Face it. It's only transcendent because it's related to christianity. And religion is supposed to be spiritual and somehow beyond our empirical senses. Which is nonsense if you ask me but I'm not gonna expound on that now.
The meaning of transcendent as applied to values means that I don't value another human being solely according to their subjective value to myself at the moment.
I value them as God values them. Their value transcends the physical because they are spiritual beings. Their value is objectively inherent in their being regardless of what they may offer me for my benefit.
In this, they are like me, hence I want to treat them as I treat myself. They are other selves, not objects.
The emphasis is on "I feel". That's right. It's all about me. If you understand how mirror neurons work in the brain, you will understand why ethical egoists have no qualms in helping others.
I'm not gonna avoid your scenario. I would kill Hitler if I ever had the chance to lay my hands on him. Self-righteous hypocrites were campaigning for world peace while millions of jews were killed. All this because of "non-violence" activism.
And yes, I would do anything that benefits me. I feel great whenever I share my food with my cat. I feel great whenever I donate money to someone who assumed that he/she would get nothing but rejection only to be pleasantly surprised by my generosity.
Altruism is a product of self-expediency. Morality in the common parlance is a tradition of cultural norms. To make altruism the ultimate objective of morality would be nothing more than masochistic stagnation. Imagine a world where everyone is afraid of being happy and wealthy. Where self-harm is the height of moral good (suicide bombers anyone?) Deontology is merely a propagation of cultural norms e.g homosexuals are bad, the west are infidels etc. Whose deontology should we adopt?
I classify my views as being virtue ethicist/deontologist. In short, I think that empathy and empathy alone is the basis of morality (although I don't consider myself to be a moral person, I wish that I were). I hate the idea of morality as some complicated, intellectual issue that is the private domain of "academics".
How would you rationally defend deontology? Isn't that the idea that certain things are right and wrong regardless of the consequences? Since the purpose of all action is to lead to specific consequences, this seems fundamentally irrational.
I'm a consequentialist in the literal sense, in that the only point in feeding a stray cat is to make her happy and not to obey some ultimate rule. I think actions are appropriate becase they are based on empathy for all of the will be affected parties and not because they will have desirable, utilitarian consequences. I guess that's why I shy away from teleology, because it's associated with utilitarianism which I regard as a disregard for the individual/minority.
You seem like a nice guy, and so I'm tempted to pull this punch, but I cannot do so in any way that is compatible with intellectual honesty. Here it comes:
Your ignorance of metaethics is
truly
staggering.
It's as if you spent the whole of your life preparing for this video concentrating all of your intellectual energies -with a kind of inverse genius- to avoid learning as much ethical philosophy as possible. On that score, your genius, an the resultant depth of your....
II. reverse erudition, are singularly impressive. No one, absolutely no one (at least not since Plato) founds his defense of consequentialism on the grounds that it is congenial to narrow individual self-interest.
You seem to interpret the term "consequences" as a Judge or High School principal might do. The consequentialist objection to murder is that the consequences are (most directly) suffered by the person being *murdered*, jackass. Haven't you ever heard of...
III. ...Bentham's principal of greatest happiness for the greatest number? Or Rawls' veil of ignorance? If you think ethics has anything at all to do with persuading the sociopath, any more than medicine has to do with treating the dead, you are *profoundly* confused.
So you're just defending a subjective code which you have chosen for subjective reasons? Isn't that circular? That doesn't work for those who DO value parasitism, domination, power, etc. Are they justified if they can get away with those acts because they subjectively value them?
Rand clearly wanted to justify an objective morality but the only "goal" (end) of life she offered was survival - which is illusory and transitory.
Rand has her failings in terms of ethical philosophy, but a lot of her premises are solid.
Valuing parasitism and achieving happiness via parasitism are two different things. One can be mistaken and value something based on a mistaken assumption that it will make you happy.
Are you familiar with the opinion of St. Thomas Aquinas that even a godless person can be moral because the reality that he gains his morality from was created by God?
I don't believe in God. I'm just pointing out that, if St. Thomas Aquinas is said to be a Catholic scholar, your premise that God is the only source of morality goes against his opinion.
Of course I'm familiar with Aquinas. I did NOT say people can't act morally according their God-given nature. Catholics don't believe in "total depravity".
The point was that there was no REASON for
an *atheist* to follow any "objective" morality.
You yourself mentioned people considering murder if they can get away with it. That's the realm within which we're discussing morality.
That kind of choice is open to those who deny that man has intrinsic and transcendent value.
There's no reason for an atheist to follow a God-given morality. However, people objectively want happiness. This is a simple fact of existence. It's not something chosen; it's innate.
It's pretty easy to go from there and determine that peaceful interactions with others are better for happiness than violent ones, that honest interactions are better than dishonest, etc etc.
I used God-given in the sense of natural (per your Aquinas reference). You do want to follow an objective morality derived from man's nature, right? It's just that you deny God created our nature. I understand that.
I'm saying there is no necessity for atheists to do this the way you are.
The reason to follow a code of ethics is to further one's life and one's happiness. The ethics of Christianity generally teach that ethics are built AGAINST your life and your happiness, as a way of controlling your otherwise evil nature.
I mentioned people considering murder in this video in order to discuss why unprincipled consequentialism fails as an ethical theory. I think you're operating under the assumption that unprincipled consequentialism is the only available ethics to an atheist.
But there's no reason for an atheist to bind himself to any morality or ethic which is transcendent, such as "love your neighbor as yourself."
Love is reduced to its utilitarian aspects - Rand's "values". The man in the ditch is not owed anything from Rand because he has no intrinsic value. He is just an animal, and perhaps an irrational one (despite the "rational animal" definition).
Similarly, an atheist may (MAY!) reject the prohibition of murder on utilitarian grounds.
Your example doesn't fit "love your neighbor as yourself". The saying applies to ALL, not just loved ones or a dog in self-defense (or whatever you meant by that).
