He's right about duty. Everything in the Objectivist ethics is explained in terms of reality and cause-and-effect, so there's no room for mystical floating abstractions like "duty".
Of course, since there's no after-life, Objectivist ethics is based on living well *in this world*.
It seems that William Craig's main critique is that Objectivism is based on reality, and doesn't cater to mystical "feeling-worship".
Craig "can't see any reason" why Objectivism isn't arbitrary because he has no clue what he's on about.
Human beings are acting creatures involved in a basic pursuit of life. Even somebody who commits suicide can't plunge the knife in their chest without valuing life, since life is the ultimate means to all their actions.
So, if life is the ultimate value, then there are certain virtues every human being should cultivate.
And if you fail to be moral, you die! What could be more "accountable"?
@UnderTheTunk If you are moral you die anyway.So what is the difference? Thats the point.If there is no god there is not obligation to be moral at all.If others "humans" find your ways "immoral" based on societal morays you could easily just flout them and do your own thing,if they pursue you to stop what you are doing you can just kill them because there is no obligation to your fellow man to be "moral" because as you said we are involved in a basic pursuit of life only.Life is the only value.
Almost every vid iv'e watched of Craig he says "if there is no God" .. well, if there is no God,mankind would find it necessary to create one ! - and this is exactly what has happened. It was created maybe 100,000 yrs ago by fearful cavemen..and these "meme" still exists in the minds of very intelligent people..such is the power of the "meme", an unbelievable phenomenon !
@brindow1 Why would man find it necessary to create god? You make no argument for this. Nonetheless, if it IS an inherent quality of man that it must create a god to believe in, then how can atheism exist? Atheism can only exist in a world in which man does NOT need to create god. Atheism itself proves man does NOT need to create god, therefore, if we do believe in him, it is because there's observable evidence to do so. Your argument is so incoherent actually turns atheism into proof of god.
@Fett4 how do you go from the premise "atheism itself proves man does NOT need to create god" to conclude " if we do believe in him, it is because there's observable evidence to do so"? and please elaborate on that evidence :)
where did brindow1 say it's "an inherent quality of man that it must create a god to believe in"? not sure that's what he actually meant :) some people coming up with the idea of a super father does not mean everyone will. it's an easy explanation that's bound to come up
@numb1010 Brindow1 said, if there is no God, man would invent one; religion is not evidence-based but a "necessary" compulsion. But atheists are not compelled to invent a God, so belief cannot be a compulsion in the species, but a choice. Thus, there must be other observable evidence for people's beliefs, which could be anything: Newton said gravity was compelling evidence for God. I'm just exposing the contradiction in an ATHEIST saying, "Belief in God is an inherent compulsion of human nature"
This man is mistaken. Altruism is Egoism. Sort of. Its more of a long term spiritual motive (reward of heaven, fear of hell) rather than a fleshly motive (Randian selfishness) We do believe in rational self interest because it is in our rational self interest to be altruistic and be accountable to God. I think an atheist has to follow this in order to be completely true to themselves. i don't think you can be an atheistic altruist. Atlas shrugged is a good book though. capitalism ftw
@CloverfieldMonster95 Ayn Rand observed that christian ethics is about personal salvation and therefore has some traces of egoism. However, simply saying that you want to achieve something does not make it rational. For a conclusion to be rational it needs to be independently induced from concrete reality by a logical process. Can you honestly tell me that the evidence of your senses - not ideas passed to you from a book - made you conclude that there is a heaven?
The Free Will is the Fact of the Placebo of Intelligence. By A Free Will, God takes His pleasure to weaken himself before a Stone, or weaken the stone before HIm. God self limits God by the Placebo. Placebo , a Latin term used by Saint Jerome to describe God's Limit. " I Shall Please to Do, that which I Please" So the Free Will must exist at liberty beyond all material restraints and then the Mind as the Free Will, by it's Placebo, determines what exists and it's limits .
He's too tied down to the abstract notion of "objectivity." If he wants some stupid philosophical ploy to refute that argument, then all i have to say is that 'objectivity' as humans define it is a product of the subjectivity of human beings. Objectivity is a product of our minds, which could just mean the definition contains a subjective ignorance of what an 'objectivity' outside the human mind would look like. There could easily be a 'human objectivity' or a 'non human objectivity'...
@burnhardship This guy makes noooo sense whatsoever...what is he talking about? he sees no reason why the virtues of self-reliance and making your own way in life is true? what the fuck is he talking about? he is one of the most shallowest people i've seen.seriously..and then he goes on and attributes these virtues to socioculturalism? this guy is fucking stupid. Right, Billy Craig, we are base creatures trying to make the best of our miserable lives..Grow up and accept it already..fuckin idiot
@burnhardship people's moral, intellectual, and emotional IQ are in the trash...Kill yourselves. You are useless and/or part of the problem...killlllll yourseeeeeelves.
Well, I value human life-- it's my standard of value. I know no objective values of character can be achieve turning my fellow man into my personal whim factory.... However, you do realize you follow a worldview in which your messiah was the result of a 12 year old girl (Mary) and her 90 year old rapist (Joseph), right? Or, you can say your timeless god knocked her up.... You pick the rapist-- but don't tell me you value human life, when you worship that garbage... "Big deal", huh? Scumbag!
@CJMAC78 Because it denies duties yet it runs back to reason, as its first premise, then following it we have pleasure-seeking behavior. Reason and pleasure-seeking are mutually exclusive.
@CJMAC78 Whether or not you recognize something as duty is not important, what is important is whether you follow these duties. Hence duty having an objective position and not being mind dependent. Duty is concerned with "oughts" rather than "is's",then also, we see what "is" changes and what "ought" to be as static. Rand's "objectivism" is just not coherent.
@07Aristotle No it's important I recognize what I'm doing as in my self-interest. I'll let Rand answer the rest of this... " To speak of “value” as apart from “life” is worse than a contradiction in terms. “It is only the concept of ‘Life’ that makes the concept of ‘Value’ possible.”... "The fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do. So much for the issue of the relation between “is” and “ought.”
@CJMAC78 People do have an "automatic" moral code, it is true that there are some things that are "just not right". (moral) Duty is equal to responsibilities in life; you have a duty to report to work, you have a duty provide for your family, you have a duty not to steal or kill etc. These are not extracted from selfish and pleasure-seeking behavior, as this would be dependent on a individual.
@07Aristotle No I have the choice of going to work, provide for my family, not to steal or kill, etc. I go to work for the pleasure of productive achievement, I provide for my highest valued humans out of personal pleasure, I deal with other mean as a trader to mutual benefit.... So much for you non-pleasure duty stricken lifestyle, huh? Again, you are free to say you don't seek your loved ones happiness out of selfish pleasure it brings you--but duty..... Can you really say that?
