Why do you want to take the scenic route? Because it will make your life happier? If happiness is your overall goal in life, and taking the scenic route actually makes you happier than getting there quickly - not just that you think it will - then you ought to take the scenic route.
Everything I do I do to meet a need of my own, there are no exceptions to this in my life. Whenever a need of mine is met I feel pleasurable feelings. Taking the scenic route is just one of a thousand strategies I might use to meet one of my many needs.
But just because you feel pleasurable feelings when you do something, does that mean you should do it? I think not. The only rational reason to do something is if it leads to a more fundamental or longer term goal. If you have no long term goal, then what I'm saying doesn't apply to you. In that case you would just be an aimless person following whim - not that there's anything wrong with that. I don't think it would lead to a happy life though, if happiness is your fundamental goal.
By your reasoning, if I have long term goals my life will have direction and that will increase the likelihood that I will achieve a feeling of happiness. The only reason I do anything is because it meets my needs which are inseparable from my feelings. If you are unaware of this universal law one day you may find yourself standing at the top of the ladder of success asking is this all there is.
Life is short, there is no reason to put off being happy until you "deserve" or earn it. Luv today.
Well that's a good point. And it deserves and answer from a consequentialists, because what terms they use they should be able to justify on the consequences of using them. One reason I can think of would be to assist in converting deontologists to becoming pragmatists. They may be more likely to listen to you if they hear the word "moral" or "ethical." Then you can bring them to realize that it doesn't make sense to consider acts instrinsically "wrong" but only instrumentally wrong.
But still, in my ethics there are acts that you shouldn't do even if you prefer to do them, as I explained in my video Harmonization of Actions and Wants. So the applied ethic is not a matter preference, though the metaethic is based on preference.
You're saying the same thing that just about every ethicist says no matter what they call themselves (or how they dress up their argument).
You are simply saying that there are practical considerations relevant to the achievement of personal goals/desires.
While I've never heard anyone really disagree with that, I have heard tons people explain that very thing in countless convoluted and roundabout ways.
Deontologists agree with that. For Kant, for example, what's moral or immoral is not at all contingent upon the consequences of the act. Lots of people think that way. About an act, they'll think "It's just the right thing to do," regardless of the consequences.
From what I can tell, what you've been arguing against in your videos is deontological ethics, not ethics per se. Ethics for me is practicality, as it is for all consequentialists. That doesn't make it not ethics though.
I object to the use of moral terminology for any reason (other than to describe the phenomenon and use of moral terminology). I do my best to detail the insanity of what I consider to be a destructive language virus in the follow video series:
Then is seems you're cutting off what is considered a major branch of ethics - consequentialism. This includes utilitarianism - which is that an act is moral if it maximizes good consequences when summed among all persons. So I take it you don't consider utilitarianism to be an ethical doctrine.
It seems to me that any system of thought that says there are things that one should do or shouldn't do - especially when it deals to how you use other people - is ethics. Just because you're basing what one should do on a fundamental preference, I don't see any problem with calling it ethics.
Why on Earth would you use a word for which the definition is impossible to infer, instead of a word with a commonly understood definition?
In other words, why would you use words like "wrong" or "immoral" or "unethical" instead of words like "impractical" or "ineffective" considering that 50 different people will define the moral terms 50 different ways, whereas the modern (non-religious) terms are readily comprehensible by a second party?
Likewise if a person wants to get what he wants, the ethical rules he creates or accepts should be those that help him get what he wants. It's very straightforward. I don't know how you could dispute it.
Yeah, one should do that if, again, they want to subscribe to your ridiculous position. No thanks, bud. I don't want my actions and my moral life governed by a view according to which the rape and murder of people is ethically justifiable when such acts are to the perpetrators overall benefit. I can satisfy my self-interest just fine w/o your silly egoist theories.
Why don't you want to judge whether acts are ethical or not based on whether they serves your interests? Is it because you think it's not in your self interest to do this? Or what?
AGAIN, one of the factors that goes into my ethical reasoning is whether it's in my self-interest. I don't base my entire ethical reasoning on considerations of self-interest b/c there are many other ethico-moral principles to consider in deciding whether some act is ethical, moral, just, good, etc.. How many times are you going to ask me the same questions?
To me, and to almost everyone else, there are concepts like empathy, justice, fairness, and the like that have a particular grip on the mind. Call it indoctrination, manipulation, or whatever you like, the grip these concepts have on my mind amount to moral intuitions and they exert a great influence on my emotions and my thinking. One cannot but act in accordance w/ these concepts w/o being distressed - e.g., one can't kill w/ impunity no matter what theories one chooses to believe in.
So when you ask "what rational reason is behind this?", it's like asking what rational reason is there for believing that 2+2=4. There are certain technical arguments that can be given, but ultimately the truth of this proposition is that it has a certain grip on our mind such that we can't seriously believe it to be any other way. Moral intuitions similarly become part of the way we think, and this way they attain a truth and justification that surpasses any kind of argument.
You can see this in the case of leopold and loeb. They were two very bright people that read a lot of Nietzsche and were convinced that they were beyond good and evil. They decided to kill an innocent classmate to prove this. Obviously this theoretical construct couldn't compete with the truth of the substantial constructs that they and society have inculcated with them, e.g., that murder is wrong, etc. Thus it's no surprise that they recanted, and one of them became a devote missionary.
You do realize that everyone doesn't share the same "indoctrination" don't you? One person may feel no guilt whatsoever making a lot money, where another person may have been indoctrinated to think greed is evil. The question is which indoctrination is more useful to have. It may be in your best self interest to deprogram yourself. You have to analyze whether the emotions you have really serve you. They may be completely unjustified, based on false view of reality.
And they're not set in stone. It's analagous to a person who is afraid of heights, but is able to eliminate that emotion and get what he wants out of life - by changing his beliefs to a more accurate representation of reality.
Yes, people have different moral systems and different values.
One can scrutinize one's beliefs, but asking oneself what is more useful to believe and what is a more accurate view of reality is incoherent. This is b/c there is no objective "view from nowhere" perspective that someone can consult and measure things against. To reflect on what is more "real" or "true" is simply to consider what other kinds of beliefs and assumptions there are. It's not a matter of being more or less rational.
Of course there are things you can measure against. You can see if one action brings the results you want or not - or at least think through the likely consequences of the act - as well as observe others.
To reflect on what is true is to find out what views are an accurate representation of reality - through experiments.
Rationality is relative to what you want to achieve. If you want X, then those acts that bring you to X are rational. Those that stop you from getting X or irrational.
You can see if one action brings the results you want or not, but one has no basis for judging what one should want and consider good, right and proper in the first place.
There is no such thing as an accurate representation of reality. Even if there were, it would not yield any insight on what one should or should not do b/c you can't derive an ought from an is.
I never said there is anything that one should want in the first place. As I've said, it's a conditional. IF you overall want X, then you should Y. I'm not saying that should want X.
There is no such thing as an accurate representation of reality? Is it not an accurate representation of reality that when you touch a hot stove burner that you feel pain? The reality is that your body is comprised such that if you touch a stove you feel pain.
Yes, and I'm saying that your position of "IF you overall want X, then you should Y"is just as rationally baseless as a christian dogmatist' belief that "IF you overall want X, then you should NOT Y".
If we're being epistemologically precise, which we should seeing as how your interrogation of my position has veered into epistemology, then no, it's not right to say that when I touch the stove I feel pain b/c you don't specify a time, you don't specify what I touch the stove with, etc.
My point is to answer your questions of "I understand that you base your actions on other things than solely self interest. I'm asking why? What rational reason is behind this? Is there one?"
You've kept asking questions, which is fine, and now we've come to epistemology. Yes, my view is that the best way to think about such things as "truth" and "reality" is to see them not as strictly subjective, but as substantial constructs that have a certain kind of cognitive grip on us.
Yes, a cognitive grip. For example, the proposition that 2+2=4 has a cognitive grip on us - we find it hard to imagine how it could be otherwise. Something that conforms to our intuitions, prejudices, interests, and our mode of thinking tends to have a similar kind of cognitive grip on us.
If you believe that there is an objective reality that somehow causally impinges on us and that our statements correspond to to be true, I don't really care. I'm not interested in arguing over realism here.
You're confusing two different things. I said that if you're concerned with giving a rational account of morality, that there is nothing more rational or true about your moral assumptions about egoism than a christian dogmatists' moral assumptions about the virtue of selflessness, asceticism, etc.
The touching the hot stove point is different. Matters of empirical reality change over time, so something can be true only withing a highly narrow set of parameters/conditions.
About the stove, of course. You're being silly. Of course it matters if the stove is on, how hot it is, etc. I'm saying if that there are certain conditions where if you touch the stove burner that cause you to feel pain, and you don't want to feel pain, then you shouldn't touch the burner when those conditions are present. I'm just speaking basic rationality. The ethics you accept should be those that work to get what you want.
How are you comparing that reasoning to Christianity?
I have no problem with that reasoning. If you want to elevate the principle at play in that situation - that one should, barring any other complicating factors, avoid pain - into a generalized moral imperative for all situations, then I would disagree.
I brought up the christian ascetic just to point out that it's not any more rational in an epistemological sense to avoid pain than to intentionally afflict it on oneself in order to punish one's sinful nature or some such foolishness.
No, as I've explained to you I'm not saying what a person should want. I'm saying IF a person wants to avoid pain, then he shouldn't touch the hot burner. The ought is a CONDITIONAL.
If that's all your saying, then I agree with you. But that's obviously not all your saying. You should watch the youtube video "Egoist ethics: A cursory exploration" where this guy gives a reductive egoist account of morality.
Hahaah, first of all, you changed what that little thesis box says, which is kind of telling of how desperate you are to salvage your ludicrous position.
Second of all, if your position is simply that a person should do as they will, then that's fine - somewhat tautologous, but fine. The actual position you outline in your video -- that the egoist principle that one ought to do what is in one's overall benefit pretty much exhausts all moral considerations -- is what is ludicrous.