It's transcendent because it transcends the
"selfish" ethic of mere non-aggression. It values others for themselves by recognizing their value regardless of their subjective value to me. That's a transcendent value.
What is the difference between "love your neighbour as yourself" and "sacrifice yourself for another member of the pack"? Enlighten me pls. Aren't both essentially altruism? LOL
You can stop with LOL. Or I could put it an the end of every one of my sentences if you prefer. LOL.
First, what is it you are claiming about dogs? That they reason they ought to adopt one ethic over another? Or are you saying that man's ethics are instinct (like dogs)?
"The ethics of Christianity generally teach that ethics are built AGAINST your life and your happiness"
Huh? I think you say that because you have a different conception of life and happiness. I mean, employing the term "egoism" in relation to "virtue" pretty much expresses the fact that you do! : )
to kill ? Find the intrinsic answer by using Kant's categorical imperiative. The maxim for action or inaction. Moral internalism and the critique of pure reason
The fact that apodictic statements are not readily apparent to you does not refute their validity. The only thing it proves is that the etiology of your anti-social personality disorder is predicated upon the psychotic denial of basic logic (i.e. Ethics) and praxeology. This is true of all sociopaths, who in order to engage in their criminal actions, must find someway of rationalizing away reality in their own mind.
>> to claim virtue or to morally condemn someone else is to involve yourself in a vain fantasy.
Part I:
The non-aggression axiom states that no one wants to be forced to do something that they would not do voluntarily. This is tautologically obvious and readily apparent to anyone who is a decent human being (i.e. a market anarchist).
It's not based on observation. Its based on the psychotic denial of observation. EVEN IF learned behavior and situational contexts WERE determined by external factors that does not refute individual choice. Marginal Utility is an empirical fact.
Furthermore, we now know that consciousness shapes reality and not vice versa (see epigenetics, general semantics, quantum psychology, etc).
>> Well I would argue that there's no circular logic involved.
The idea that Thought A is determined by B which is determined by C, which is determined by D, ad infinitum is a vicious regress (i.e. a form of circular logic).
I agree, the reason you shouldn't act on murder, rape, when you could "get" away from it. Is because your not getting away with it. You can't get away from yourself, you are a part of every decision or action you make. Your part of the equation.
This leads to important consequences. Behaviour perpetuates behaviour. Your more likely to murder or rape if you done so in the past. This is because humans tend to justify our actions to ourselves.
This is how we bolster our self-esteem against the deteriorating effect to the self-esteem and identity. This is further exasperated by the reinforcing nature of feeling justified to misbehave. Once you "get away with it" and you've justified it to yourself, at that point your more likely to repeat your behaviour to the detriment of others and eventually youself.
By the definitions you setup, I would agree. Though, I'm convinced that you have used the standard definitions of the terms. If I am correct, then you have setup a strawman argument.
It's asinine because it attempts to establish facts based on emotional prejudice while completely ignoring the real facts (i.e what can be measured, related, and repeated aka science). If you had enough experience with psychology you would know that the subconscious, the unconscious, and the collective unconscious are absolute emperical facts. Also, in light of 20th century discoveries, reasonable individuals are forced to accept Crowely's concept of the True Will, which exists before birth.
It's sophomoric, because (like solopsism) it attempts to establish a universal principle based on circular logic. So just because we have behavior that is programmed biologically and socially does not negate individual choice. Furthermore, the division between determinism and free will is a false dichotomy.
let me ask you a question. do you consider empathy irrational? i just want to know if there's any room for empathy in virtue ethics or any kind of ethics.
Empathy is not irrational. In its proper context, empathy is how you feel when you see something bad happen to someone you consider to be a good person.
morality isn't subjective. That's post-modernist nonsense and typical of the type of communist propaganda that passes for Ethics in state schools. The post-modernist wants you to believe that all values are equal so you have no problem relenquishing your birth right to paradise in favor of the statist hell that they are trying to sell.
Any ethical principle is valid if it is logically consistent, but there is only one ethical principle thats logically consistent: Freedom (ie empathy, property)
logical consistancy is the sole criterion that passes for a valid ethical principle? you realize that that is saying pretty much nothing. just about anything could be consistant.
and how exactly is empathy dirrectly related to freedom?
How about the fact that mammals are social creatures and empathy is the only reason that human beings evolved to their dominant position on planet earth in the first place or the fact that everyone benefits from society (i.e. free actions) while everyone suffers from acts of aggression, which divert resources away from productive activity into destruction.
I think it's important to note that there is a difference between feeling empathy and taking positive action. The psychologically healthy person experiences empathy when he sees the property rights of others violated (e.g. rape, robbery, murder, slavery, etc) because he understands that those things can happen to him as well.
so, ultimately, yours is an egoist perspective. correct me if i'm wrong, but this is what i gather. we don't do bad things because we don't want it to come back to us. which begs the question presented in this video. what if there's absolute guarrantee of getting away with it and profiting from it?
No. I'm simply stating that the universe is rigged to reward those who act ethically and punish those that dont. If the majority of human actions were not ethical, society (and life itself) could not exist.
Even if you reject deontological decency in favor of utilitarianism, you must still conclude that the best thing to do (from a utilitarian perspective) would be to embrace the non-aggression axiom since that would result in maximum happiness (i.e. maximum life) for everyone. But that shouldnt be the reason for being a decent human being, it's just the universe's way of rewarding people for not being a statist douche.
>> what if there's absolute guarrantee of getting away with it and profiting from it?
Part I:
1. To have an absolute guarantee you would have to be omnipotent.
2. Even if you gain from crime in the short term, it would be a detriment to you in the long term because your aggressive action undermined the effective application of resources through the market price system.
Every resource that is stolen is a resource that does not get used in productive activities like the next scientific discovery, the next engineering marvel, the next masterpiece of music, etc.. Every person murdered is a potential Linus Pauling, Ludwig von Beethoven, Robert Anton Wilson, Alex Jones, etc.