@CJMAC78 I'm not arguing whether you have a choice or not. What I'm arguing is that duties/responsibilities exist regardless of what choice you make about your duties/responsibilities. I admit, you can never escape from pleasure, but let it be a byproduct, not a motivation. A world governed by pleasure would be hedonistic and devoid of real love. I seek the happiness and well-being of loved ones because the satisfaction of completing my duties/responsibilities to them.
@07Aristotle Choices exist whether you ignore them or not... However, I can ignore you duties/responsibilities all day long... Personally, I find it sickening that you deny yourself pleasure as the motive of your happiness, but that's your burden... When I do something for my wife it brings me PLEASURE! I see her happiness--derived from my actions-- and it's a real personal value.... The ultimate motivation: MY HAPPINESS.
@CJMAC78 Again, I'm not arguing whether or not you have a choice. I agree that you do, but the divide here is duties/responsibilities. But choices are dependent on the individual having freewill, this is no form of objectivity. Us as freewill(ed) individuals, we have a choice of whether or not we do anything out of duties/responsibilities or pleasure. Whether or not you agree with me you have an obligation(responsibility) to report to work, anything else would lead to irresponsible behavior.
@CJMAC78 To me, you hastily generalize the motives of every person. Again, you might be motivated by such but what makes you think the rest are? Keep in mind, that responsibilities/duties are objective and therefore not dependent on our motivations. Pleasure is not an objective trait, it is an inter-subjective trait. It is a commonality dependent and shared amongst human beings and is, thereby, impossible to avoid. What pleases you is temporary, you cannot promise emotions, but duty you can.
@07Aristotle For those "rest" you speak of... Well, I don't enter into relationships with those people. Again, when you set your standard of morality apart from your own species and your purpose apart from yourself... You simply cannot claim that you hold any "objective" standard of value that applies to the mind and body of man. I plan my life long range, and my values are not directed by whim.
@CJMAC78 I do not say that I separate my morality from human species nor have I implied it. Your straw man is no where near my position. I agreed that you cannot avoid pleasure/pain but these are by products of an action. As I said, what humans share as value is inter-subjective not objective. Under your approach value is relative to the individual and there will be a diversity of values. No person will have the same value as the other.
@07Aristotle Again, remember that when you eat tonight.. Also, tell me it makes no difference what you eat, and that is makes you no difference if you hate the food, or love it.
@CJMAC78 ''Also, tell me it makes no difference what you eat, and that is makes you no difference if you hate the food, or love it. ''
Yes, food is meant to keep you nourished and alive, pleasantries are secondary.
''It tells you that YOU that the purpose of your life is to pursue your own RATIONAL self-interest, ie your happiness''
This is where I think Rand loses grasp of basic definition of objectivity. Happiness in its entirety is not segregated to only ''rational'' self-interest.
@CJMAC78 Consciousness has nothing to do with ''rational'' self-interest''.
''My values are based on real things, ie objective criteria.''
No they are not, like I said, your ''criteria''; happiness and pleasure as value, and not the object of the pleasure and happiness-- is not objective, for these feelings are ALWAYS dependent on an object (i.e. your wife). Just because characteristics of happiness and pleasure are shared amongst all individuals, does not mean it is objective, (cont)
@CJMAC78 Happiness can also be unselfish. Selfless acts are virtues. '' Objectivity=judgment based on observable phenomena and uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices'' (wordnetweb.princeton)
Any objective judgment cannot be influenced by emotions and personal prejudices, this includes pleasure as it is relative to the individual. Again, self-interest, though it exists, is not objective, it is inter-subjective. Your safety premise is geared more toward the self-preservation instinct.
@CJMAC78 You cannot base values on pleasure, then, at the same time plan to have your life long range with this ''happiness''. Like I said, pleasure is not permanent, it is non-stationary, non-static, non-fixed it moves and is controlled by whim. You base your value on the selfish pleasure they give you. You value your wife on the ''happiness'' she gives you, but since pleasure is transient, you will only value your wife so long as she gives you this ''happiness'' .
@07Aristotle Objectivism does not tell you to follow your "whims". It tells you that YOU that the purpose of your life is to pursue your own RATIONAL self-interest, ie your happiness. That in order to achieve this you must discover what values are in your LONG TERM self-interest. What will destroy your life, or further it. What kind of relationships you should enter into, and what kind you should avoid. And, you're right. If my wife would betray the values I find virtuous in her, I'd leave.
@CJMAC78 ''What will destroy your life, or further it. What kind of relationships you should enter into, and what kind you should avoid. ''
It is silly to think that, the first thing in anyone's mind, is whether they will get killed or not. I'm sure that is not the thoughts that go to my head when I meet someone. I never said as if humans can never set up their values on their own. I agree that people can place their values on pleasure or rationality. Besides, what makes self-interest (cont)
@07Aristotle No, if an employer (friend, lover, etc) takes advantage of a skill and I find it my "duty" to serve him... Well, so much for me achieving my long term self-interest, huh? Since my interests have been set apart from myself, huh?
@07Aristotle No the fact my wife is intelligent is of actual objective value, the fact she is honest, trustworthy, etc. are all real values based on an objective view of reality. Her character has values which are real.
@CJMAC78 ''No the fact my wife is intelligent is of actual objective value, the fact she is honest, trustworthy, etc. are all real values based on an objective view of reality''
No, again, this is inter-subjective; characteristics shared amongst all human beings, dependent on human being. I cited actual dictionary definitions. The only way intelligence, honesty, and trustworthiness can be objective is if you can physically touch them, evidently we cant. They are not ''external phenomenon''.
@CJMAC78 You have a duty to your job, so long, as your contractual guidelines are not infringed or violated. It is only rational within those guidelines.
Considering, rational self-interest, you valuing your wife can not be the motivation, rather the feelings/emotion you get from her. For if you did not have these feelings, in the beginning, for your wife you would not be with her. This is because you would be denying your highest motivation; 'The ultimate motivation: MY HAPPINESS ', not hers.
@07Aristotle I have a choice of entering a contract, if it's in my self-interest. My "choice" of not betraying the integrity of my word is in no way a sacrifice, nor is it motivated by duty. I take great pride in that fact.
@CJMAC78 ....so rational? I know rand proposed this view of 'rational' self-interest, but answer me this; why would it be rational to base a value/moral system on something temporary or changing? What is to promise you will feel the same way about your wife the next day? On this same token, why would you be obligated to stay with your wife, hence her decreasing pleasure value? Keep in mind, that is not to say that this ''loss of pleasure'' is not due to her betraying you, it just leaves in time.
@07Aristotle My values are based on real things, ie objective criteria. Nothing is temporary about my values, and we've been over this. I'm not obligated to stay with my wife--that's the point... I don't have a disinterested love. I want and need her, because she is the embodiment of my values in a women. She is my joy, and my joy is not motivated by whim... Not for the last 15 years...
