-interest. It's easy, but you refuse to get it.
Also for your last "elf" example, remember that I am innocent in this case, since I don't know about it, just like a child. But that is a bit off too, since I can't see it -- you see, extreme examples won't help you here. It's not like animals can't be seen, you even acknowledge it
Problem is that you, on the other hand, know pretty well that you make animals suffer, thus you are not innocent. Bleh, it's not like I didn't say this earlier. It seems the rules were broken, since you completely ignored this part with innocence or guilt. It's not like I have not emphasized it enough. Heck, I try to use bold in every important idea.
But why am I trying to argue with a religious authority (human society)?
[my views are different, simply because it is tolerant for everything, not making the "we are divine, they are not" religious attitude towards something, like other nations, or in your case, environment]
|
| |
|
|