Once again, economic law invalidates the egoist rationalization behind your criminal action and validates the non-aggression axiom.
I agree with your views, but I think your usage of terms lke "virtue", "morality", "rights" and "principal" can be misleading.
Since what you're really talking about is deep pragmatism, you're describing human action in psychology, you're explaining why it suits the self interest of the individual to not screw other people over.
Most pragmatists don't see this, but it's not pragmatism itself that's wrong.
This line of "morality" relies upon people being psychologically weak insofar that killing others would result in severe mental trauma. Which is actually true enough; most people wouldn't do the harsher coercive acts or crimes because of the psychological scarring that can result. Parasitism, as you described it, is certainly something I strive to oppose, but if I can get away with killing someone who are themselves a parasite, why not?
By the way, I think morality sucks as an ought derived from purely arbitrary, preferences of individuals. It can be loosely used as an inter-subjective societal construct, which is to say that it can be applied over a collective by voluntary participants at best (an agreement of sorts). Otherwise, philosophical prescriptive ethics are totally useless.
Certainly - I recognize that more of the brain is devoted to the subconscious/unconscious and automated processes, but as I have yet to be put in the position of killing I am not entirely sure of how I would react. However, violence has never affected me.
And I would feel some mental anguish, some emotional pain, if someone close to me died, but that is hardly the same thing in my mind.
You know damn well what I meant - that violence, visually, does not affect me. Yes, I oppose the state quite overtly, and I do acknowledge that its coercion is a burden with little compare.
No, what you just said is funny because I oppose the coercion on preferential, logical, and economic grounds, not because of morality. So go fuck yourself you religious dumb fuck.
Rejecting coercion on economic grounds is making a value judgement. It's stating a preference for creation and life rather than destruction and death. I think we are on the same page here.
But I was refering to the fact that prescriptive ethics (like christianity) are what make attrocities like sales tax possible. Every sociopath must be assured of their goodness while they are committing their crimes. Prescriptive ethics are quite useful for the purpose of mass mind-control.
Highlighting the contradictory or hypocritical nature of the state with regards to the prescriptive ethics it enforces (laws) is hardly the same as being a proponent of prescriptive ethics. The only ought statements grounded in reality are derived from "ifs" and based in pragmatism, or are synonymous with an "is" (an observation).
As for the value judgment part, value judgments are inherent in life. After all, to continue surviving, I must value my life over the resources I consume.
Pointing to the state's hypocrisy and making the claim that it is bad, not just for you, but for everyone listening to you, is to make an objective, prescriptive value statement.
You might say you're just hoping that they happen to disvalue hypocrisy, like you do, and are not making an objective statement, but then you'd have to believe that its a complete coincidence, not grounded in anything about reality or the human condition, that leads people to dislike hypocrisy.
Humans dislike hypocrisy and prefer reciprocation because it has aided the species in survival in some fashion or another. It has nothing to do with some inherent ethic, of which there is none; as I've said before, the very existence of psychopaths and sociopaths shows that there is no innate neural structure which programs for any sense of morality. After all, such people are merely those who reject the moral systems, whether due to logic or some "neurosis".
And yes, whenever employing logic, I assume that the other person values logic and a coherent, grounded model of the universe to some degree. Not all people must value logic as such, and not all do - ergo there exist spirituality, religion, and the state. So I contend that it is not coincidence that many people value reason, but that it is, well, logical to value such a concept since it results in a model of reality that is more accurate.
it is "immoral" (unpragmatic, unpreferred) to kill someone only if killing someone affects your self-interests, or if killing applied universally would affect your self-interests.
Now, if you want to die, I don't see the immorality of killing others who have the power to kill you.
if you don't want to die, I don't see the immorality of killing others who can't harm you in return (such as having an army with guns vs a tribe with spears).
So you're arguing that there are objective human virtues that if violated, necessarily lead to bad psychological/character deficits or harms; and if acted upon (consistently) lead to positive consequences to one's mind.
Essentially, qtronman, so long as mind is understood to mean the whole mind, including one's emotions and sense of life.
Individualistico's claim is incorrect though, in that this video did not address specifically what virtues are valid and why. I think Rand was pretty close though.
I don't think the consequentialist position falls apart, at all. You never 'get away' with killing a person. You could get away in terms of punishment - but you still have to live with yourself; it gnaws at you. Sounds like a reasonable position to me.
Oh, I see what you mean now. But I don't think the egoist position is so limited as to not consider emotional consequences, rather than the obvious societal ones. I'm sure that definitions vary.
As for rapists... they are not necessarily seeking the feelings that you associate with the word "happiness". They are seeking other feelings that they experience as a result of committing rape. Those are the feelings/sensations that they prefer. As usual, there is no basis upon which you could argue that someone else should prefer what you prefer. The "happiness" then, is your personal goal/preference, and everything that facilitates that is a matter of pragmatism. Ethics=preference+pragmatism.
Do you think its not possible that there is a feeling called "happiness", common among all people, that can be achieved only through a specific approach to life?
I'm curious whether you actually have a proof of that claim.
So... is your hypotheses that there are objective and inevitable psychological ramifications to any given action, and such ramifications can be identified/predicted?
I don't know if you can know too much directly about how to achieve happiness, except what works for you personally. You could more easily debate about somehing more concrete that isn't happiness itself but something that many people would hold very relevant for happiness.
Are you saying that all or nearly-all parasites in history, even the succesful ones like rulers etc. have had a bad self-esteem? That's quite a claim, how can you know that? Rulers in general seem to have at least outwardly a sense of great self-importance. Seems pretty subjective argument for "moral" egoism.
Randians and even semi-randians like you seem to have quite peculiar faith in the harmony between self-interest and what I would call "negative altruism", i.e. avoiding harming others.
That's a good point. I can fathom how a successful tyrant could have great self esteem, by being proud of all the work he went through to become a tyrant. I'm not sure it's true that the most powerful and oppressive tyrant is less happy than the guy making an honest living driving a taxi.