As we've already covered that ground, and seeing as how I've already shown you how and why that position is ludicrous bullshit, there's no need to go over all that again. I think we can bring this discussion to a close. Have a nice evening.
Yes I changed it, because I wanted to make it more explicit. Apparently, it wasn't obvious that what I was advocating applies also to whether you should accept what I'm advocating. It was implicit, but I made it more obvious.
No, I'm not saying a person should do as they will. See my video "Harmonization of actions and wants." If I was saying a person should do WHATEVER he wants, then I agree, but that's not what I'm saying. He should only do what he wants when what he wants lead him to getting what he most fundamentally wants.
Ethics, as a field, is concerned with discovering and defining a code of values. The standard of value, in Objectivist ethics, is man's life (i.e., every individual's life). Your life is the only end in itself. Every other ethical value is a means to that end.
I do see a relationship b/w the biological basis of human life and a code of ethics. That's why I never asked you what biological basis of life has to do with ethics - I asked what it has to do w/ adopting an egoist value system. Are you fucking retarded or are you not paying any attention to what I write? I don't think there's much point in going on if you can't grasp the most elementary distinctions.
"... ethics - I asked what it has to do w/ adopting an egoist value system ..."
Ethics *is* a value system. A value system, a code of values, is constitutive of ethics. I think the problem is you who does not see the relationships here. And your rudeness does not help.
Yeah, what the hell does the existential fact of life and death have to do w/ adopting an egoist value system?
I'm not asking about the relationship b/w the existential fact of life and death and any ol' code of ethics. I'm asking what the existential fact of life and death has to do w/ ADOPTING AN EGOIST VALUE SYSTEM.
Sorry for being rude. I just find it exasperating when people don't grasp the most basic logical principles and distinctions.
Speaking as an Objectivist, "Deontology" versus "consequentialism" is a false dichotomy in ethics, just as "rationalism" versus "empiricism" is a false dichotomy in epistemology. These false dichotomies flow through philosophy (and many related fields).
Fine, if you want to get technical. But all the theories in the history of ethics that fall into the "deontological" branch are invalid theories, as are all the theories which fall into the consequentialist branch. For example, a typical "consequentialist" theory popular today is pragmatism. A typical "deontological" theory is Kantianism. Objectivism REJECTS all of it.
"But why accept Objectivism unless it helps me get what I want? It still comes back to that."
What if you want something that is, in fact, harmful to you? Wants cannot be an objective standard of value because, in reality, people do often want things that destroy their lives.
It depends on context. If the person doesn't have major health problems, he's not in serious pain, and he's otherwise healthy and normal, but he just wants to throw away his life arbitrarily, I would say that person is a monster. He's discarding all that gives rise to value, and he's essentially spitting on ethics prima facie.
Ok, but why should he care if he's "spitting on ethics" if following those ethics would prevent him from getting what he wants? There's no practical reason for him to adopt ethics that mandate that he do something that works against getting what he wants most.
I don't think that the discussion is over there. You have to account for that choice. If the choice to live necessitates certain actions, then so does the choice to die. So do a lot of other choices. My fundamental choice is to pursue happiness. I don't choose life as an end in itself, but as a means to pursue happiness.
A1. Individualistico: "But why accept Objectivism unless it helps me get what I want?"
me: I think Objectivism makes a distinction between short-term wants & long-term wants. In the short term, I might want to beat up a stranger because I hate his face; that would give me momentary pleasure, but that would create repercussions that hurt me in the future. If I control myself & resist my initial impulses, that may seem like a drag in the present but contribute to my happiness in the future.
Individualistico: "But why accept Objectivism unless it helps me get what I want?"
When there's a potential conflict between fleeting, momentary pleasures, & decisions that will likely contribute to eudaimonia - referring to 1's long-term, general well-being & happiness - O'ism favors the latter.
Fleeting, momentary pleasures (like me getting drunk) are good & permissible inasmuch as 1 rationally ascertains that they won't severely impair 1's ability to attain eudaimonia.
How about a situation where someone knows they can get away with viciously raping and killing your sister, and that b/c that person is a sadistic nut these acts will be extremely pleasurable for him. In this case you would be ready to say that raping and killing your sister was ethical? (I don't use your sister as an example gratuitously - I simply want to tease out your own moral intuitions).
If his goal is happiness, then I don't think it would be ethical, because I don't think it justifies the risk of getting punished by me and others in society. The short term happiness obtained from that is outweighed by the misery of twenty-plus years in prison (remember I'm talking about the entire overall consequences for oneself as a result of performing an act). It would also, by the way, be ethical for me to help get laws passed against rape and stiff prison sentences.
The scenario stipulates that he gets away with the act. But fine, if you want to ignore that or assume that it's impossible, then just imagine that the guy is a sadist nut and he would be happy with just raping and killing your sister and then committing suicide right after. He achieved his ends and he got a great deal of pleasure from all three acts (raping, murder, and suicide). Again, in this case you would be ready to say that raping and killing your sister was ethical?
No, because I think the probability of eventually getting caught, even if it's like 30% probability doesn't justify the act. If however the punishment for the crime was simply a $10 fine, and he wouldn't be ostracized by society, and all sorts of consequences we can unrealistically imagine that could be omitted - then it would. It's our responsibility who prefer a society without rape is to make sure that the probability of getting caught is high as possible and that the the punishment is harsh.
Note it can be ethical for someone to try to do something, while at the same time it being ethical for us to try to stop him from doing it. And like I pointed out, this is not subjectivist ethics, because we would both be trying to do what maximizes good consequences to ourselves.
Note also that trying to stop him may consist of trying to convince him that it inherently immoral regardless of the consequences for himself to do that thing. In other words, indoctrinating him with a belief that we egoists don't ourselves have - as a means of self defense.
Okay, so if a sadistic nut wants to rape and murders your sister and then happily commit suicide right after, and if he carries out these actions and achieves his ends having no regrets, you would say that he has acted ethically.
I'm personally very happy that so few people hold the ridiculous position you've outlined. I mean, that ethical determinations should be based on how ostracized/unhappy someone feels after committing a crime, that's just so outrageously stupid and morally inept.
If he commits suicide, that doesn't maximize good consequences for himself.
Apparently you think that certain acts intrinsically immoral. Can you prove it? Or are you just relying on intuitions that you've been indoctrinated with?
You say "I'm personally very happy that so few people hold the ridiculous position you've outlined" I think most people hold my position, in that they do things, and advocate things, that they think will benefit themselves, and refrain from doing things and advocate against things that they think are not in their self interest.
No, most people don't hold the position that what is ethical is simply what brings desirable consequences for themselves. Judeo-Christian ethics, which virtually all Europeans adhered to for 2 millennia, had among its central principles altruism, selflessness, charity, etc. You can speculate that these beliefs ultimately gave the practitioner pleasure, but that's very different from claiming that such people believed that what is ethical is based on whether it has good consequences for oneself.
And if you're curious about what I think, I don't believe that certain acts are intrinsically moral or immoral. My view is that morality and ethics is a kind of "substantial construction". Our moral feelings and intuitions are constructed by society, - a kind of indoctrination if you like - but they are ingrained in us such that we cannot help but be moved by these constructs. They take on a kind of truth and reality for us, and have a grip on us equivalent to the proposition that 2+2=4.
Ok, but don't you think your moral feelings and inttuitions should be subject to scrutiny by you? You may hold intuitions that work against you're self interest. Some of these intuitions may have been indoctrinated into you by someone who wanted to control you for their own selfish ends, to expense of your own.
Yes, someone's moral feelings and intuitions should be subject to scrutiny by their possessor. And yes, very often these moral intuitions run counter to one's own self interest. When it comes to the view that murder, barring extenuating circumstances, is wrong, for most people scrutinizing that is like scrutinizing one's belief that 2+2=4.
What might be an example of a common moral intuition that's indoctrinated into people in order to control them for someone's selfish ends?
The big one that comes to mind is the ethical doctrine of altruism - the claim that people have a moral obligation to live for the sake of others. The belief that there's some kind of moral value in giving to others without any eye on whether it benefits you or not.
"[The] social point of view cannot tolerate the notion of rights, for such notion rests on individualism. We are born under a load of obligations of every kind, to our predecessors, to our successors, to our contemporaries... This ["to live for others"], the definitive formula of human morality, gives a direct sanction exclusively to our instincts of benevolence, the common source of happiness and duty. [Man must serve] Humanity, whose we are entirely." -August Comte
Whoever started promoting it. It was made up out of the blue. Comte is the guy that coined the term "Altruism" and used it to refer to his ethical doctrine. I'm sure he had his own selfish reasons to promoting the idea that people ought to live for the sake of others.
Lol, the ethical principle of altruism has been around long before Comte came along and gave it that particular name.
In any event, I have no interest sitting here and speculating about such things with you. My only goal in commenting on your vid was to show that the ludicrous thesis of this video leads to conclusions that vast majority of people would regard as unbelievably ridiculous and impossibly absurd. I accomplished that.
If you're now genuinely curious about my views on this matter, fine, I'm more than happy to discuss it, but no more of this endless back and forth speculation over these extraneous points.
I didn't say he was the one to come up with the concept. I said he was on the one to create a word for it.
I agree that the vast majority of people would balk at my video. But that doesn't mean it's irrational or illogical. You're making the fallacy of "Appeal to Popularity."
Your argument is based on historical assumptions, not to mention the logically dubious inference of deriving an ought from an is. That is, you have historical assumptions about what motives people have and how they behave w/o societal rules, and how moral principles/rules developed. Then, you derive from your assumption that people are selfserving egoists (the "is") the view that people should indulge in their selfserving egoism and treat it as a moral principle (the "ought")
My argument in the video does not depend on any historical assumptions whatsover. I simply say that a person should judge what is ethical based on whether it serves his interests or not. I'm not attempting to derive an ought from an "is." I'm deriving an ought from an "if." If you want X, then you ought to do Y.