@CJMAC78 There is no binding quality about the basis your value system. If your value system's foundation is in pleasure (i.e. happiness) then how would you account for the times you two have friction? What about the unpleasant emotions that all people in a relationship deal with? There is no binding quality and ,by your standards, you could leave her to avoid pain. It is a natural tendency to avoid pain but duty to her, then, is the rational characteristic that pulls you through bad times.
@07Aristotle You act as if humans are incapable of any hierarchical system of values. You act as if a disagreement on a minor issue somehow destroys the issues for which you don't disagree. Furthermore, my life is not dependent on my wife, as such. I get great pleasure and would be devastated without it, but I am an end in myself, my happiness is not dependent on my wife alone, nor is her happiness found in me alone.
@CJMAC78 For the record... I've been with my wife for 15 years, and we've not skipped a beat. (15 years this August 31st.) We married out of selfishness, had a child out of selfishness, and do not betray our selves--or desire the irrational.
@CJMAC78 ''I get great pleasure and would be devastated without it, but I am an end in myself, my happiness is not dependent on my wife alone, nor is her happiness found in me alone. ''
So if you find this to be true, what would obligate you to your wife if you could no longer derive pleasure (i.e. happiness) out of her? She is relegated to the status of things? Remember this can be a build-up of minor things (idiosyncrasies), not major things like abuse, cheating, stealing finances as such.
@07Aristotle But, I'd never sacrifice a greater value to a lesser. I wouldn't sacrifice one of my highest values for something so low as your above mentioned issues. If I know longer derived happiness from my wife, I'd have a serious evaluation of both her, and myself. However, 15 years later, and my love is only stronger for her. Cheat that? Not a chance.
@CJMAC78 Your words: ''The ultimate goal of my life is MY HAPPINESS''
This self-interest is ultimately and undeniably based on a feeling; happiness. Your wife is an object for means to an end in achieving happiness. Your value being your happiness, you don't include an object in the end, it is a means to an end, again. However, it is a truth feelings are temporary, yet your adamant on them not being temporary. The distinction here is what is temporary and what is not; feelings are, wife is not.
@07Aristotle You act as if you consciousness has no requirements for existence. Furthermore, my emotional responses are based on my knowledge facts, and how they apply to furthering my life in the long term. My life and the values which make it possible, are not "temporary".
@CJMAC78 It is plain to see that you value a feeling, since you said, ''my highest motivation: my happiness''. Feelings are whimsical. They are not consistent, no one is happy or sad for as long as they live. Your life, by definition, is temporary, thus your feelings, which are dependent on your existence, must also be temporary. Everything you have stated, whether it be human characteristics, feelings, emotions, what you value, are either subjective or inter-subjective, but never objective.
@07Aristotle Is my consciousness part of reality? Feelings are whimsical to any man who doesn't take his life--or his happiness, seriously. Your feelings are temporary, precisely because your morality is NOT directed toward the goal of YOUR life and happiness, but some unidentified "feeling" (you see that trick bag Kant left you) or bit of b.s. intuition. How can someone claim any objective criteria for mankind, when they undercut his mind as a starting point?
@CJMAC78 ''Feelings are whimsical to any man who doesn't take his life--or his happiness, seriously''
I still don't understand how pleasurable feelings are crucial to self-preservation and survival instincts in science. I don't think Rand is a scientist or has a grasp of the science of evolutionary biology. An human can have feelings of sadness and not be killed by his feelings alone. Happiness is not crucial to life, therein, not his survival. Rand probably monopolized the word ''life''.
@CJMAC78 ''Is your consciousness part of reality? Can it be negated?''
No, it only carries an inter-subjective reality. I can't touch my consciousness. Me being conscious is only dependent on me existing, inter-subjective.
''Someone can say they don't like brushing their teeth, that it "feels" bad...But, that's not in your rational self-interest''
Huh? You haven't explained why ''rational'' self-interest is rational, you have only claimed that it has value to ''life'' somehow.
@07Aristotle Your mind exists, and your consciousness is not apart from reality, it has requirements. Also, must I really explain the objective value of brushing your and the "self" it would pertain?
@CJMAC78 By the way, so there is no confusion, when I say duty exists regardless of what anyone acknowledges or thinks, I do not mean to say you do not have a choice, you do, but it exists regardless of what choice you make. Why? because it is not contingent on feelings, emotion, human characteristics, or personal precepts. Duty is responsibility, responsibility a universal binding quality. Everyone has 'A' responsibility and thus duty.
@07Aristotle Causality is the only thing that exists whether you choose to identify it, or not. Nobody has any responsibility.... They have choices. Your entire Kantian framework of "duty", is built on the inflated whim of "intuition" and "feelings", or emotions. The first think your emotional master told you was-- take your mind out of the equation.
@CJMAC78 ''Causality is the only thing that exists whether you choose to identify it, or not.''
That does not make it objective, it is inter-subjective only. Remember, it is dependent on us, it is an internal not external phenomenon.
''Nobody has any responsibility.... They have choices''
I've repeated myself so many times, you do have a choice, it is whether you make the responsible one that matters. Is it responsible or irresponsible behavior to kill someone? Accountability is important!.
@07Aristotle It's you who don't get it. Your entire worldview is built on the b.s. notion of "feelings" or "intuition" toward duty. Someone can say they don't like brushing their teeth, that it "feels" bad...But, that's not in your rational self-interest. We know that brushing our teeth is a value, that it's an objective fact that it's in my "self-interest"--That it's the good. Not because I have a duty, but because I love my life, and I plan it long range. I do this by pursuing real values.
@CJMAC78 This catchphrase of rational self-interest has nothing to do with evolutionary biology's self-preservation and survival instincts, even though, you make it sound like it does. Pleasure is not crucial to the survival of an organism; only the acquiring of advantageous traits during the process of natural selection assures survival, not the value of pleasure. Rand is not an evolutionary biologist, or a scientist for that matter.
@07Aristotle Man has no automatic code of survival, and that would mean no automatic desire for self-preservation. I contend that you must discover and choose. So, you contend that humans--with the most complex minds on the planet-- can live by the same means as any mindless organism on earth. That your consciousness is the insignificant thing in the way of your life.... However, you are your consciousness.... Now look how you treat it.
@CJMAC78 ''Man has no automatic code of survival, and that would mean no automatic desire for self-preservation. ''
Is this a joke? This clearly goes against evolutionary science. We do have an instinct to survive. Have you ever heard on the ''fight or flight'' response? This was the result of many years of evolution, it is what preserved our primate ancestors from predators that were threatening to our survival. Choosing not to survive is not only unnatural, its foolish.