"I can fathom how a successful tyrant could have great self esteem, by being proud of all the work he went through to become a tyrant. I'm not sure it's true that the most powerful and oppressive tyrant is less happy than the guy making an honest living driving a taxi."
Tara Smith addresses this in her book *Moral Rights & Political Freedom*. I like that book. She's an Objectivist philosophy professor at the University of Texas at Austin. :-)
Good points. And you're appealing to people who want to be happy. So of course, it relies on others having the same fundamental preference as you and then showing them the best way to fulfill that basic desire. What I was trying to do is to account for ANY basic desire, even if in the infrequent case - if at all possible - where a person doesn't have happiness as his fundamental value.
We don't know that. Some people may value other things more highly that their own happiness, and so are willing to sacrifice their happiness for whatever that goal is.
I don't accept the notion of sacrifice; for people do X - which may harm and/or kill themselves - because they value X over their own life, and/or current state of being, and they foresee a net gain for themselves and/or that which they value.
That being said, I believe people engage in Y behavior/action because they feel a sense of unease, and they wish to satisfy it and reach a state of eudaimonia.
Eudaimonia isn't happiness of the state of mind, but satisfy a certain unease. It would depend on your value scale, and what you want to do. You are always doing something to satisfy an unease.
Could you enlighten me? The only thing I could imagine is conflicts between the short term desires to be eased vs. long term desires to be eased, exempli gratia, doing hard core drugs. If I am mistake, please correct me. Regardless, this is still satisfying a certain unease. Now, wither it is rational or not is up for debate
So, consequencialism should take into account of feeling like a bad person for doing "bad things"?
I know the reason I wouldn't kill somebody is because the guilt would just tear me apart. (maybe I would forget that if I were under the influence of drugs or some extreme rage, but the aftermath would be the same even still)
If that's what you're saying then I agree :D
If you're going into something deeper then I look forward to those videos.
check out some egocentrism and solipsism, if you find any staggering revelations lemme know
foolsbetrippin 1 year ago
Face it. It's only transcendent because it's related to christianity. And religion is supposed to be spiritual and somehow beyond our empirical senses. Which is nonsense if you ask me but I'm not gonna expound on that now.
cherylwens 2 years ago
@cherylwens
The meaning of transcendent as applied to values means that I don't value another human being solely according to their subjective value to myself at the moment.
I value them as God values them. Their value transcends the physical because they are spiritual beings. Their value is objectively inherent in their being regardless of what they may offer me for my benefit.
In this, they are like me, hence I want to treat them as I treat myself. They are other selves, not objects.
MillionthUsername 2 years ago
When you mention "impact" and "affect", was it deontology or consequentialism? Think again.
You wouldn't engage in rape because you base your pride on the adherence of moral norms. Again, ethical egoism.
cherylwens 2 years ago
The emphasis is on "I feel". That's right. It's all about me. If you understand how mirror neurons work in the brain, you will understand why ethical egoists have no qualms in helping others.
cherylwens 2 years ago
I'm not gonna avoid your scenario. I would kill Hitler if I ever had the chance to lay my hands on him. Self-righteous hypocrites were campaigning for world peace while millions of jews were killed. All this because of "non-violence" activism.
And yes, I would do anything that benefits me. I feel great whenever I share my food with my cat. I feel great whenever I donate money to someone who assumed that he/she would get nothing but rejection only to be pleasantly surprised by my generosity.
cherylwens 2 years ago
Altruism is a product of self-expediency. Morality in the common parlance is a tradition of cultural norms. To make altruism the ultimate objective of morality would be nothing more than masochistic stagnation. Imagine a world where everyone is afraid of being happy and wealthy. Where self-harm is the height of moral good (suicide bombers anyone?) Deontology is merely a propagation of cultural norms e.g homosexuals are bad, the west are infidels etc. Whose deontology should we adopt?
cherylwens 2 years ago
I classify my views as being virtue ethicist/deontologist. In short, I think that empathy and empathy alone is the basis of morality (although I don't consider myself to be a moral person, I wish that I were). I hate the idea of morality as some complicated, intellectual issue that is the private domain of "academics".
AfricanPrince 2 years ago
How would you rationally defend deontology? Isn't that the idea that certain things are right and wrong regardless of the consequences? Since the purpose of all action is to lead to specific consequences, this seems fundamentally irrational.
XOmniverse 2 years ago
I'm a consequentialist in the literal sense, in that the only point in feeding a stray cat is to make her happy and not to obey some ultimate rule. I think actions are appropriate becase they are based on empathy for all of the will be affected parties and not because they will have desirable, utilitarian consequences. I guess that's why I shy away from teleology, because it's associated with utilitarianism which I regard as a disregard for the individual/minority.
AfricanPrince 2 years ago
@XOmniverse
I no longer consider myself to be a deontologist, lol. I view an ethics of empathy as being synonymous with hedonist consequentialism.
AfricanPrince 1 year ago
@XOmniverse I.
You seem like a nice guy, and so I'm tempted to pull this punch, but I cannot do so in any way that is compatible with intellectual honesty. Here it comes:
Your ignorance of metaethics is
truly
staggering.
It's as if you spent the whole of your life preparing for this video concentrating all of your intellectual energies -with a kind of inverse genius- to avoid learning as much ethical philosophy as possible. On that score, your genius, an the resultant depth of your....
alwaysright10000 1 year ago
II. reverse erudition, are singularly impressive. No one, absolutely no one (at least not since Plato) founds his defense of consequentialism on the grounds that it is congenial to narrow individual self-interest.
You seem to interpret the term "consequences" as a Judge or High School principal might do. The consequentialist objection to murder is that the consequences are (most directly) suffered by the person being *murdered*, jackass. Haven't you ever heard of...
alwaysright10000 1 year ago
III. ...Bentham's principal of greatest happiness for the greatest number? Or Rawls' veil of ignorance? If you think ethics has anything at all to do with persuading the sociopath, any more than medicine has to do with treating the dead, you are *profoundly* confused.
alwaysright10000 1 year ago
So you're just defending a subjective code which you have chosen for subjective reasons? Isn't that circular? That doesn't work for those who DO value parasitism, domination, power, etc. Are they justified if they can get away with those acts because they subjectively value them?