Deriving "ought" from "if" is the same as the is-ought fallacy when your if is a particular fact. E.g., if it's the case that action x is in your self-interest, they you ought to take action x. Your moral position is that this is the right way to think about morality b/c of the moral principle that one ought to do what is in one's self interest; in other words, an "is" - that someone is in your self-interest - implies an "ought" - that you should do it.
I'm not saying one ought to do what in his self interest. A person may want to do what is not in his self interest. I'm saying for whatever a person wants out of life, he ought to judge what is ethical or not based on whether it helps him get what he wants. The reason that he should should judge ethical principles this way is because it helps him get he what he wants.
Your thesis is that what determines whether an act is ethical (i.e., what one ought to do) is whether it brings overall desired consequences to oneself (a fact). So if an overall desirable consequence for me, all things considered, would be to buy that candy bar, then I ought to buy that candy bar. It would be ethical for me to do so. In other words, a specific fact (is) - the desirability of buying that candy bar - implies what is ethical (ought) - that I should by it.
"If I want a candy bar" is not an "is." It's a conditional. If you don't want a candy bar then you ought not buy one. I'm saying if you want X, then you should do Y. I'm not saying you should do Y regardless of of what X is.
Your thesis is that what determines whether an act is ethical (i.e., what one ought to do) is whether it brings overall desired consequences to oneself (a fact). Or do you not think that something being ethical means that it's a good and one ought to do it?
Jesus, again, the "if" of a conditional specifies a fact. E.g., "if it's the case that you want X, then you should do Y". That means that a certain fact implies that you should act in a certain way - that an is implies an ought.
I'm saying you should adopt it if you want an view that will free you to get what you want out of life - without being constrained by someone else's moral principles that may not be in your self interest to follow (IF you want to satisfy your self interest). It's an "ought" but a conditional "ought."
Okay, so one should adopt your ridiculous position not b/c you have decent arguments for it, but b/c it has fewer constraints on moral action, b/c it's easier to follow. No thanks, bud. I don't want my actions and my moral life governed by a view that allows for the rape and murder of people to be an ethically justifiable act. I can satisfy my self-interest just fine w/o such bullshit egoist theories.
I don't see anything ridiculous about advocating a a person judge what he should or shouldn't do based on whether it helps him get what he wants. Why would you restrict yourself to following rules that thwart your goals?
I don't see anything ridiculous about someone valuing his/her own wants/desires/goals, etc. What I find ridiculous, and have already shown to lead to ridiculous consequences, is your position that what is ethical is simply determined by whether the act in question has overall desirable consequences to oneself.
I'm going to tell him that if it's happiness he's aiming for, this is not going to get it for him and explain why - for various consequential reasons. If he still persists in his plans, then I kill him.
You have the right direction in your thinking; read Rand's VoS, to see why she doesn't use terms like "work" (which sounds a lot like Pragmatism)... These comment boxes aren't too good for explaining it all.
The problem is that morality is more complicated than Randian and egoist fantasy land. There are many other ethico-moral factors to consider than "is this to my overall benefit".
If you're thinking about murdering someone, there are many other considerations other than "will this be to my overall benefit." For example, any person with moral sense will pause to reflect on how the other person and the other person's family might feel about such a murder. Whether he himself would want to be murdered simply b/c it would be to the overall benefit of someone else (golden rule).What effect such an act has on the society in which one lives irrespective of one's "overall benefit"
Why should you care how his family will feel? It's because how his family feels if you kill the guy is going to affect you emotionally, right? It's not an arbitrary concern. If doing it has more costs (including emotional costs) to you than the benefits of killing him then don't do it.
But also you might serve yourself well to determine whether your emotions are coming from indoctrination that is not in your best interests. In that case, you should adjust your ethics and condition yourself to not feeling pain when doing something that is in your best interest.
No, you care how his family will feel b/c you accept the basic moral principle of empathy and the moral principle of the golden rule. These moral ideas are relevant to your decision to murder and rape irrespective of how they figure into your "to my overall benefit" calculus. That why I specify "What effect such an act has on the society in which one lives IRRESPECTIVE OF ONE'S 'OVERALL BENEFIT'".
Does obeying the "golden rule" serve you in getting what you most want? If so, then hold on to it. If not, then discard it. There is no rational reason to follow a rule that prevents you from getting what you want.
No, sometimes following the golden rule means you have to refrain from doing something that will result in your overall benefit. That the whole fucking point of me bringing it up -- you asked me what moral factors there are other than your egoistic "what is to my overall benefit".
And there is a rational reason to follow it even though it might prevent you from getting what you want. There are competing rational interests and reasons, and moral reasons sometimes outweigh other interests/reasons
If that's the case, then you should adjust the golden rule to say "do what you would have others to unto you unless the particular case is such that doing otherwise results in a greater overall to yourself." (If benefit to yourself is what you want)
max4296: You don't even understand Objectivist ethics. You clearly have never read *Virtue of Selfishness*, or if you have, you've mis-understood the essential points completely. Your attitude is that of a rushing mind, who thinks he's figured it all out, and when you dismiss Objectivist ethics (as it seems to you, anyway), you're dismissing a stawman.
You're the one claiming that you have it all figured out. What we're talking about has nothing to do with what I believe. I simply asked you a few questions about where objectivist ethics and values are derived from. What your argument is for your position.
But you're assuming everyone's goals are rational and genuinely self-interested. IF that were the case, then nobody would be immoral. But Al Capone-types do exist, and they do pursue their wants and goals.
What's rational is relative to what you want. Rationality is just doing what works - for Rand too, I believe.
And like I pointed out earlier, this doesn't preclude me from making laws against another person doing things that conflict with the things I want to do in the pursuit of happiness.
So the only reason I wanted to show that your position leads to conclusions that the vast majority of people would find ridiculous and that most would see your position as utterly wrong is b/c I cannot argue against your baseless assumptions and your use of ought-is fallacy. There would be no point in pointing all that out to you. Moral and ethical ideas are to a great extent a social and intersubjective matter, so I'm content w/ showing that your position is bogus to almost anyone with a brain
Again, I'm not coming up with an ought from an "is." It's an ought from an "if." It you want X, then there are things that you should to do get it. It's as simple as that.
If his goal is to have a short life and a one burst of ecstasy and then death, then fine, it is ethical for him to do that. But like I said, it's also ethical for us non-"wackos" to protect ourselves from him, by making laws and harsh prison sentences, and maybe even bringing him to church to convince him that God tells him that he will go to hell if he rapes, or any other various techniques.
Right, I never said that believing that there can be situations where the rape and murder of your sister is ethical means that you couldn't at the same time work towards making such acts less likely, less desirable, or whatever. That's fine. My only point was to show that judging the rightness or wrongness of actions by your egoist pleasure/desirable outcome principle results in some pretty fucking preposterous conclusions.
As per my answer to a previous question of yours, I don't think that there is are intrinsically better or worse moral measures. There are those moral measures that society has developed over thousands of years that strike most people as true, just, and that result in a better society such as views on murder that have nothing to do with the pleasure/displeasure a murdered experiences from his murder. Such beliefs have a certain cognitive and moral grip on society and me, and that's enough...
Ok, well that's consistent with my saying that may be in our interest to indoctrinate or condition people to feel that they are doing something intrinsically immoral. One way to do this is with laws and punishment. It's basically animal training. Is it intrinsically immoral for your dog to bark all night? No, but we can use reward/punishment in order to make him FEEL it is intrinsically wrong.
The historic development and evolution of morality and ethico-moral intuition is not "basically animal training." You keep assuming that if ethico-moral views are constructed, then that must mean someone in a powerful position consciously manipulated people to have these constructs in order to serve this powerful person's ends. Ethico-moral feelings, principles, intuitions, etc., accrue from an incredibly complicated organic historical process. It's not "animal training."
No, I'm not saying it comes from a centralized source. Society is just a lot of people using whatever means they have available to them to control other people around them to get what they want - to either get things from them - or to protect themselves from those who want to forcibly take things from them. They use reward/punishment, philosophical sophistry, religion, and so on. And note, it's not uniform. Not everyone has accepts the same ethics.
I disagree with your assumption that "society is just a lot of people using whatever means they have available to them to control other people around them to get what they want - to either get things from them - or to protect themselves from those who want to forcibly take things from them."
Even if I thought your view was basically right, how does this bear on either of our views of morality? Why are you bringing this up?
Because you brought up the claim: "You keep assuming that if ethico-moral views are constructed, then that must mean someone in a powerful position consciously manipulated people to have these constructs..."
Fine, when you likened morality to animal training and used language that suggested to me that you viewed morality/ethical rules as developing in order to serve someone's self interest, you didn't really mean that and I misunderstood you. I don't care. It has nothing to do with anything.
Ethicists always want to have their cake and eat it to. This is why I basically equate morality (as well as religion) with intellectual dishonesty.
Moralist always want to claim that morality is just another term for practicality (which by it's very nature is only relevant to subjective goals/desires). However, the moment that you point out that violence is often practical according to certain goals/desires, the moralists then refuse to accept the rather simple implications of their own logic
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "ethicists always want to have their cake and eat it too." I don't exactly consider myself some kind of "moralist", but I don't think morality is just another term for practicality. Even crude consequentialism like the silly version of egoist consequentialism advocated in this video isn't necessarily about "practicality" b/c consequentialist ends don't have to be of a utilitarian character.
As I understood this video, all Individualistico was saying is that there are practical considerations relative to the acievement of personal goals/desires. That's basically what every ethicist I've ever heard argues. That's all ethics is (practicality+preference).
My point, was that Individualistico was dodging your question about someone raping his sister. Obviously, rape is practical in relation to certain preferences/goals/desires (and is thus "ethical" by Individualistico's definition).