@07Aristotle So, you're telling me that 'you' had knowledge of how to survive from birth? Why did you even bother with any philosophy then? However, you're using the misguided remnants of a primitive animal as your standard of value...
@CJMAC78 ''So, you contend that humans--with the most complex minds on the planet-- can live by the same means as any mindless organism on earth''
Not only me, but evolutionary biologists as well. You see, lower animals, also, have instincts to survive, they have instinctual fear and behavior patterns ingrained in their functioning. The former to protect themselves from predators and the latter to provide take home/care of offspring, and also hunt for food. The survival instinct is in genes.
Respond to this video... Again, don't have a survival instinct for hunting, providing for offspring, etc. We don't live by our survival instinct, because they are not reliable-- because they've been discarded by the very evolution you speak of... Guess what part was suppose to pick up the slack???
Not reliable?!?! These are the same instincts you rely on when trying to avoid a, for example, in the moment car accident. We need instincts in order to be able to react quickly in situations that would, otherwise, no afford us any time to think. It is called a sympathetic nervous system response!
@07Aristotle Oh, people have a reaction all right, but you can't say it's a mechanism for survival in man. An instinct won't tell him how many feet it takes his car to stop, what kind of oversteering might be involved to avoid the accident, what point of impact will provide the least amount of damage, etc. He has no automatic code of survival-- It must be learned and integrated into his mind. Your animal example would be a hysterical madman trying anything.
@CJMAC78 ''An instinct won't tell him how many feet it takes his car to stop, what kind of oversteering might be involved to avoid the accident, what point of impact will provide the least amount of damage, etc.''
Nonsense, an instinct just needs to be an instinct.
''but you can't say it's a mechanism for survival in man.''
Yes, I can it is a proven scientific fact; the fight or flight response and adrenal reactions.
@07Aristotle Yet, that instinct will not provide the before mentioned information, duh. It doesn't tell him what is in his self-interest, only an immediate reaction without context. Just as millions of children must LEARN that the stove is hot. No automatic knowledge.
@07Aristotle -But, that won't keep him alive in a civilized society, only a sub-human one, and not for long. -That one must learn about the world and what will further his life, or drain it.
-Right, dumbass. Instincts will not give you the knowledge for living. You must discover what is in your self-interest. Then you can integrate that knowledge into proper reactions for the situations you encounter in life. -Lol, tell that to someone in a flood. It's such a bunch of semantics with you.
@CJMAC78 ''But, that won't keep him alive in a civilized society, only a sub-human one, and not for long.That one must learn about the world and what will further his life, or drain it.''
What ever you say Charles Darwin.
''Right, dumbass. Instincts will not give you the knowledge for living.''
You said it, not me.
''Then you can integrate that knowledge into proper reactions for the situations you encounter in life''
@07Aristotle I've been saying it. An instinct is not your means of survival. Knowledge is the means to that end, and only by acting on that knowledge. Through conscious observation,drrr
@CJMAC78 ''An instinct is not your means of survival. Knowledge is the means to that end, and only by acting on that knowledge''
No, the instincts are the means to an end, the end being knowledge; 1 reaction, 2 association to object, and 3 knowledge or awareness of that object and its effective and/or affective influence.
@07Aristotle You leave out awareness of the reality your directly perceiving, and logic. An instinct tells me nothing about stopping a car in your accident. It doesn't allow me the ability to take abstract concepts and deal with them. It doesn't tell me how to live in a world.
@07Aristotle It's a senseless debate, I'm guilty of wasting my time.. I've come to the conclusion you mark all of your own comments as 'spam'. Half of everything you've said here, you've marked for deletion. It's hard to follow somebody who cuts his own argument out before I can respond. But, you know that already.
@07Aristotle So, I can't learn how to swim, I must wait for generations of conditioning, and then your make believe world produces the perfect swimmer... Ridiculous. Also, nobody said you can integrate all those variables in a day, week or year. One must constantly expand his/her knowledge.
@CJMAC78 ''because they've been discarded by the very evolution you speak of.''
You are ignorant of science my friend, you've obviously forgotten some very important facts--as is self-evident in your response.
''Again, don't have a survival instinct for hunting, providing for offspring, etc''
You feel fear and panic, don't you? We still carry these responses now, they tell us when we are in danger and provide us with resources as to how to act.
@CJMAC78...with constant interpersonal relations, and, as a result, through a long historical timeline, we humans are able to discern the difference between pleasure/pain and, what is more, good/evil. That is the objectivity of duty, is that, it was able to exist despite our being cognizant of it or not. That is the very definition of objectivity!
@07Aristotle You mean discovering causal connections allows volitional beings the ability to choices that are in the self-interest. Ya know, things that further their life. Again, that's not duty. That's your misguided feelings toward an unexplained feeling.
@07Aristotle "naah" Only if your life is not your highest value.
"Wrong! We industrialized." YES that's exactly what I mean. That when men were free to pursue THEIR INTERESTS, they created the HIGHEST STANDARD OF LIVING IN HUMAN HISTORY!!! THEY ALLOWED FOR THE INCREASE IN POPULATION NEVER BEFORE SEEN!!!
"Straw man" Causality
You hold that as your alternative to the whim of "duty". They're are barely above animals, I do not admire them. However, feel free.
@CJMAC78 ''''Dude, brushing your teeth is for hygiene, and its one of the many things that have taken out of the fuckin jungle''
Are you serious? You are saying we have got out of the ''jungle'' because we happen to be a little more civil than the average primate? That is so elementary. Tell that to the indigenous tribes, existing today, that they don't belong in the category of humans because they don't practice the grooming techniques we do, and have been accustomed to. That is absurd.
@07Aristotle You misunderstand. It's becoming civilized that took us from primitive jungle dwelling tribes, and delivered us into the civilized world. But, you are the one arguing for that as your alternative to duty. However, if you think those tribes that still exist today are doing so great at "surviving"... Well, by all means, go live with them and tell me how great that is. How "human" it is. I see something barely above a wild animal.
@CJMAC78 ...diseases. We are becoming dependent on healthcare. The only process we cling to is a little thing called natural selection. With natural selection we are able to retain, to some degree, the advantageous traits that are constantly being dispersed at birth to continue this ongoing growing process. This, only, is what is extending our lives.
@07Aristotle Yeah, discovering the cure to diseases, clean water, electric power, motorized transportation, etc. couldn't possibly have any value, huh?. All those people who refuse to see that value and how it comes about sure "cling" to those values with a ferociousness that can only be matched by a hungry animal. However, this desire for these things WILL NOT give them the automatic knowledge on how to achieve those values.
@CJMAC78 ''We know that brushing our teeth is a value, that it's an objective fact that it's in my "self-interest"--That it's the good.''
Nothing but randian nonsense. You and rand have no idea what objectivity means. I have provided DICTIONARY definitions for you. Nothing in your statement is objective. REMEMBER it has to be more than 'real' to be objective. It has to be uninfluenced by emotions, or feelings, or external and tangible, or independently existing.