Rand clearly wanted to justify an objective morality but the only "goal" (end) of life she offered was survival - which is illusory and transitory.
MillionthUsername 2 years ago
Rand has her failings in terms of ethical philosophy, but a lot of her premises are solid.
Valuing parasitism and achieving happiness via parasitism are two different things. One can be mistaken and value something based on a mistaken assumption that it will make you happy.
Are you familiar with the opinion of St. Thomas Aquinas that even a godless person can be moral because the reality that he gains his morality from was created by God?
XOmniverse 2 years ago
I don't believe in God. I'm just pointing out that, if St. Thomas Aquinas is said to be a Catholic scholar, your premise that God is the only source of morality goes against his opinion.
XOmniverse 2 years ago
Of course I'm familiar with Aquinas. I did NOT say people can't act morally according their God-given nature. Catholics don't believe in "total depravity".
The point was that there was no REASON for
an *atheist* to follow any "objective" morality.
You yourself mentioned people considering murder if they can get away with it. That's the realm within which we're discussing morality.
That kind of choice is open to those who deny that man has intrinsic and transcendent value.
MillionthUsername 2 years ago
There's no reason for an atheist to follow a God-given morality. However, people objectively want happiness. This is a simple fact of existence. It's not something chosen; it's innate.
It's pretty easy to go from there and determine that peaceful interactions with others are better for happiness than violent ones, that honest interactions are better than dishonest, etc etc.
XOmniverse 2 years ago
I used God-given in the sense of natural (per your Aquinas reference). You do want to follow an objective morality derived from man's nature, right? It's just that you deny God created our nature. I understand that.
I'm saying there is no necessity for atheists to do this the way you are.
MillionthUsername 2 years ago
The reason to follow a code of ethics is to further one's life and one's happiness. The ethics of Christianity generally teach that ethics are built AGAINST your life and your happiness, as a way of controlling your otherwise evil nature.
I mentioned people considering murder in this video in order to discuss why unprincipled consequentialism fails as an ethical theory. I think you're operating under the assumption that unprincipled consequentialism is the only available ethics to an atheist.
XOmniverse 2 years ago
But there's no reason for an atheist to bind himself to any morality or ethic which is transcendent, such as "love your neighbor as yourself."
Love is reduced to its utilitarian aspects - Rand's "values". The man in the ditch is not owed anything from Rand because he has no intrinsic value. He is just an animal, and perhaps an irrational one (despite the "rational animal" definition).
Similarly, an atheist may (MAY!) reject the prohibition of murder on utilitarian grounds.
MillionthUsername 2 years ago
Your argument seems to be that someone can choose to ignore morality.
What does that have to do with anything? That's true of any proposed moral system, whether its justification is divine or not.
XOmniverse 2 years ago
It's hard to do this in sound bites.
Lacking transcendent values, and believing that life is inherently meaningless, I see no basis for atheists to use the term "objective morality".
To me, it reduces to being able to get by in society as you fulfill temporary desires for a temporary existence.
How can murder always be immoral if people have no intrinsic value and are in a temporary and meaningless existence anyway?
I think you mean something different by "morality" than I do.
MillionthUsername 2 years ago
Why is "love your neighbour as yourself" transcendent? Even a dog sacrificing itself to fight off a rampaging bull understands that. LOL
cherylwens 2 years ago
@cherylwens
Your example doesn't fit "love your neighbor as yourself". The saying applies to ALL, not just loved ones or a dog in self-defense (or whatever you meant by that).
It's transcendent because it transcends the
"selfish" ethic of mere non-aggression. It values others for themselves by recognizing their value regardless of their subjective value to me. That's a transcendent value.
MillionthUsername 2 years ago
Said dog was helping a stranger, a human being who thought it was fun to provoke a bull. That's as "transcendent" as it gets.
cherylwens 2 years ago
@cherylwens
You're telling me now that a dog follows the rule "love your neighbor as yourself," and therefore subscribes to transcendent value?
Wouldn't it be more logical to say that the
dog is acting out a pack instinct for self-defense, and will apply this to any dog
or human it senses as part of its pack?
MillionthUsername 2 years ago
What is the difference between "love your neighbour as yourself" and "sacrifice yourself for another member of the pack"? Enlighten me pls. Aren't both essentially altruism? LOL
cherylwens 2 years ago
@cherylwens
You can stop with LOL. Or I could put it an the end of every one of my sentences if you prefer. LOL.
First, what is it you are claiming about dogs? That they reason they ought to adopt one ethic over another? Or are you saying that man's ethics are instinct (like dogs)?
MillionthUsername 2 years ago
"The ethics of Christianity generally teach that ethics are built AGAINST your life and your happiness"
Huh? I think you say that because you have a different conception of life and happiness. I mean, employing the term "egoism" in relation to "virtue" pretty much expresses the fact that you do! : )
MillionthUsername 2 years ago
One final thing I want to note was that this video wasn't intended as a beginning-to-end explanation and defense of a full ethical system.
It was commentary on a specific premise in ethics.
XOmniverse 2 years ago
to kill ? Find the intrinsic answer by using Kant's categorical imperiative. The maxim for action or inaction. Moral internalism and the critique of pure reason
Guevaristas 2 years ago
I think good upbringing is important, but fundamentally, we are hard wired with a lot of this stuff.
XOmniverse 2 years ago
You seem to be starting down a good path. Keep going.
rflosi 2 years ago
Part II:
The fact that apodictic statements are not readily apparent to you does not refute their validity. The only thing it proves is that the etiology of your anti-social personality disorder is predicated upon the psychotic denial of basic logic (i.e. Ethics) and praxeology. This is true of all sociopaths, who in order to engage in their criminal actions, must find someway of rationalizing away reality in their own mind.
icfnord 2 years ago
>> to claim virtue or to morally condemn someone else is to involve yourself in a vain fantasy.