Hehe, he was dodging it for a while but eventually conceded that according to his position outlined in this video, the rape and murder of his sister would be in fact be an ethical act if it was to the "overall benefit" of the perpetrator.
There are practical considerations in ethics, but I don't think that's all there is to ethics/morality. It may be preferential and practical for one to murder, but some ethical principle may keep you from doing so (golden rule or some such thing).
Every ethical system describes one of three things:
a) personal preference (subjective goals/desires)
b) practicality/pragmatism
c) pragmatism as it relates to ones personal goals
The golden rule is no different. All justifications for the golden rule are either an appeal to practicality, an appeal to personal preference, or some combination of those two things. There is nothing else that ethics can possibly be (aside from mere description).
I think the problem w/ such a breakdown is that you conflate intending something, any willed act or omission, with personal preference. If you do that, sure, everything one does or doesn't do is the result of preference. This conflation is a mistake.
It may be one's preference to act in one way, but given certain moral considerations one might decide to act against this preference. E.g., you might prefer to murder someone, but your moral intuitions lead you to act against this preference.
Well... the nature (and limitations) of reality limit the amount and type of preferences one can simultaneously act upon. Obviously, one can't act upon a preference to murder as they simultaneously act upon a preference to not murder.
Referring to a preference as a "moral consideration/intuition" is simply a semantic alteration. There are only two ways to justify a "should" (i.e. "should not murder"):
Right, but my point is that it's semantically inaccurate to say that one can prefer 'A' and prefer ' not A' simultaneously. That's a sign of a fallacious conflation of preference with an eventual course of action.
The tension b/w the urge to murder and a moral intuition against murder is not a tension b/w two preferences. One still finds it most preferable (desirable, valuable, advantageous, etc) to murder, but for moral reasons that have nothing to do with prefernce/desire one decides not to.
So no, there are actually many ways to justify a "should". For example, one should not murder b/c one feels that murder is inherently wrong; one should not murder b/c one naturally empathizes with others, etc. Such considerations have nothing to do with a justification based on what one prefers to do. Morality is usually a constraint on one's preference.
"one should not murder b/c one feels that murder is inherently wrong."
"one should not murder b/c one naturally empathizes with others"
Those are not justifications. Those are unjustified claims (opinions). Either that or they are non-sequitur arguments (the conclusions don't follow from the premise).
If you feel you can transform those claims into valid arguments, be my guest, but I don't think it's possible.
People can invent whatever "moral considerations" they want. However, if they can't justify them, they must admit that their "moral considerations" are just personal preferences. If they won't, then they are intellectually dishonest.
For example:
Someone can claim that God doesn't approve of murder, and thus it's wrong.
However, in order to justify that claim, one would have to prove the existence of God, and prove that he disapproves of murder.
Not being able to justify something to someone doesn't mean that it's simply a preference. It can be a belief, a conviction, an intuition, all sorts of things that may not be rationally justifiable/provable but that nevertheless are not simply "preferences".
That is, a moral intuition that tells me I shouldn't murder even though I would prefer to murder b/c it's in my best interest, this moral intuition isn't a preference; a moral intuition in this case actually checks preference. If someone has an unprovable belief that god disproves of murder, this belief isn't simply a preference. One might prefer (desire, see as ultimately advantageous) to murder but be restrained from this action by one's unprovable belief in god's commandment not to.
Obviously, people can use moral terminology to refer to things that are
a) non-existent, or
b) logically fallacious.
However, once we rule that stuff out as being invalid and useless, all we are left with is the underlying appeal to either practicality and preferences. Those are the only things that actually exist that moral terminology is used to refer to.
One can give a perfectly valid argument for morality. Just to give a simple example: I have a strong feeling that I should never murder; if I have a strong feeling about something, I should follow it; thus, I should never murder. That is a perfectly valid logical argument. You may obviously disagree with the premises, but it is nonetheless valid and logical. In any event, validity and logic has nothing to do w/ whether something is a mere preference or not.
Bull crap. If one can't demonstrate that "X is wrong", or that "people shouldn't do X", then any claims one makes to the contrary are simply masking/obfuscating one's personal preferences/prejudices/opinions.
One can give all sorts of justifications for one's beliefs. A Christian might justify his belief that murder is wrong by appeal to scripture, theology, etc. Just b/c you don't accept his arguments and assumptions doesn't mean that his beliefs are mere preferences.
A Christian that doesn't accept arguments for evolutionary theory isn't, ipso facto, justified in characterizing evolutionary theory as just what some happens to prefer as a biological theory and thus it's mere opinion.
LOL, so "intellectual honesty" is simply a matter of only making statements you agree with and/or not making any arguments that you would disagree with. Hahhah, okay. That's fine I suppose - a little deranged, but whatever.
"LOL, so 'intellectual honesty' is simply a matter of only making statements you agree with and/or not making any arguments that you would disagree with."
WTF? No. I'm saying there are generally accepted rules of logic upon which philosophical discourse is based.
I'm not saying that such rules can not be challenged (epistemology is a valid and contentious branch of philosophy), but if someone simply says, "I just want to make stuff up because I feel like it", well... what's the point?
I'll repeat: "One can give a perfectly valid argument for morality. Just to give a simple example: I have a strong feeling that I should never murder; if I have a strong feeling about something, I should follow it; thus, I should never murder. That is a perfectly valid logical argument. You may obviously disagree with the premises, but it is nonetheless valid and logical. In any event, validity and logic has nothing to do w/ whether something is a mere preference or not."
I want to get to grandma's house via the scenic route. I value beauty above efficiency. Labels, labels and more labels...
NLPNVC 2 years ago
Why do you want to take the scenic route? Because it will make your life happier? If happiness is your overall goal in life, and taking the scenic route actually makes you happier than getting there quickly - not just that you think it will - then you ought to take the scenic route.
Individualistico 2 years ago
Everything I do I do to meet a need of my own, there are no exceptions to this in my life. Whenever a need of mine is met I feel pleasurable feelings. Taking the scenic route is just one of a thousand strategies I might use to meet one of my many needs.
NLPNVC 2 years ago
But just because you feel pleasurable feelings when you do something, does that mean you should do it? I think not. The only rational reason to do something is if it leads to a more fundamental or longer term goal. If you have no long term goal, then what I'm saying doesn't apply to you. In that case you would just be an aimless person following whim - not that there's anything wrong with that. I don't think it would lead to a happy life though, if happiness is your fundamental goal.
Individualistico 2 years ago
By your reasoning, if I have long term goals my life will have direction and that will increase the likelihood that I will achieve a feeling of happiness. The only reason I do anything is because it meets my needs which are inseparable from my feelings. If you are unaware of this universal law one day you may find yourself standing at the top of the ladder of success asking is this all there is.
Life is short, there is no reason to put off being happy until you "deserve" or earn it. Luv today.
NLPNVC 2 years ago
Comment removed
D4Shawn 2 years ago
Well that's a good point. And it deserves and answer from a consequentialists, because what terms they use they should be able to justify on the consequences of using them. One reason I can think of would be to assist in converting deontologists to becoming pragmatists. They may be more likely to listen to you if they hear the word "moral" or "ethical." Then you can bring them to realize that it doesn't make sense to consider acts instrinsically "wrong" but only instrumentally wrong.
Individualistico 2 years ago
But still, in my ethics there are acts that you shouldn't do even if you prefer to do them, as I explained in my video Harmonization of Actions and Wants. So the applied ethic is not a matter preference, though the metaethic is based on preference.
Individualistico 2 years ago
You're saying the same thing that just about every ethicist says no matter what they call themselves (or how they dress up their argument).
You are simply saying that there are practical considerations relevant to the achievement of personal goals/desires.
While I've never heard anyone really disagree with that, I have heard tons people explain that very thing in countless convoluted and roundabout ways.
ReIgNoFrAdNeSs 2 years ago
Deontologists agree with that. For Kant, for example, what's moral or immoral is not at all contingent upon the consequences of the act. Lots of people think that way. About an act, they'll think "It's just the right thing to do," regardless of the consequences.
From what I can tell, what you've been arguing against in your videos is deontological ethics, not ethics per se. Ethics for me is practicality, as it is for all consequentialists. That doesn't make it not ethics though.
Individualistico 2 years ago
I have indeed argued (over and over again) against using moral/religious terminology to describe practicality.
I recently did a three part series on my ReIgNoFrAdNeSs channel. I think it was just called "religious language".
D4Shawn 2 years ago
You object to rules pertaining to how a person deals with other people being called "ethics"?
Individualistico 2 years ago
I object to the use of moral terminology for any reason (other than to describe the phenomenon and use of moral terminology). I do my best to detail the insanity of what I consider to be a destructive language virus in the follow video series:
watch?v=NROsxl8cV88
D4Shawn 2 years ago
Then is seems you're cutting off what is considered a major branch of ethics - consequentialism. This includes utilitarianism - which is that an act is moral if it maximizes good consequences when summed among all persons. So I take it you don't consider utilitarianism to be an ethical doctrine.
Individualistico 2 years ago
It seems to me that any system of thought that says there are things that one should do or shouldn't do - especially when it deals to how you use other people - is ethics. Just because you're basing what one should do on a fundamental preference, I don't see any problem with calling it ethics.
Individualistico 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Well... here's the million dollar question:
Why on Earth would you use a word for which the definition is impossible to infer, instead of a word with a commonly understood definition?
In other words, why would you use words like "wrong" or "immoral" or "unethical" instead of words like "impractical" or "ineffective" considering that 50 different people will define the moral terms 50 different ways, whereas the modern (non-religious) terms are readily comprehensible by a second party?
D4Shawn 2 years ago
Likewise if a person wants to get what he wants, the ethical rules he creates or accepts should be those that help him get what he wants. It's very straightforward. I don't know how you could dispute it.