@07Aristotle Brushing your teeth with prolong the overall life of your teeth. However, let's say the irrational man uses pure sugar, and the rational man uses Crest toothpaste... Is it an objective fact that brushing with sugar will destroy his teeth? I understand that you're having problems including that "you" that's left out all the time, but slow down and think.
@CJMAC78 We are primates of the animal kingdom, which ever way you look at it, and we only need bare necessities of our environment to survive,so, pleasurable feelings, luxuries are secondary to the organisms survival. It is a scientific fact.
''Brushing your teeth with prolong the overall life of your teeth. ''
Dude, brushing your teeth is for grooming purposes, its hygienic. If primates and other lower life forms don't have to brush teeth, that means it is not crucial to survival.
@07Aristotle So, that's your alternative.... Either you want mind to be a mindless animal living like a primate, or you want him following some unexplained emotional whim you call "duty". Dude, brushing your teeth is for hygiene, and it's one of the many things which have taken us out of the fuckin' jungle, extended human life, and the quality of it... But, that would mean you pursued values that applied to your life LONG RANGE!
@CJMAC78 ''So, that's your alternative.... Either you want mind to be a mindless animal living like a primate, or you want him following some unexplained emotional whim you call "duty"''
What?!?! I have to say, you should make a living distorting peoples position because your a professional at it. At any rate, I NEVER stated that man is a mindless primate without duty. Where do you get off? I do say that man, because of his evolutionary position, has discovered duty. We live in a society ....
@07Aristotle What man can do is discover causal connections, and he can proceed in discovering the values that further his live-- both body and spirit (consciousness). "Duty" is your unexplained whim.
@CJMAC78 ''extended human life, and the quality of it''
With industrialization creating stress and promoting inactivity, this has actually hampered our life expectancy's increase. Poor nutrition, mixed in with our rate consumerism, has forced food companies to sacrifice quality for quantity, thank supply and demand. You have the illusion of quality. The amount of childhood mandated vaccinations is conditioning our immune system to become weaker, and thereby, leaving us prone to more (cont)
@07Aristotle This is the root of all your sides evil. You mean to tell me that the GREATEST country on earth--which citizens experienced an increase in the quality of living NEVER BEFORE SEEN- is the cause for all these depraved positions you mention? That the factories and machines, the medicine and its practitioners, that a political theory of individual rights and men who understood them. YOU TELL ME WHAT THE QUALITY OF LIFE WAS BEFORE INTELLIGENT MEN TOOK THEM FROM KINGS AND TRIBES!
@CJMAC78 ''Yeah, discovering the cure to diseases, clean water, electric power, motorized transportation, etc. couldn't possibly have any value, huh?''
Dollars and cents, First and foremost.
''All those people who refuse to see that value and how it comes about sure "cling" to those values with a ferociousness that can only be matched by a hungry animal.''
@CJMAC78 ''You mean to tell me that the GREATEST country on earth--which citizens experienced an increase in the quality of living NEVER BEFORE SEEN- is the cause for all these depraved positions you mention?''
Yes, its a combinations of special interest groups, leverage, and financial growth. As a result, our national debt to china far exceeds our net-worth as a country. They basically own us. You're such a hyperborean, you're so innocent.
@07Aristotle What? The industrial era took place during the 19th century--when America was most free. It's your duty stricken altruism that has overrun the last 100 years. If you really think ANYONE who is for free market capitalism finds these markets "free", you really are out of your mind. Furthermore, Ayn Rand, called for a complete separation of 'state and economics'. The regulations on industry are ENDLESS!
@CJMAC78 ''However, let's say the irrational man uses pure sugar, and the rational man uses Crest toothpaste..''
Irrelevant, it is not a good or evil thing to use pure sugar on your teeth, it is not prudent. Because we know it is detrimental to your teeth. Whether it is a question of prolonging your life is ridiculous. We did not come this far along the evolutionary chain because we brushed our teeth.
@CJMAC78 True, choice factors in, but whether you kill someone or not will determine the responsibility/irresponsibility of that choice.
''The first think your emotional master told you was-- take your mind out of the equation. ''
No, he does not. On the contrary he advocates the use of your mind, reason. Kant states that the moral imperative is motivated by what is rational. He said what is moral is what is rational. It is better to make a choice on reason.
@07Aristotle No, he clearly decided your consciousness has no requirements. That it is somehow apart from the rest of reality... Oh, I hold reason as an absolute, and by choice.
@CJMAC78 ''If I know longer derived happiness from my wife, I'd have a serious evaluation of both her, and myself.''
This is exactly my point, in this instance, your wife's feelings or highest motivation turn obsolete. Hence, because, you could no longer derive the feeling of happiness from her, in any case, the fact that your with her for 15 yrs does not matter in such a context. What you value is more important.
@07Aristotle You act as if some whim of the moment makes this possible.. The love I feel for my wife is based on values that are real. She isn't some mindless zombie, nor is anyone else. As I clearly pointed out before, if my wife betrayed her values, I would leave. If she became a whore, risked the life of our child, disappeared, etc. Yes, I'd leave. However, duty would demand you stay. What value is your morality holding up in these cases?
@CJMAC78 Though, what is between your wife and you is real, it is contingent on emotion and feelings. This is not what objectivity is. Remember, you have choice and you will always have choice. The choice to do something out of capriciousness or duty. Your choice.
@07Aristotle Her character is an OBJECTIVE fact of reality. If she betrayed it, she'd be contradicting what I valued in her... That is real. It's not a duty that I choose not to cheat on my wife. It's a matter of my personal desire to be a man of integrity. It's in my interest to make my wife happy by living up to my word. Are you honest out of "duty"? I mean, do you find no personal selfish value in your character, or those you values character?
@CJMAC78 ''Her character is an OBJECTIVE fact of reality''
No, that characteristic is dependent on her, NOT independent of her. It is inter-subjective. If I can touch her characteristic then we are talking about objectivity, but it is a dependent, REAL human characteristic.
''living up to my word''<<<<=====''Are you honest out of "duty"?''
^^Implies duty/responsibility. ^^Your honest out of word, promise and you keeping that would require duty to that promise, your word is biding you.
@07Aristotle Yes, and she exists as a conscious being. She can be judged by her character. Unless... Unless your saying a person can be judged as anything at anytime, and that their character is meaningless, that it's not "real". That's a choice of my character, not duty. I have no feeling of "duty" in this regard, it's in my rational self-interest.
@CJMAC78 ''Unless... Unless your saying a person can be judged as anything at anytime, and that their character is meaningless, that it's not "real".''
Your wife, herself, is objective because she is tangible. I never said that her character is meaningless, only, that it is an inter-subjective reality. Please don't straw man my position. You need to refresh yourself on actual definitions my friend.