Part I:
The non-aggression axiom states that no one wants to be forced to do something that they would not do voluntarily. This is tautologically obvious and readily apparent to anyone who is a decent human being (i.e. a market anarchist).
icfnord 2 years ago
>> Psych. determinism is simply an observation.
It's not based on observation. Its based on the psychotic denial of observation. EVEN IF learned behavior and situational contexts WERE determined by external factors that does not refute individual choice. Marginal Utility is an empirical fact.
Furthermore, we now know that consciousness shapes reality and not vice versa (see epigenetics, general semantics, quantum psychology, etc).
icfnord 2 years ago
>> Well I would argue that there's no circular logic involved.
The idea that Thought A is determined by B which is determined by C, which is determined by D, ad infinitum is a vicious regress (i.e. a form of circular logic).
icfnord 2 years ago
I agree, the reason you shouldn't act on murder, rape, when you could "get" away from it. Is because your not getting away with it. You can't get away from yourself, you are a part of every decision or action you make. Your part of the equation.
This leads to important consequences. Behaviour perpetuates behaviour. Your more likely to murder or rape if you done so in the past. This is because humans tend to justify our actions to ourselves.
Sparkygravity 2 years ago
This is how we bolster our self-esteem against the deteriorating effect to the self-esteem and identity. This is further exasperated by the reinforcing nature of feeling justified to misbehave. Once you "get away with it" and you've justified it to yourself, at that point your more likely to repeat your behaviour to the detriment of others and eventually youself.
Sparkygravity 2 years ago
By the definitions you setup, I would agree. Though, I'm convinced that you have used the standard definitions of the terms. If I am correct, then you have setup a strawman argument.
Sepero1 2 years ago
It's asinine because it attempts to establish facts based on emotional prejudice while completely ignoring the real facts (i.e what can be measured, related, and repeated aka science). If you had enough experience with psychology you would know that the subconscious, the unconscious, and the collective unconscious are absolute emperical facts. Also, in light of 20th century discoveries, reasonable individuals are forced to accept Crowely's concept of the True Will, which exists before birth.
icfnord 2 years ago
It's sophomoric, because (like solopsism) it attempts to establish a universal principle based on circular logic. So just because we have behavior that is programmed biologically and socially does not negate individual choice. Furthermore, the division between determinism and free will is a false dichotomy.
icfnord 2 years ago
psychological determinism is sophomoric and asinine.
icfnord 2 years ago
let me ask you a question. do you consider empathy irrational? i just want to know if there's any room for empathy in virtue ethics or any kind of ethics.
fede2 2 years ago
Empathy is not irrational. In its proper context, empathy is how you feel when you see something bad happen to someone you consider to be a good person.
XOmniverse 2 years ago
what if you don't know the person? take your rape example. would it be irrational to consider her feelings as suficient reason not to do it?
fede2 2 years ago
I don't think it would be, no.
XOmniverse 2 years ago
you don't think it would be irrational or sufficient reason?
fede2 2 years ago
Why is taking someone else's feelings into account irrational? It would only seem irrational to someone who doesn't value other people.
XOmniverse 2 years ago
so it's subjective. that's the problem with any atempt at elaborating a universal morality. it doesn't seem to escape preferences.
fede2 2 years ago
morality isn't subjective. That's post-modernist nonsense and typical of the type of communist propaganda that passes for Ethics in state schools. The post-modernist wants you to believe that all values are equal so you have no problem relenquishing your birth right to paradise in favor of the statist hell that they are trying to sell.
Any ethical principle is valid if it is logically consistent, but there is only one ethical principle thats logically consistent: Freedom (ie empathy, property)
icfnord 2 years ago
logical consistancy is the sole criterion that passes for a valid ethical principle? you realize that that is saying pretty much nothing. just about anything could be consistant.
and how exactly is empathy dirrectly related to freedom?
fede2 2 years ago
>> logical consistancy is the sole criterion that passes for a valid ethical principle?
Freedom is the only ethical principle as far as I know. If you have another candidate, volunteer it and I will gladly show you it's inconsistencies.
>> empathy related to freedom?
Empathy: The ability to experience the pain of others (i.e. the absence of an anti-social personality disorder).
Freedom: The refusal to inflict suffering on others (i.e. the absence of an anti-social personality disorder)
icfnord 2 years ago
if i wasn't empathetic towards someone in trouble, by your definition, i would be anti-social. what reason do i have to value other people?
fede2 2 years ago
>> what reason do i have to value other people?
How about the fact that mammals are social creatures and empathy is the only reason that human beings evolved to their dominant position on planet earth in the first place or the fact that everyone benefits from society (i.e. free actions) while everyone suffers from acts of aggression, which divert resources away from productive activity into destruction.
>> i would be anti-social.
See DSM-IV.
icfnord 2 years ago
I think it's important to note that there is a difference between feeling empathy and taking positive action. The psychologically healthy person experiences empathy when he sees the property rights of others violated (e.g. rape, robbery, murder, slavery, etc) because he understands that those things can happen to him as well.
icfnord 2 years ago
so, ultimately, yours is an egoist perspective. correct me if i'm wrong, but this is what i gather. we don't do bad things because we don't want it to come back to us. which begs the question presented in this video. what if there's absolute guarrantee of getting away with it and profiting from it?
fede2 2 years ago
>> so, ultimately, yours is an egoist perspective
Part I:
No. I'm simply stating that the universe is rigged to reward those who act ethically and punish those that dont. If the majority of human actions were not ethical, society (and life itself) could not exist.
icfnord 2 years ago
Part II:
Even if you reject deontological decency in favor of utilitarianism, you must still conclude that the best thing to do (from a utilitarian perspective) would be to embrace the non-aggression axiom since that would result in maximum happiness (i.e. maximum life) for everyone. But that shouldnt be the reason for being a decent human being, it's just the universe's way of rewarding people for not being a statist douche.
icfnord 2 years ago
>> what if there's absolute guarrantee of getting away with it and profiting from it?