Individualistico 2 years ago
Yeah, one should do that if, again, they want to subscribe to your ridiculous position. No thanks, bud. I don't want my actions and my moral life governed by a view according to which the rape and murder of people is ethically justifiable when such acts are to the perpetrators overall benefit. I can satisfy my self-interest just fine w/o your silly egoist theories.
max4296 2 years ago
Why don't you want to judge whether acts are ethical or not based on whether they serves your interests? Is it because you think it's not in your self interest to do this? Or what?
Individualistico 2 years ago
AGAIN, one of the factors that goes into my ethical reasoning is whether it's in my self-interest. I don't base my entire ethical reasoning on considerations of self-interest b/c there are many other ethico-moral principles to consider in deciding whether some act is ethical, moral, just, good, etc.. How many times are you going to ask me the same questions?
max4296 2 years ago
What rational reason do you have for refraining from doing things that would work to get what you want out of life?
I understand that you base your actions on other things than solely self interest. I'm asking why? What rational reason is behind this? Is there one?
Individualistico 2 years ago
To me, and to almost everyone else, there are concepts like empathy, justice, fairness, and the like that have a particular grip on the mind. Call it indoctrination, manipulation, or whatever you like, the grip these concepts have on my mind amount to moral intuitions and they exert a great influence on my emotions and my thinking. One cannot but act in accordance w/ these concepts w/o being distressed - e.g., one can't kill w/ impunity no matter what theories one chooses to believe in.
max4296 2 years ago
So when you ask "what rational reason is behind this?", it's like asking what rational reason is there for believing that 2+2=4. There are certain technical arguments that can be given, but ultimately the truth of this proposition is that it has a certain grip on our mind such that we can't seriously believe it to be any other way. Moral intuitions similarly become part of the way we think, and this way they attain a truth and justification that surpasses any kind of argument.
max4296 2 years ago
You can see this in the case of leopold and loeb. They were two very bright people that read a lot of Nietzsche and were convinced that they were beyond good and evil. They decided to kill an innocent classmate to prove this. Obviously this theoretical construct couldn't compete with the truth of the substantial constructs that they and society have inculcated with them, e.g., that murder is wrong, etc. Thus it's no surprise that they recanted, and one of them became a devote missionary.
max4296 2 years ago
You do realize that everyone doesn't share the same "indoctrination" don't you? One person may feel no guilt whatsoever making a lot money, where another person may have been indoctrinated to think greed is evil. The question is which indoctrination is more useful to have. It may be in your best self interest to deprogram yourself. You have to analyze whether the emotions you have really serve you. They may be completely unjustified, based on false view of reality.
Individualistico 2 years ago
And they're not set in stone. It's analagous to a person who is afraid of heights, but is able to eliminate that emotion and get what he wants out of life - by changing his beliefs to a more accurate representation of reality.
Individualistico 2 years ago
Yes, people have different moral systems and different values.
One can scrutinize one's beliefs, but asking oneself what is more useful to believe and what is a more accurate view of reality is incoherent. This is b/c there is no objective "view from nowhere" perspective that someone can consult and measure things against. To reflect on what is more "real" or "true" is simply to consider what other kinds of beliefs and assumptions there are. It's not a matter of being more or less rational.
max4296 2 years ago
Of course there are things you can measure against. You can see if one action brings the results you want or not - or at least think through the likely consequences of the act - as well as observe others.
To reflect on what is true is to find out what views are an accurate representation of reality - through experiments.
Rationality is relative to what you want to achieve. If you want X, then those acts that bring you to X are rational. Those that stop you from getting X or irrational.
Individualistico 2 years ago
You can see if one action brings the results you want or not, but one has no basis for judging what one should want and consider good, right and proper in the first place.
There is no such thing as an accurate representation of reality. Even if there were, it would not yield any insight on what one should or should not do b/c you can't derive an ought from an is.
max4296 2 years ago
I never said there is anything that one should want in the first place. As I've said, it's a conditional. IF you overall want X, then you should Y. I'm not saying that should want X.
There is no such thing as an accurate representation of reality? Is it not an accurate representation of reality that when you touch a hot stove burner that you feel pain? The reality is that your body is comprised such that if you touch a stove you feel pain.
Individualistico 2 years ago
Therefore, if you want to avoid pain, you should avoid touching the stove.
Individualistico 2 years ago
Yes, and I'm saying that your position of "IF you overall want X, then you should Y"is just as rationally baseless as a christian dogmatist' belief that "IF you overall want X, then you should NOT Y".
If we're being epistemologically precise, which we should seeing as how your interrogation of my position has veered into epistemology, then no, it's not right to say that when I touch the stove I feel pain b/c you don't specify a time, you don't specify what I touch the stove with, etc.
max4296 2 years ago
In other words, truth is always contingent on perspective and interpretation, both of which are subjective.
max4296 2 years ago
What is your point here?
Are you saying truth is subjective?
Individualistico 2 years ago
Comment removed
max4296 2 years ago
My point is to answer your questions of "I understand that you base your actions on other things than solely self interest. I'm asking why? What rational reason is behind this? Is there one?"
You've kept asking questions, which is fine, and now we've come to epistemology. Yes, my view is that the best way to think about such things as "truth" and "reality" is to see them not as strictly subjective, but as substantial constructs that have a certain kind of cognitive grip on us.
max4296 2 years ago
A cognitive grip? I don't know what you mean.
Reality is not a construct. Reality is that which exists. Truth is opinion that corresponds to reality.
Individualistico 2 years ago
Yes, a cognitive grip. For example, the proposition that 2+2=4 has a cognitive grip on us - we find it hard to imagine how it could be otherwise. Something that conforms to our intuitions, prejudices, interests, and our mode of thinking tends to have a similar kind of cognitive grip on us.
If you believe that there is an objective reality that somehow causally impinges on us and that our statements correspond to to be true, I don't really care. I'm not interested in arguing over realism here.
max4296 2 years ago
How is it "dogmatist" "or "rationally baseless" to say if you want to not feel pain then you shouldn't touch stoves burners that are on?
And yes I'm talking about with your bare fingers.
Individualistico 2 years ago
You're confusing two different things. I said that if you're concerned with giving a rational account of morality, that there is nothing more rational or true about your moral assumptions about egoism than a christian dogmatists' moral assumptions about the virtue of selflessness, asceticism, etc.
The touching the hot stove point is different. Matters of empirical reality change over time, so something can be true only withing a highly narrow set of parameters/conditions.
max4296 2 years ago
About the stove, of course. You're being silly. Of course it matters if the stove is on, how hot it is, etc. I'm saying if that there are certain conditions where if you touch the stove burner that cause you to feel pain, and you don't want to feel pain, then you shouldn't touch the burner when those conditions are present. I'm just speaking basic rationality. The ethics you accept should be those that work to get what you want.
How are you comparing that reasoning to Christianity?
Individualistico 2 years ago
I have no problem with that reasoning. If you want to elevate the principle at play in that situation - that one should, barring any other complicating factors, avoid pain - into a generalized moral imperative for all situations, then I would disagree.
I brought up the christian ascetic just to point out that it's not any more rational in an epistemological sense to avoid pain than to intentionally afflict it on oneself in order to punish one's sinful nature or some such foolishness.
max4296 2 years ago
No, as I've explained to you I'm not saying what a person should want. I'm saying IF a person wants to avoid pain, then he shouldn't touch the hot burner. The ought is a CONDITIONAL.
Individualistico 2 years ago
If that's all your saying, then I agree with you. But that's obviously not all your saying. You should watch the youtube video "Egoist ethics: A cursory exploration" where this guy gives a reductive egoist account of morality.
max4296 2 years ago
Look at the thesis statement at the start of the video. That's a conditional. If you want X then you should do Y.
Similar to Obectivism which says that if you choose to live then you ought to eat, etc.
Individualistico 2 years ago
Hahaah, first of all, you changed what that little thesis box says, which is kind of telling of how desperate you are to salvage your ludicrous position.
Second of all, if your position is simply that a person should do as they will, then that's fine - somewhat tautologous, but fine. The actual position you outline in your video -- that the egoist principle that one ought to do what is in one's overall benefit pretty much exhausts all moral considerations -- is what is ludicrous.
max4296 2 years ago
As we've already covered that ground, and seeing as how I've already shown you how and why that position is ludicrous bullshit, there's no need to go over all that again. I think we can bring this discussion to a close. Have a nice evening.
max4296 2 years ago
Yes I changed it, because I wanted to make it more explicit. Apparently, it wasn't obvious that what I was advocating applies also to whether you should accept what I'm advocating. It was implicit, but I made it more obvious.
Individualistico 2 years ago
No, I'm not saying a person should do as they will. See my video "Harmonization of actions and wants." If I was saying a person should do WHATEVER he wants, then I agree, but that's not what I'm saying. He should only do what he wants when what he wants lead him to getting what he most fundamentally wants.
Individualistico 2 years ago
Or his "overall" want, as I've put it here.
Individualistico 2 years ago
Ethics, as a field, is concerned with discovering and defining a code of values. The standard of value, in Objectivist ethics, is man's life (i.e., every individual's life). Your life is the only end in itself. Every other ethical value is a means to that end.
qtronman 2 years ago
Why is the standard of value an individuals life? Why is an individuals life the only end in itself?
max4296 2 years ago
Because life and death is the fundamental alternative in human existence.
qtronman 2 years ago
And human life is lived individually; a human being is the basic unit of human life, not a collective organism (which does not exist).
qtronman 2 years ago
What the hell does the existential fact of life and death have to do w/ adopting an egoist value system?
max4296 2 years ago
It is the biological basis of ethics, the root of ethics.
qtronman 2 years ago
"What the hell does the existential fact of life and death have to do w/ adopting an egoist value system?"
You don't see any relationship between the biological basis of human life and a code of ethics?
qtronman 2 years ago
I do see a relationship b/w the biological basis of human life and a code of ethics. That's why I never asked you what biological basis of life has to do with ethics - I asked what it has to do w/ adopting an egoist value system. Are you fucking retarded or are you not paying any attention to what I write? I don't think there's much point in going on if you can't grasp the most elementary distinctions.
max4296 2 years ago
"... ethics - I asked what it has to do w/ adopting an egoist value system ..."