@CJMAC78 There is no promise of evasion of unpleasantness in relationships, according to the categorical imperative, morality is what is rational. Is it rational to stay with someone that has cheated on you, wasted her talent, and spits in her own face? But emotional unpleasantness in relationships is something completely different; disagreements, bad days, bad communication, prioritizing, finances as these all can be overcome with, categorical imperative based, duty.
@07Aristotle While you're driven by a "feeling" (one I OBVIOUSLY don't feel) to perform "duty", but you have no objective basis for why you should perform duty. The question your code ultimately evades is the purpose of your duty... What ultimate goal does your duty deliver you? It can't be pleasure, or happiness for yourself.. Well, since that would mean you cheated your system, huh? So, what is the purpose of your morality? It's mankind that Kant completely left out of his morality.
@CJMAC78 Your boss and loved ones would agree that ''choosing'' not to come to work because of pleasure would be irresponsible. You have a the responsibility to be a good sumerian, you have a responsibility to be a good father, you have a responsibility to be a good employee, you have a responsibility to be a good husband etc. Whether or not you choose, which I agree with, to comply with responsibility that is up to you. I'm not saying you do not have a choice, you do.
@07Aristotle "Choosing" not to go to work would be irresponsible had I made a commitment. I assume I'd entered into an agreement to mutual benefit... However, if I decided not to go to work, it would be because my boss failed to meet his end of the contractual agreement (as we are contractual animals); and since I'm not working out of duty, it's the right decision.
@CJMAC78 Responsibilities/duties exist regardless of whether you do it out of pleasure or responsibilities/duties. You can ignore duties/responsibilities all day long, that does not mean they do not exist. Love or contract ties these actions to responsibilities/duties. Pleasure is just a byproduct of an action. If you want to base your choices on pleasure, I could say you could have a responsibility toward pleasure.
Why cannot good will effect you and the person it is being expressed to?
@07Aristotle The good will toward those I love is not a sacrifice, nor any kind of duty. It's a choice of action people I value, and their reciprocation is one of my greatest selfish pleasure. Because that value is real and not set apart from the ultimate goal: Your own life.
@CJMAC78 Whatever you think, as I said before, pleasure is always a byproduct of an action; a reaction. Pleasure is dependent on action and if it is dependent on us acting,therefore, it must be subjective. You value a person, so long, as they please you but there is no relationship to that person. If your relationship is based on a ''pleasure principle'' you can never promise to value them because eventually they lose their hedonistic value.
@07Aristotle I value the character of my wife. It is her dedication to her happiness; she is productive, beautiful, intelligent, and proud of it. I want her happiness and for her to find happiness in me. It is my selfish pleasure I derive from it... However, according to your Kantian duty, I should love her if she betrayed her values: cheated on me, wasted her talent, and spit in her own face... How very "objective" of Mr. Kant, huh?
@CJMAC78 Check out opponent process theory; it states that things that once give you pleasure, over time, eventually decrease to restore equilibrium. That is why you hear of ''gate-way'' drugs because one drug eventually loses its ''pleasing'' affect, then the other more stronger affective drug gives you a better high. But is that really how you see your loved ones as drugs? I believe it is unethical to even view them as sources of pleasure.
@07Aristotle Damn... I thought I answered this. Anyway... If you in fact think that your pleasure/pain mechanism has no purpose in your life, and that it makes no difference if you eat garbage or a steak dinner, drink poison or water, or even eat at all... Well, the joke is truly on you. My wife is the embodiment of my values in another human being-- and if I betrayed her, I'd be betraying myself. I think it's unethical to remove "the pursuit of happiness" from the purpose of human life.
@CJMAC78 The basic distinction between us is, on this example, that I would not mind to eat good food over not so good food, or eat not so good food over good food. I would rather have food to eat anyways, but pleasure-sufficing food, that you would rather have, is a demand you place on yourself because something has to please you, in this case good food. Your assumption is that ''pursuit of happiness'' only operates on a ''pleasure principle'', but objects of pleasure are never permanent.
@07Aristotle You can say that when a meal never pleases you. I choose a good meal, precisely because my life is a value. My highest value. Your morality places you as insignificant.
@CJMAC78 '' You can say that when a meal never pleases you. I choose a good meal, precisely because my life is a value.''
A good meal is not detrimental to you being alive, it is just a luxury. You valuing your life has nothing to do luxuries. I agree, assuring your survival should be a foremost value, but this is not contingent on having the good, luxurious, pleasant things in life. Pleasure is not linked to survival self-preservation or ''survival of the fittest'' mentality.
@07Aristotle The fact you'll likely eat a dinner tonight that brings you 'pleasure', is the proof that my chosen moral code has your 'happiness' in mind. You better eat dry rice and water for dinner, otherwise.
@CJMAC78 I admitted you cannot escape pleasure, but responsibilities/duties are objective, they are independent of natural human inclinations and wants. Pleasure is just a natural biological side effect, along with pain. They are, again, by products on human action(s) or decision(s). Duties/responsibilities are not natural biological side effects and, therefore, not dependent on human sentience, hence their being objective.
@07Aristotle Man is a natural part of the universe. Your moral teacher started off by setting man apart from the rest of reality. You cannot decide what is in the objective interest of anything, by setting it apart from everything.
@CJMAC78 All Kant is promotes is that moral judgments should not be made on the motivation of achieving personal pleasure, but on establishing good or ''good will'', as he defines it. You want to achieve happiness for your loved ones on the basis of pleasure, and not duties/responsibilities, but I ask you: Are there no obligations that would bind you to the ones you love? Could you love them one day and physically abuse them the next day? Nothing would stop you because no obligations bind you.
@07Aristotle Good will? For whom and for what?... Not you! Is it duty that keeps you from turning on those you love? Do you personally hate those close to you? What kind of person turns on his loved one so quickly....
@07Aristotle It's the fact that I love them out of choice and not duty, that makes it all the more beautiful. No duties or obligations are present... I have choices.
@CJMAC78....will have the opposite effect, being that, this would be a means to an end for objective morality. Hence, the means are not dependent on our sentience, but on our good sense. Inherently good acts have essentially a non-selfish fundementality to them and by this can a moral act be thus derived objectively.
@CJMAC78 Our species, with our competitive instinct to survive, creates a hostile enviornment to our nieghbor, as we see them as obstacles to our survival. Our being selfish and pleasure-seeking depends on us and, thus, also our means to an end for subjective morality. Conversely non-selfish, altruistic behavior (cont)
@CJMAC78 I would like to distinguish between what is subjective and objective knowing of good for the individual. Pleasure and pain are contingent on human sentience; we have no "duty" except to ourselves and our self-preservation as a natural instinct. Such a society will promote a darwinian morality.