Part I:
1. To have an absolute guarantee you would have to be omnipotent.
2. Even if you gain from crime in the short term, it would be a detriment to you in the long term because your aggressive action undermined the effective application of resources through the market price system.
icfnord 2 years ago
Part II:
Every resource that is stolen is a resource that does not get used in productive activities like the next scientific discovery, the next engineering marvel, the next masterpiece of music, etc.. Every person murdered is a potential Linus Pauling, Ludwig von Beethoven, Robert Anton Wilson, Alex Jones, etc.
Once again, economic law invalidates the egoist rationalization behind your criminal action and validates the non-aggression axiom.
icfnord 2 years ago
can you please send me a personal message giving me the jist of this? i can't spend my time reading essays on youtube. no offense.
fede2 2 years ago
I agree with your views, but I think your usage of terms lke "virtue", "morality", "rights" and "principal" can be misleading.
Since what you're really talking about is deep pragmatism, you're describing human action in psychology, you're explaining why it suits the self interest of the individual to not screw other people over.
Most pragmatists don't see this, but it's not pragmatism itself that's wrong.
NoCryingNowYes 2 years ago
Even if you can "get away with it", you will still suffer psychological issues by killing another human.
Mattara 2 years ago
Yes great vid..this sounds like Objectivism to me though. how is this different if at all?
j3rdog 2 years ago
A stronger emphasis on virtue. But not much, frankly.
XOmniverse 2 years ago
This line of "morality" relies upon people being psychologically weak insofar that killing others would result in severe mental trauma. Which is actually true enough; most people wouldn't do the harsher coercive acts or crimes because of the psychological scarring that can result. Parasitism, as you described it, is certainly something I strive to oppose, but if I can get away with killing someone who are themselves a parasite, why not?
doucher337 2 years ago
By the way, I think morality sucks as an ought derived from purely arbitrary, preferences of individuals. It can be loosely used as an inter-subjective societal construct, which is to say that it can be applied over a collective by voluntary participants at best (an agreement of sorts). Otherwise, philosophical prescriptive ethics are totally useless.
doucher337 2 years ago
I think you're making a mistake in assuming that the entirety of your mind is under your direct, conscious control.
If someone you cared about died, you would feel sad. This would not be a conscious decision on your part.
Chew on that thought for a bit.
XOmniverse 2 years ago
Certainly - I recognize that more of the brain is devoted to the subconscious/unconscious and automated processes, but as I have yet to be put in the position of killing I am not entirely sure of how I would react. However, violence has never affected me.
And I would feel some mental anguish, some emotional pain, if someone close to me died, but that is hardly the same thing in my mind.
doucher337 2 years ago
>> However, violence has never affected me.
That statement is patently psychotic. Consider:
1. The sales tax is a form of violence (i.e. robbery).
2. The sales tax increases the price of goods and services.
3. You pay for goods and services.
4. Therefore, violence affects you.
Q.E.D.
icfnord 2 years ago
You know damn well what I meant - that violence, visually, does not affect me. Yes, I oppose the state quite overtly, and I do acknowledge that its coercion is a burden with little compare.
doucher337 2 years ago
Oh that's funny. Because I thought you said:
"Otherwise, philosophical prescriptive ethics are totally useless"
icfnord 2 years ago
No, what you just said is funny because I oppose the coercion on preferential, logical, and economic grounds, not because of morality. So go fuck yourself you religious dumb fuck.
doucher337 2 years ago
Rejecting coercion on economic grounds is making a value judgement. It's stating a preference for creation and life rather than destruction and death. I think we are on the same page here.
But I was refering to the fact that prescriptive ethics (like christianity) are what make attrocities like sales tax possible. Every sociopath must be assured of their goodness while they are committing their crimes. Prescriptive ethics are quite useful for the purpose of mass mind-control.
icfnord 2 years ago
Highlighting the contradictory or hypocritical nature of the state with regards to the prescriptive ethics it enforces (laws) is hardly the same as being a proponent of prescriptive ethics. The only ought statements grounded in reality are derived from "ifs" and based in pragmatism, or are synonymous with an "is" (an observation).
As for the value judgment part, value judgments are inherent in life. After all, to continue surviving, I must value my life over the resources I consume.
doucher337 2 years ago
Sorry. I wasn't saying you were a proponent of prescriptinve ethics. I was saying that prescriptive ethics are a form of mass mind control.
icfnord 2 years ago
Pointing to the state's hypocrisy and making the claim that it is bad, not just for you, but for everyone listening to you, is to make an objective, prescriptive value statement.
You might say you're just hoping that they happen to disvalue hypocrisy, like you do, and are not making an objective statement, but then you'd have to believe that its a complete coincidence, not grounded in anything about reality or the human condition, that leads people to dislike hypocrisy.
To me, this is absurd.
XOmniverse 2 years ago
Humans dislike hypocrisy and prefer reciprocation because it has aided the species in survival in some fashion or another. It has nothing to do with some inherent ethic, of which there is none; as I've said before, the very existence of psychopaths and sociopaths shows that there is no innate neural structure which programs for any sense of morality. After all, such people are merely those who reject the moral systems, whether due to logic or some "neurosis".
doucher337 2 years ago
And yes, whenever employing logic, I assume that the other person values logic and a coherent, grounded model of the universe to some degree. Not all people must value logic as such, and not all do - ergo there exist spirituality, religion, and the state. So I contend that it is not coincidence that many people value reason, but that it is, well, logical to value such a concept since it results in a model of reality that is more accurate.
doucher337 2 years ago
It's only OBJECTIVELY logical to value rationality if the consequences of doing so are OBJECTIVELY good.
Otherwise, logic is just a subjective preference.