Ethics *is* a value system. A value system, a code of values, is constitutive of ethics. I think the problem is you who does not see the relationships here. And your rudeness does not help.
qtronman 2 years ago
Yeah, what the hell does the existential fact of life and death have to do w/ adopting an egoist value system?
I'm not asking about the relationship b/w the existential fact of life and death and any ol' code of ethics. I'm asking what the existential fact of life and death has to do w/ ADOPTING AN EGOIST VALUE SYSTEM.
Sorry for being rude. I just find it exasperating when people don't grasp the most basic logical principles and distinctions.
max4296 2 years ago
Speaking as an Objectivist, "Deontology" versus "consequentialism" is a false dichotomy in ethics, just as "rationalism" versus "empiricism" is a false dichotomy in epistemology. These false dichotomies flow through philosophy (and many related fields).
qtronman 2 years ago
Those aren't false dichotomies. They're only false dichotomies if you also specify that the dichotomy is EXHAUSTIVE.
max4296 2 years ago
Fine, if you want to get technical. But all the theories in the history of ethics that fall into the "deontological" branch are invalid theories, as are all the theories which fall into the consequentialist branch. For example, a typical "consequentialist" theory popular today is pragmatism. A typical "deontological" theory is Kantianism. Objectivism REJECTS all of it.
qtronman 2 years ago
But why accept Objectivism unless it helps me get what I want? It still comes back to that.
Individualistico 2 years ago
"But why accept Objectivism unless it helps me get what I want? It still comes back to that."
What if you want something that is, in fact, harmful to you? Wants cannot be an objective standard of value because, in reality, people do often want things that destroy their lives.
qtronman 2 years ago
If a person wants to destroy his life why shouldn't he?
Individualistico 2 years ago
It depends on context. If the person doesn't have major health problems, he's not in serious pain, and he's otherwise healthy and normal, but he just wants to throw away his life arbitrarily, I would say that person is a monster. He's discarding all that gives rise to value, and he's essentially spitting on ethics prima facie.
qtronman 2 years ago
Ok, but why should he care if he's "spitting on ethics" if following those ethics would prevent him from getting what he wants? There's no practical reason for him to adopt ethics that mandate that he do something that works against getting what he wants most.
Individualistico 2 years ago
You cannot make wants the basis of ethics, because is degenerated into subjectivism. What if he wants to throw your life away as well as his own?
qtronman 2 years ago
Actually I think Rand makes the desire to live the basis of her ethics doesn't she? Her ethics rests on a pre-moral choice of whether to live or die.
Individualistico 2 years ago
Yes, but that is based on the metaphysical fact that it's either life or death. But if someone wants to die, the discussion is over.
qtronman 2 years ago
I don't think that the discussion is over there. You have to account for that choice. If the choice to live necessitates certain actions, then so does the choice to die. So do a lot of other choices. My fundamental choice is to pursue happiness. I don't choose life as an end in itself, but as a means to pursue happiness.
Individualistico 2 years ago
A1. Individualistico: "But why accept Objectivism unless it helps me get what I want?"
me: I think Objectivism makes a distinction between short-term wants & long-term wants. In the short term, I might want to beat up a stranger because I hate his face; that would give me momentary pleasure, but that would create repercussions that hurt me in the future. If I control myself & resist my initial impulses, that may seem like a drag in the present but contribute to my happiness in the future.
legendre007 2 years ago
Well that's what I had in mind. Why accept Objectivism unless it helps me get my fundamental or long term want?
Individualistico 2 years ago
A2. Cont'd:.
Individualistico: "But why accept Objectivism unless it helps me get what I want?"
When there's a potential conflict between fleeting, momentary pleasures, & decisions that will likely contribute to eudaimonia - referring to 1's long-term, general well-being & happiness - O'ism favors the latter.
Fleeting, momentary pleasures (like me getting drunk) are good & permissible inasmuch as 1 rationally ascertains that they won't severely impair 1's ability to attain eudaimonia.
legendre007 2 years ago
A3. Cont'd:
"But why accept Objectivism unless it helps me get what I want?"
I PM'ed you about this not too long ago. :-)
legendre007 2 years ago
How about a situation where someone knows they can get away with viciously raping and killing your sister, and that b/c that person is a sadistic nut these acts will be extremely pleasurable for him. In this case you would be ready to say that raping and killing your sister was ethical? (I don't use your sister as an example gratuitously - I simply want to tease out your own moral intuitions).
max4296 2 years ago
If his goal is happiness, then I don't think it would be ethical, because I don't think it justifies the risk of getting punished by me and others in society. The short term happiness obtained from that is outweighed by the misery of twenty-plus years in prison (remember I'm talking about the entire overall consequences for oneself as a result of performing an act). It would also, by the way, be ethical for me to help get laws passed against rape and stiff prison sentences.
Individualistico 2 years ago
The scenario stipulates that he gets away with the act. But fine, if you want to ignore that or assume that it's impossible, then just imagine that the guy is a sadist nut and he would be happy with just raping and killing your sister and then committing suicide right after. He achieved his ends and he got a great deal of pleasure from all three acts (raping, murder, and suicide). Again, in this case you would be ready to say that raping and killing your sister was ethical?
max4296 2 years ago
No, because I think the probability of eventually getting caught, even if it's like 30% probability doesn't justify the act. If however the punishment for the crime was simply a $10 fine, and he wouldn't be ostracized by society, and all sorts of consequences we can unrealistically imagine that could be omitted - then it would. It's our responsibility who prefer a society without rape is to make sure that the probability of getting caught is high as possible and that the the punishment is harsh.
Individualistico 2 years ago
Note it can be ethical for someone to try to do something, while at the same time it being ethical for us to try to stop him from doing it. And like I pointed out, this is not subjectivist ethics, because we would both be trying to do what maximizes good consequences to ourselves.
Individualistico 2 years ago
Note also that trying to stop him may consist of trying to convince him that it inherently immoral regardless of the consequences for himself to do that thing. In other words, indoctrinating him with a belief that we egoists don't ourselves have - as a means of self defense.
Individualistico 2 years ago
Okay, so if a sadistic nut wants to rape and murders your sister and then happily commit suicide right after, and if he carries out these actions and achieves his ends having no regrets, you would say that he has acted ethically.
I'm personally very happy that so few people hold the ridiculous position you've outlined. I mean, that ethical determinations should be based on how ostracized/unhappy someone feels after committing a crime, that's just so outrageously stupid and morally inept.
max4296 2 years ago
If he commits suicide, that doesn't maximize good consequences for himself.
Apparently you think that certain acts intrinsically immoral. Can you prove it? Or are you just relying on intuitions that you've been indoctrinated with?
Individualistico 2 years ago
You say "I'm personally very happy that so few people hold the ridiculous position you've outlined" I think most people hold my position, in that they do things, and advocate things, that they think will benefit themselves, and refrain from doing things and advocate against things that they think are not in their self interest.
Individualistico 2 years ago
No, most people don't hold the position that what is ethical is simply what brings desirable consequences for themselves. Judeo-Christian ethics, which virtually all Europeans adhered to for 2 millennia, had among its central principles altruism, selflessness, charity, etc. You can speculate that these beliefs ultimately gave the practitioner pleasure, but that's very different from claiming that such people believed that what is ethical is based on whether it has good consequences for oneself.
max4296 2 years ago
Christian ethics has the fear of punishment or reward in an afterlife behind it. It's still based in self interest.
Individualistico 2 years ago
Why cannot suicide be a good consequence in the mind of a sadistic wacko? Are you taking your own personal values/goals as the standard for everyone?
max4296 2 years ago
And if you're curious about what I think, I don't believe that certain acts are intrinsically moral or immoral. My view is that morality and ethics is a kind of "substantial construction". Our moral feelings and intuitions are constructed by society, - a kind of indoctrination if you like - but they are ingrained in us such that we cannot help but be moved by these constructs. They take on a kind of truth and reality for us, and have a grip on us equivalent to the proposition that 2+2=4.
max4296 2 years ago
Ok, but don't you think your moral feelings and inttuitions should be subject to scrutiny by you? You may hold intuitions that work against you're self interest. Some of these intuitions may have been indoctrinated into you by someone who wanted to control you for their own selfish ends, to expense of your own.
Individualistico 2 years ago
Yes, someone's moral feelings and intuitions should be subject to scrutiny by their possessor. And yes, very often these moral intuitions run counter to one's own self interest. When it comes to the view that murder, barring extenuating circumstances, is wrong, for most people scrutinizing that is like scrutinizing one's belief that 2+2=4.
What might be an example of a common moral intuition that's indoctrinated into people in order to control them for someone's selfish ends?
max4296 2 years ago
The big one that comes to mind is the ethical doctrine of altruism - the claim that people have a moral obligation to live for the sake of others. The belief that there's some kind of moral value in giving to others without any eye on whether it benefits you or not.
Individualistico 2 years ago
"[The] social point of view cannot tolerate the notion of rights, for such notion rests on individualism. We are born under a load of obligations of every kind, to our predecessors, to our successors, to our contemporaries... This ["to live for others"], the definitive formula of human morality, gives a direct sanction exclusively to our instincts of benevolence, the common source of happiness and duty. [Man must serve] Humanity, whose we are entirely." -August Comte
Individualistico 2 years ago
And who decided to implant altruism in people's minds in order to control them for their own selfish ends?
max4296 2 years ago
Whoever started promoting it. It was made up out of the blue. Comte is the guy that coined the term "Altruism" and used it to refer to his ethical doctrine. I'm sure he had his own selfish reasons to promoting the idea that people ought to live for the sake of others.
Individualistico 2 years ago
Lol, the ethical principle of altruism has been around long before Comte came along and gave it that particular name.