@07Aristotle Man has no automatic code of morality and no automatic knowledge. or desire to live for that matter... I don't recognize duty, so it's really your subjective whim placing this ideal above what my mind knows better than..
@CJMAC78 Would it be ethical and rational for a woman to stay with an abusive husband? Because reason is what kant's categorial imperative proports--it is a duty and morality with its fundamentals in reason.
@CJMAC78 I dont think you can reconcile the concepts of selfishness and pleasure-seeking with any sort of objectivity. Anything objective exists regardless of the individual, in otherwords, its cause is not contingent on human sentience. Feelings ''love'', selfishness, and pleasure-seeking behavior are contingent on the human and it is therefore subjective. Duty applies to objective concepts of moral questions.
@07Aristotle Is human life somehow exempt from the whole of the universe? Can man live be any random means, or does he have to KNOW what is good for him; what will bring him pleasure, or pain? You completely set mankind outside the realm of reality, and propose he's incapable of knowing what is actually good for him by the standard of human existence as such, and place his own life as of no personal value at all. Do you truly believe your own mind so useless that you must sacrifice it to others?
He's right about duty. Everything in the Objectivist ethics is explained in terms of reality and cause-and-effect, so there's no room for mystical floating abstractions like "duty".
Of course, since there's no after-life, Objectivist ethics is based on living well *in this world*.
It seems that William Craig's main critique is that Objectivism is based on reality, and doesn't cater to mystical "feeling-worship".
jonathanaconway 3 weeks ago
Robber points a gun at your head, would you rather that robber be an athiest or a christian?
phookadude 2 months ago
@phookadude Ridiculous question. I'd rather he didn't pull the trigger.
StudentOfObjectivism 2 months ago
@StudentOfObjectivism LOL! What a dodge. Is it so hard to answer a straight-forward question?
drcraigvideos 2 months ago
Craig "can't see any reason" why Objectivism isn't arbitrary because he has no clue what he's on about.
Human beings are acting creatures involved in a basic pursuit of life. Even somebody who commits suicide can't plunge the knife in their chest without valuing life, since life is the ultimate means to all their actions.
So, if life is the ultimate value, then there are certain virtues every human being should cultivate.
And if you fail to be moral, you die! What could be more "accountable"?
UnderTheTunk 3 months ago
@UnderTheTunk If you are moral you die anyway.So what is the difference? Thats the point.If there is no god there is not obligation to be moral at all.If others "humans" find your ways "immoral" based on societal morays you could easily just flout them and do your own thing,if they pursue you to stop what you are doing you can just kill them because there is no obligation to your fellow man to be "moral" because as you said we are involved in a basic pursuit of life only.Life is the only value.
aaronstately 3 months ago
Almost every vid iv'e watched of Craig he says "if there is no God" .. well, if there is no God,mankind would find it necessary to create one ! - and this is exactly what has happened. It was created maybe 100,000 yrs ago by fearful cavemen..and these "meme" still exists in the minds of very intelligent people..such is the power of the "meme", an unbelievable phenomenon !
brindow1 4 months ago
@brindow1 Why would man find it necessary to create god? You make no argument for this. Nonetheless, if it IS an inherent quality of man that it must create a god to believe in, then how can atheism exist? Atheism can only exist in a world in which man does NOT need to create god. Atheism itself proves man does NOT need to create god, therefore, if we do believe in him, it is because there's observable evidence to do so. Your argument is so incoherent actually turns atheism into proof of god.
Fett4 4 months ago 2
@Fett4 how do you go from the premise "atheism itself proves man does NOT need to create god" to conclude " if we do believe in him, it is because there's observable evidence to do so"? and please elaborate on that evidence :)
where did brindow1 say it's "an inherent quality of man that it must create a god to believe in"? not sure that's what he actually meant :) some people coming up with the idea of a super father does not mean everyone will. it's an easy explanation that's bound to come up
numb1010 3 months ago
@numb1010 Brindow1 said, if there is no God, man would invent one; religion is not evidence-based but a "necessary" compulsion. But atheists are not compelled to invent a God, so belief cannot be a compulsion in the species, but a choice. Thus, there must be other observable evidence for people's beliefs, which could be anything: Newton said gravity was compelling evidence for God. I'm just exposing the contradiction in an ATHEIST saying, "Belief in God is an inherent compulsion of human nature"
Fett4 1 month ago
I'm speaking about the man in the crowd not WLC.
CloverfieldMonster95 4 months ago
This man is mistaken. Altruism is Egoism. Sort of. Its more of a long term spiritual motive (reward of heaven, fear of hell) rather than a fleshly motive (Randian selfishness) We do believe in rational self interest because it is in our rational self interest to be altruistic and be accountable to God. I think an atheist has to follow this in order to be completely true to themselves. i don't think you can be an atheistic altruist. Atlas shrugged is a good book though. capitalism ftw
CloverfieldMonster95 4 months ago
@CloverfieldMonster95 Ayn Rand observed that christian ethics is about personal salvation and therefore has some traces of egoism. However, simply saying that you want to achieve something does not make it rational. For a conclusion to be rational it needs to be independently induced from concrete reality by a logical process. Can you honestly tell me that the evidence of your senses - not ideas passed to you from a book - made you conclude that there is a heaven?
StudentOfObjectivism 2 months ago
@StudentOfObjectivism What is so egotistical about "Do unto others as would they unto you" ?
needtoalwayslearn 1 month ago
Comment removed
CloverfieldMonster95 4 months ago
The Free Will is the Fact of the Placebo of Intelligence. By A Free Will, God takes His pleasure to weaken himself before a Stone, or weaken the stone before HIm. God self limits God by the Placebo. Placebo , a Latin term used by Saint Jerome to describe God's Limit. " I Shall Please to Do, that which I Please" So the Free Will must exist at liberty beyond all material restraints and then the Mind as the Free Will, by it's Placebo, determines what exists and it's limits .
CarmineFragione 4 months ago
He's too tied down to the abstract notion of "objectivity." If he wants some stupid philosophical ploy to refute that argument, then all i have to say is that 'objectivity' as humans define it is a product of the subjectivity of human beings. Objectivity is a product of our minds, which could just mean the definition contains a subjective ignorance of what an 'objectivity' outside the human mind would look like. There could easily be a 'human objectivity' or a 'non human objectivity'...
burnhardship 6 months ago
@burnhardship This guy makes noooo sense whatsoever...what is he talking about? he sees no reason why the virtues of self-reliance and making your own way in life is true? what the fuck is he talking about? he is one of the most shallowest people i've seen.seriously..and then he goes on and attributes these virtues to socioculturalism? this guy is fucking stupid. Right, Billy Craig, we are base creatures trying to make the best of our miserable lives..Grow up and accept it already..fuckin idiot
burnhardship 6 months ago
@burnhardship people's moral, intellectual, and emotional IQ are in the trash...Kill yourselves. You are useless and/or part of the problem...killlllll yourseeeeeelves.
burnhardship 6 months ago
this guy is stupid
burnhardship 6 months ago
Well, I value human life-- it's my standard of value. I know no objective values of character can be achieve turning my fellow man into my personal whim factory.... However, you do realize you follow a worldview in which your messiah was the result of a 12 year old girl (Mary) and her 90 year old rapist (Joseph), right? Or, you can say your timeless god knocked her up.... You pick the rapist-- but don't tell me you value human life, when you worship that garbage... "Big deal", huh? Scumbag!