XOmniverse 2 years ago
it is "immoral" (unpragmatic, unpreferred) to kill someone only if killing someone affects your self-interests, or if killing applied universally would affect your self-interests.
Now, if you want to die, I don't see the immorality of killing others who have the power to kill you.
if you don't want to die, I don't see the immorality of killing others who can't harm you in return (such as having an army with guns vs a tribe with spears).
gn0m1k 2 years ago
So you're arguing that there are objective human virtues that if violated, necessarily lead to bad psychological/character deficits or harms; and if acted upon (consistently) lead to positive consequences to one's mind.
qtronman 2 years ago
Not just that, but he's claiming what they are. I don't know but Osama Bin Laden seems to be pretty serene.
Individualistico 2 years ago
Essentially, qtronman, so long as mind is understood to mean the whole mind, including one's emotions and sense of life.
Individualistico's claim is incorrect though, in that this video did not address specifically what virtues are valid and why. I think Rand was pretty close though.
XOmniverse 2 years ago
What if somebody hurts others, not to acquire anything from them, but just for kicks (a la the Joker)?
DixyHair 2 years ago
I don't think the consequentialist position falls apart, at all. You never 'get away' with killing a person. You could get away in terms of punishment - but you still have to live with yourself; it gnaws at you. Sounds like a reasonable position to me.
chapaev36 2 years ago
Oh, I see what you mean now. But I don't think the egoist position is so limited as to not consider emotional consequences, rather than the obvious societal ones. I'm sure that definitions vary.
chapaev36 2 years ago
Great video
aaron0883 2 years ago
As for rapists... they are not necessarily seeking the feelings that you associate with the word "happiness". They are seeking other feelings that they experience as a result of committing rape. Those are the feelings/sensations that they prefer. As usual, there is no basis upon which you could argue that someone else should prefer what you prefer. The "happiness" then, is your personal goal/preference, and everything that facilitates that is a matter of pragmatism. Ethics=preference+pragmatism.
D4Shawn 2 years ago
Do you think its not possible that there is a feeling called "happiness", common among all people, that can be achieved only through a specific approach to life?
I'm curious whether you actually have a proof of that claim.
XOmniverse 2 years ago
So... is your hypotheses that there are objective and inevitable psychological ramifications to any given action, and such ramifications can be identified/predicted?
D4Shawn 2 years ago
I don't know if you can know too much directly about how to achieve happiness, except what works for you personally. You could more easily debate about somehing more concrete that isn't happiness itself but something that many people would hold very relevant for happiness.
AnarchoSolipsist 2 years ago
Are you saying that all or nearly-all parasites in history, even the succesful ones like rulers etc. have had a bad self-esteem? That's quite a claim, how can you know that? Rulers in general seem to have at least outwardly a sense of great self-importance. Seems pretty subjective argument for "moral" egoism.
Randians and even semi-randians like you seem to have quite peculiar faith in the harmony between self-interest and what I would call "negative altruism", i.e. avoiding harming others.
AnarchoSolipsist 2 years ago
That's a good point. I can fathom how a successful tyrant could have great self esteem, by being proud of all the work he went through to become a tyrant. I'm not sure it's true that the most powerful and oppressive tyrant is less happy than the guy making an honest living driving a taxi.
Individualistico 2 years ago
"I can fathom how a successful tyrant could have great self esteem, by being proud of all the work he went through to become a tyrant. I'm not sure it's true that the most powerful and oppressive tyrant is less happy than the guy making an honest living driving a taxi."
Tara Smith addresses this in her book *Moral Rights & Political Freedom*. I like that book. She's an Objectivist philosophy professor at the University of Texas at Austin. :-)
legendre007 2 years ago
Good points. And you're appealing to people who want to be happy. So of course, it relies on others having the same fundamental preference as you and then showing them the best way to fulfill that basic desire. What I was trying to do is to account for ANY basic desire, even if in the infrequent case - if at all possible - where a person doesn't have happiness as his fundamental value.
Individualistico 2 years ago
Everyone wants to be happy. I don't think I've ever heard of a person that didn't.
XOmniverse 2 years ago
We don't know that. Some people may value other things more highly that their own happiness, and so are willing to sacrifice their happiness for whatever that goal is.
Individualistico 2 years ago
I don't accept the notion of sacrifice; for people do X - which may harm and/or kill themselves - because they value X over their own life, and/or current state of being, and they foresee a net gain for themselves and/or that which they value.
That being said, I believe people engage in Y behavior/action because they feel a sense of unease, and they wish to satisfy it and reach a state of eudaimonia.
Xandirfan 2 years ago
I don't know how you can conclude that. I know that I can take actions that will I believe full well will make me a less happy person. Can't you?
Individualistico 2 years ago
Eudaimonia isn't happiness of the state of mind, but satisfy a certain unease. It would depend on your value scale, and what you want to do. You are always doing something to satisfy an unease.
Xandirfan 2 years ago
Again, I don't see how you can conclude that. I can do things that I know will cause me more unease than not doing them.
Individualistico 2 years ago
Could you enlighten me? The only thing I could imagine is conflicts between the short term desires to be eased vs. long term desires to be eased, exempli gratia, doing hard core drugs. If I am mistake, please correct me. Regardless, this is still satisfying a certain unease. Now, wither it is rational or not is up for debate
Xandirfan 2 years ago
So, consequencialism should take into account of feeling like a bad person for doing "bad things"?
I know the reason I wouldn't kill somebody is because the guilt would just tear me apart. (maybe I would forget that if I were under the influence of drugs or some extreme rage, but the aftermath would be the same even still)
If that's what you're saying then I agree :D
If you're going into something deeper then I look forward to those videos.
Mastikator 2 years ago
I don't know if I would call "self-inflicted psychological trauma" to be something as mundane as "feeling bad."
XOmniverse 2 years ago
You should've kept long hair.
sharperguy 2 years ago
Indeed.
DixyHair 2 years ago