In any event, I have no interest sitting here and speculating about such things with you. My only goal in commenting on your vid was to show that the ludicrous thesis of this video leads to conclusions that vast majority of people would regard as unbelievably ridiculous and impossibly absurd. I accomplished that.
max4296 2 years ago
If you're now genuinely curious about my views on this matter, fine, I'm more than happy to discuss it, but no more of this endless back and forth speculation over these extraneous points.
max4296 2 years ago
I didn't say he was the one to come up with the concept. I said he was on the one to create a word for it.
I agree that the vast majority of people would balk at my video. But that doesn't mean it's irrational or illogical. You're making the fallacy of "Appeal to Popularity."
Individualistico 2 years ago
Your argument is based on historical assumptions, not to mention the logically dubious inference of deriving an ought from an is. That is, you have historical assumptions about what motives people have and how they behave w/o societal rules, and how moral principles/rules developed. Then, you derive from your assumption that people are selfserving egoists (the "is") the view that people should indulge in their selfserving egoism and treat it as a moral principle (the "ought")
max4296 2 years ago
My argument in the video does not depend on any historical assumptions whatsover. I simply say that a person should judge what is ethical based on whether it serves his interests or not. I'm not attempting to derive an ought from an "is." I'm deriving an ought from an "if." If you want X, then you ought to do Y.
Individualistico 2 years ago
Deriving "ought" from "if" is the same as the is-ought fallacy when your if is a particular fact. E.g., if it's the case that action x is in your self-interest, they you ought to take action x. Your moral position is that this is the right way to think about morality b/c of the moral principle that one ought to do what is in one's self interest; in other words, an "is" - that someone is in your self-interest - implies an "ought" - that you should do it.
max4296 2 years ago
I'm not saying one ought to do what in his self interest. A person may want to do what is not in his self interest. I'm saying for whatever a person wants out of life, he ought to judge what is ethical or not based on whether it helps him get what he wants. The reason that he should should judge ethical principles this way is because it helps him get he what he wants.
Individualistico 2 years ago
Your thesis is that what determines whether an act is ethical (i.e., what one ought to do) is whether it brings overall desired consequences to oneself (a fact). So if an overall desirable consequence for me, all things considered, would be to buy that candy bar, then I ought to buy that candy bar. It would be ethical for me to do so. In other words, a specific fact (is) - the desirability of buying that candy bar - implies what is ethical (ought) - that I should by it.
max4296 2 years ago
"If I want a candy bar" is not an "is." It's a conditional. If you don't want a candy bar then you ought not buy one. I'm saying if you want X, then you should do Y. I'm not saying you should do Y regardless of of what X is.
Individualistico 2 years ago
Your thesis is that what determines whether an act is ethical (i.e., what one ought to do) is whether it brings overall desired consequences to oneself (a fact). Or do you not think that something being ethical means that it's a good and one ought to do it?
Jesus, again, the "if" of a conditional specifies a fact. E.g., "if it's the case that you want X, then you should do Y". That means that a certain fact implies that you should act in a certain way - that an is implies an ought.
max4296 2 years ago
No, look at it from the meta perspective. I'm not saying that you should adopt my view regardless of anything.
Individualistico 2 years ago
I'm saying you should adopt it if you want an view that will free you to get what you want out of life - without being constrained by someone else's moral principles that may not be in your self interest to follow (IF you want to satisfy your self interest). It's an "ought" but a conditional "ought."
Individualistico 2 years ago
Okay, so one should adopt your ridiculous position not b/c you have decent arguments for it, but b/c it has fewer constraints on moral action, b/c it's easier to follow. No thanks, bud. I don't want my actions and my moral life governed by a view that allows for the rape and murder of people to be an ethically justifiable act. I can satisfy my self-interest just fine w/o such bullshit egoist theories.
max4296 2 years ago
I don't see anything ridiculous about advocating a a person judge what he should or shouldn't do based on whether it helps him get what he wants. Why would you restrict yourself to following rules that thwart your goals?
Individualistico 2 years ago
I don't see anything ridiculous about someone valuing his/her own wants/desires/goals, etc. What I find ridiculous, and have already shown to lead to ridiculous consequences, is your position that what is ethical is simply determined by whether the act in question has overall desirable consequences to oneself.
max4296 2 years ago
Ok but why do you find that ridiculous? If your actions in life lead you to getting what you were overall aiming for, then what's the problem?
Individualistico 2 years ago
Hitler would agree that, yes, he should pursue his wants and goals. What are you going to tell him?
qtronman 2 years ago
I'm going to tell him that if it's happiness he's aiming for, this is not going to get it for him and explain why - for various consequential reasons. If he still persists in his plans, then I kill him.
Individualistico 2 years ago
Which would prove that it wasn't ethical for him to make these plans - they resulted in his early death.
Individualistico 2 years ago
You have the right direction in your thinking; read Rand's VoS, to see why she doesn't use terms like "work" (which sounds a lot like Pragmatism)... These comment boxes aren't too good for explaining it all.
qtronman 2 years ago
qtronman: "These comment boxes aren't too good for explaining it all."
me: That's what I've been saying. ;-)
legendre007 2 years ago
The problem is that morality is more complicated than Randian and egoist fantasy land. There are many other ethico-moral factors to consider than "is this to my overall benefit".
max4296 2 years ago
Like what?
Individualistico 2 years ago
If you're thinking about murdering someone, there are many other considerations other than "will this be to my overall benefit." For example, any person with moral sense will pause to reflect on how the other person and the other person's family might feel about such a murder. Whether he himself would want to be murdered simply b/c it would be to the overall benefit of someone else (golden rule).What effect such an act has on the society in which one lives irrespective of one's "overall benefit"
max4296 2 years ago
Why should you care how his family will feel? It's because how his family feels if you kill the guy is going to affect you emotionally, right? It's not an arbitrary concern. If doing it has more costs (including emotional costs) to you than the benefits of killing him then don't do it.
Individualistico 2 years ago
If killing him could save 1000 other people that you value from death, you might judge otherwise.
Individualistico 2 years ago
But also you might serve yourself well to determine whether your emotions are coming from indoctrination that is not in your best interests. In that case, you should adjust your ethics and condition yourself to not feeling pain when doing something that is in your best interest.
Individualistico 2 years ago
No, you care how his family will feel b/c you accept the basic moral principle of empathy and the moral principle of the golden rule. These moral ideas are relevant to your decision to murder and rape irrespective of how they figure into your "to my overall benefit" calculus. That why I specify "What effect such an act has on the society in which one lives IRRESPECTIVE OF ONE'S 'OVERALL BENEFIT'".
max4296 2 years ago
Does obeying the "golden rule" serve you in getting what you most want? If so, then hold on to it. If not, then discard it. There is no rational reason to follow a rule that prevents you from getting what you want.
Individualistico 2 years ago
No, sometimes following the golden rule means you have to refrain from doing something that will result in your overall benefit. That the whole fucking point of me bringing it up -- you asked me what moral factors there are other than your egoistic "what is to my overall benefit".
And there is a rational reason to follow it even though it might prevent you from getting what you want. There are competing rational interests and reasons, and moral reasons sometimes outweigh other interests/reasons
max4296 2 years ago
If that's the case, then you should adjust the golden rule to say "do what you would have others to unto you unless the particular case is such that doing otherwise results in a greater overall to yourself." (If benefit to yourself is what you want)
Individualistico 2 years ago
max4296: You don't even understand Objectivist ethics. You clearly have never read *Virtue of Selfishness*, or if you have, you've mis-understood the essential points completely. Your attitude is that of a rushing mind, who thinks he's figured it all out, and when you dismiss Objectivist ethics (as it seems to you, anyway), you're dismissing a stawman.
qtronman 2 years ago
You're the one claiming that you have it all figured out. What we're talking about has nothing to do with what I believe. I simply asked you a few questions about where objectivist ethics and values are derived from. What your argument is for your position.
max4296 2 years ago
But you're assuming everyone's goals are rational and genuinely self-interested. IF that were the case, then nobody would be immoral. But Al Capone-types do exist, and they do pursue their wants and goals.
qtronman 2 years ago
What's rational is relative to what you want. Rationality is just doing what works - for Rand too, I believe.
And like I pointed out earlier, this doesn't preclude me from making laws against another person doing things that conflict with the things I want to do in the pursuit of happiness.
Individualistico 2 years ago
So the only reason I wanted to show that your position leads to conclusions that the vast majority of people would find ridiculous and that most would see your position as utterly wrong is b/c I cannot argue against your baseless assumptions and your use of ought-is fallacy. There would be no point in pointing all that out to you. Moral and ethical ideas are to a great extent a social and intersubjective matter, so I'm content w/ showing that your position is bogus to almost anyone with a brain
max4296 2 years ago
Again, I'm not coming up with an ought from an "is." It's an ought from an "if." It you want X, then there are things that you should to do get it. It's as simple as that.
Individualistico 2 years ago
If his goal is to have a short life and a one burst of ecstasy and then death, then fine, it is ethical for him to do that. But like I said, it's also ethical for us non-"wackos" to protect ourselves from him, by making laws and harsh prison sentences, and maybe even bringing him to church to convince him that God tells him that he will go to hell if he rapes, or any other various techniques.
I'm not condoning rape at all.
Individualistico 2 years ago
Right, I never said that believing that there can be situations where the rape and murder of your sister is ethical means that you couldn't at the same time work towards making such acts less likely, less desirable, or whatever. That's fine. My only point was to show that judging the rightness or wrongness of actions by your egoist pleasure/desirable outcome principle results in some pretty fucking preposterous conclusions.
max4296 2 years ago
What better measure does a person have of what he should do than finding out what acts result in him getting what wants out of life?
Individualistico 2 years ago
As per my answer to a previous question of yours, I don't think that there is are intrinsically better or worse moral measures. There are those moral measures that society has developed over thousands of years that strike most people as true, just, and that result in a better society such as views on murder that have nothing to do with the pleasure/displeasure a murdered experiences from his murder. Such beliefs have a certain cognitive and moral grip on society and me, and that's enough...
max4296 2 years ago
Ok, well that's consistent with my saying that may be in our interest to indoctrinate or condition people to feel that they are doing something intrinsically immoral. One way to do this is with laws and punishment. It's basically animal training. Is it intrinsically immoral for your dog to bark all night? No, but we can use reward/punishment in order to make him FEEL it is intrinsically wrong.
Individualistico 2 years ago
The historic development and evolution of morality and ethico-moral intuition is not "basically animal training." You keep assuming that if ethico-moral views are constructed, then that must mean someone in a powerful position consciously manipulated people to have these constructs in order to serve this powerful person's ends. Ethico-moral feelings, principles, intuitions, etc., accrue from an incredibly complicated organic historical process. It's not "animal training."
max4296 2 years ago
No, I'm not saying it comes from a centralized source. Society is just a lot of people using whatever means they have available to them to control other people around them to get what they want - to either get things from them - or to protect themselves from those who want to forcibly take things from them. They use reward/punishment, philosophical sophistry, religion, and so on. And note, it's not uniform. Not everyone has accepts the same ethics.
Individualistico 2 years ago
I disagree with your assumption that "society is just a lot of people using whatever means they have available to them to control other people around them to get what they want - to either get things from them - or to protect themselves from those who want to forcibly take things from them."
Even if I thought your view was basically right, how does this bear on either of our views of morality? Why are you bringing this up?
max4296 2 years ago
Because you brought up the claim: "You keep assuming that if ethico-moral views are constructed, then that must mean someone in a powerful position consciously manipulated people to have these constructs..."
I'm not assuming that.
Individualistico 2 years ago
Fine, when you likened morality to animal training and used language that suggested to me that you viewed morality/ethical rules as developing in order to serve someone's self interest, you didn't really mean that and I misunderstood you. I don't care. It has nothing to do with anything.
max4296 2 years ago
Ethicists always want to have their cake and eat it to. This is why I basically equate morality (as well as religion) with intellectual dishonesty.
Moralist always want to claim that morality is just another term for practicality (which by it's very nature is only relevant to subjective goals/desires). However, the moment that you point out that violence is often practical according to certain goals/desires, the moralists then refuse to accept the rather simple implications of their own logic
ReIgNoFrAdNeSs 2 years ago
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "ethicists always want to have their cake and eat it too." I don't exactly consider myself some kind of "moralist", but I don't think morality is just another term for practicality. Even crude consequentialism like the silly version of egoist consequentialism advocated in this video isn't necessarily about "practicality" b/c consequentialist ends don't have to be of a utilitarian character.
But what's your point?
max4296 2 years ago
As I understood this video, all Individualistico was saying is that there are practical considerations relative to the acievement of personal goals/desires. That's basically what every ethicist I've ever heard argues. That's all ethics is (practicality+preference).
My point, was that Individualistico was dodging your question about someone raping his sister. Obviously, rape is practical in relation to certain preferences/goals/desires (and is thus "ethical" by Individualistico's definition).
ReIgNoFrAdNeSs 2 years ago
Hehe, he was dodging it for a while but eventually conceded that according to his position outlined in this video, the rape and murder of his sister would be in fact be an ethical act if it was to the "overall benefit" of the perpetrator.
There are practical considerations in ethics, but I don't think that's all there is to ethics/morality. It may be preferential and practical for one to murder, but some ethical principle may keep you from doing so (golden rule or some such thing).
max4296 2 years ago
Well... to be more specific:
Every ethical system describes one of three things:
a) personal preference (subjective goals/desires)
b) practicality/pragmatism
c) pragmatism as it relates to ones personal goals
The golden rule is no different. All justifications for the golden rule are either an appeal to practicality, an appeal to personal preference, or some combination of those two things. There is nothing else that ethics can possibly be (aside from mere description).
D4Shawn 2 years ago
I think the problem w/ such a breakdown is that you conflate intending something, any willed act or omission, with personal preference. If you do that, sure, everything one does or doesn't do is the result of preference. This conflation is a mistake.
It may be one's preference to act in one way, but given certain moral considerations one might decide to act against this preference. E.g., you might prefer to murder someone, but your moral intuitions lead you to act against this preference.
max4296 2 years ago
Well... the nature (and limitations) of reality limit the amount and type of preferences one can simultaneously act upon. Obviously, one can't act upon a preference to murder as they simultaneously act upon a preference to not murder.
Referring to a preference as a "moral consideration/intuition" is simply a semantic alteration. There are only two ways to justify a "should" (i.e. "should not murder"):
a) appeal to pragmatism, or
b) appeal to preference
There are no other ways.
D4Shawn 2 years ago
Right, but my point is that it's semantically inaccurate to say that one can prefer 'A' and prefer ' not A' simultaneously. That's a sign of a fallacious conflation of preference with an eventual course of action.
The tension b/w the urge to murder and a moral intuition against murder is not a tension b/w two preferences. One still finds it most preferable (desirable, valuable, advantageous, etc) to murder, but for moral reasons that have nothing to do with prefernce/desire one decides not to.
max4296 2 years ago
"but for moral reasons that have nothing to do with prefernce/desire one decides not to."
The only "moral reasons" that have nothing to do with preferences are those that have to do with practicality.
It's one of those two things. There's no escaping it. There is no other way to justify an "ought", aside from preference or practicality.
D4Shawn 2 years ago
So no, there are actually many ways to justify a "should". For example, one should not murder b/c one feels that murder is inherently wrong; one should not murder b/c one naturally empathizes with others, etc. Such considerations have nothing to do with a justification based on what one prefers to do. Morality is usually a constraint on one's preference.
max4296 2 years ago
"one should not murder b/c one feels that murder is inherently wrong."
"one should not murder b/c one naturally empathizes with others"
Those are not justifications. Those are unjustified claims (opinions). Either that or they are non-sequitur arguments (the conclusions don't follow from the premise).
If you feel you can transform those claims into valid arguments, be my guest, but I don't think it's possible.
D4Shawn 2 years ago
People can invent whatever "moral considerations" they want. However, if they can't justify them, they must admit that their "moral considerations" are just personal preferences. If they won't, then they are intellectually dishonest.
For example:
Someone can claim that God doesn't approve of murder, and thus it's wrong.
However, in order to justify that claim, one would have to prove the existence of God, and prove that he disapproves of murder.
Otherwise, it's just a preference.
D4Shawn 2 years ago
Not being able to justify something to someone doesn't mean that it's simply a preference. It can be a belief, a conviction, an intuition, all sorts of things that may not be rationally justifiable/provable but that nevertheless are not simply "preferences".
max4296 2 years ago
That is, a moral intuition that tells me I shouldn't murder even though I would prefer to murder b/c it's in my best interest, this moral intuition isn't a preference; a moral intuition in this case actually checks preference. If someone has an unprovable belief that god disproves of murder, this belief isn't simply a preference. One might prefer (desire, see as ultimately advantageous) to murder but be restrained from this action by one's unprovable belief in god's commandment not to.
max4296 2 years ago
Let me clarify something:
Obviously, people can use moral terminology to refer to things that are
a) non-existent, or
b) logically fallacious.
However, once we rule that stuff out as being invalid and useless, all we are left with is the underlying appeal to either practicality and preferences. Those are the only things that actually exist that moral terminology is used to refer to.
D4Shawn 2 years ago
One can give a perfectly valid argument for morality. Just to give a simple example: I have a strong feeling that I should never murder; if I have a strong feeling about something, I should follow it; thus, I should never murder. That is a perfectly valid logical argument. You may obviously disagree with the premises, but it is nonetheless valid and logical. In any event, validity and logic has nothing to do w/ whether something is a mere preference or not.
max4296 2 years ago
Bull crap. If one can't demonstrate that "X is wrong", or that "people shouldn't do X", then any claims one makes to the contrary are simply masking/obfuscating one's personal preferences/prejudices/opinions.
D4Shawn 2 years ago
One can give all sorts of justifications for one's beliefs. A Christian might justify his belief that murder is wrong by appeal to scripture, theology, etc. Just b/c you don't accept his arguments and assumptions doesn't mean that his beliefs are mere preferences.
A Christian that doesn't accept arguments for evolutionary theory isn't, ipso facto, justified in characterizing evolutionary theory as just what some happens to prefer as a biological theory and thus it's mere opinion.
max4296 2 years ago
Here's how a conversation with an INTILECTUALLY HONEST Christian would go:
Me: So... can you prove there's a God?
Christian: No.
Me: So... you just believe in God because you want to.
Christian: Yeah... basically. I like it. It makes me feel good.
Me: So... you're belief in God is grounded in nothing more than personal preference.
Christian: Yup.
D4Shawn 2 years ago
LOL, so "intellectual honesty" is simply a matter of only making statements you agree with and/or not making any arguments that you would disagree with. Hahhah, okay. That's fine I suppose - a little deranged, but whatever.
max4296 2 years ago
"LOL, so 'intellectual honesty' is simply a matter of only making statements you agree with and/or not making any arguments that you would disagree with."
WTF? No. I'm saying there are generally accepted rules of logic upon which philosophical discourse is based.
I'm not saying that such rules can not be challenged (epistemology is a valid and contentious branch of philosophy), but if someone simply says, "I just want to make stuff up because I feel like it", well... what's the point?
D4Shawn 2 years ago
I'll repeat: "One can give a perfectly valid argument for morality. Just to give a simple example: I have a strong feeling that I should never murder; if I have a strong feeling about something, I should follow it; thus, I should never murder. That is a perfectly valid logical argument. You may obviously disagree with the premises, but it is nonetheless valid and logical. In any event, validity and logic has nothing to do w/ whether something is a mere preference or not."
max4296 2 years ago