CJMAC78 6 months ago
P.S. try replying to me Aristotle.... Instead of trying to hide the fact you replied... Thanks.
CJMAC78 6 months ago
@CJMAC78 Because it denies duties yet it runs back to reason, as its first premise, then following it we have pleasure-seeking behavior. Reason and pleasure-seeking are mutually exclusive.
07Aristotle 6 months ago
@07Aristotle Kant was clear that you can derive no pleasure from duty, that's the point. It can have no "personal value".
CJMAC78 6 months ago
@CJMAC78 Whether or not you recognize something as duty is not important, what is important is whether you follow these duties. Hence duty having an objective position and not being mind dependent. Duty is concerned with "oughts" rather than "is's",then also, we see what "is" changes and what "ought" to be as static. Rand's "objectivism" is just not coherent.
07Aristotle 6 months ago
@07Aristotle No it's important I recognize what I'm doing as in my self-interest. I'll let Rand answer the rest of this... " To speak of “value” as apart from “life” is worse than a contradiction in terms. “It is only the concept of ‘Life’ that makes the concept of ‘Value’ possible.”... "The fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do. So much for the issue of the relation between “is” and “ought.”
CJMAC78 6 months ago
@CJMAC78 People do have an "automatic" moral code, it is true that there are some things that are "just not right". (moral) Duty is equal to responsibilities in life; you have a duty to report to work, you have a duty provide for your family, you have a duty not to steal or kill etc. These are not extracted from selfish and pleasure-seeking behavior, as this would be dependent on a individual.
07Aristotle 6 months ago
@07Aristotle No I have the choice of going to work, provide for my family, not to steal or kill, etc. I go to work for the pleasure of productive achievement, I provide for my highest valued humans out of personal pleasure, I deal with other mean as a trader to mutual benefit.... So much for you non-pleasure duty stricken lifestyle, huh? Again, you are free to say you don't seek your loved ones happiness out of selfish pleasure it brings you--but duty..... Can you really say that?
CJMAC78 6 months ago
@CJMAC78 I'm not arguing whether you have a choice or not. What I'm arguing is that duties/responsibilities exist regardless of what choice you make about your duties/responsibilities. I admit, you can never escape from pleasure, but let it be a byproduct, not a motivation. A world governed by pleasure would be hedonistic and devoid of real love. I seek the happiness and well-being of loved ones because the satisfaction of completing my duties/responsibilities to them.
07Aristotle 6 months ago
@07Aristotle Choices exist whether you ignore them or not... However, I can ignore you duties/responsibilities all day long... Personally, I find it sickening that you deny yourself pleasure as the motive of your happiness, but that's your burden... When I do something for my wife it brings me PLEASURE! I see her happiness--derived from my actions-- and it's a real personal value.... The ultimate motivation: MY HAPPINESS.
CJMAC78 6 months ago
@CJMAC78 Again, I'm not arguing whether or not you have a choice. I agree that you do, but the divide here is duties/responsibilities. But choices are dependent on the individual having freewill, this is no form of objectivity. Us as freewill(ed) individuals, we have a choice of whether or not we do anything out of duties/responsibilities or pleasure. Whether or not you agree with me you have an obligation(responsibility) to report to work, anything else would lead to irresponsible behavior.
07Aristotle 6 months ago
@07Aristotle You simply ignore causality. I do everything in my life toward the goal of my self-interest. It's a rewarding life.
CJMAC78 6 months ago
@CJMAC78 To me, you hastily generalize the motives of every person. Again, you might be motivated by such but what makes you think the rest are? Keep in mind, that responsibilities/duties are objective and therefore not dependent on our motivations. Pleasure is not an objective trait, it is an inter-subjective trait. It is a commonality dependent and shared amongst human beings and is, thereby, impossible to avoid. What pleases you is temporary, you cannot promise emotions, but duty you can.
07Aristotle 6 months ago
@07Aristotle For those "rest" you speak of... Well, I don't enter into relationships with those people. Again, when you set your standard of morality apart from your own species and your purpose apart from yourself... You simply cannot claim that you hold any "objective" standard of value that applies to the mind and body of man. I plan my life long range, and my values are not directed by whim.
CJMAC78 6 months ago
@CJMAC78 I do not say that I separate my morality from human species nor have I implied it. Your straw man is no where near my position. I agreed that you cannot avoid pleasure/pain but these are by products of an action. As I said, what humans share as value is inter-subjective not objective. Under your approach value is relative to the individual and there will be a diversity of values. No person will have the same value as the other.
07Aristotle 6 months ago
@07Aristotle Again, remember that when you eat tonight.. Also, tell me it makes no difference what you eat, and that is makes you no difference if you hate the food, or love it.
CJMAC78 6 months ago
@CJMAC78 ''Also, tell me it makes no difference what you eat, and that is makes you no difference if you hate the food, or love it. ''
Yes, food is meant to keep you nourished and alive, pleasantries are secondary.
''It tells you that YOU that the purpose of your life is to pursue your own RATIONAL self-interest, ie your happiness''
This is where I think Rand loses grasp of basic definition of objectivity. Happiness in its entirety is not segregated to only ''rational'' self-interest.
07Aristotle 6 months ago
@07Aristotle Because you treat your consciousness as some anomaly.
CJMAC78 6 months ago
@CJMAC78 Consciousness has nothing to do with ''rational'' self-interest''.
''My values are based on real things, ie objective criteria.''
No they are not, like I said, your ''criteria''; happiness and pleasure as value, and not the object of the pleasure and happiness-- is not objective, for these feelings are ALWAYS dependent on an object (i.e. your wife). Just because characteristics of happiness and pleasure are shared amongst all individuals, does not mean it is objective, (cont)
07Aristotle 6 months ago
Comment removed
07Aristotle 6 months ago
@CJMAC78 Happiness can also be unselfish. Selfless acts are virtues. '' Objectivity=judgment based on observable phenomena and uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices'' (wordnetweb.princeton)
Any objective judgment cannot be influenced by emotions and personal prejudices, this includes pleasure as it is relative to the individual. Again, self-interest, though it exists, is not objective, it is inter-subjective. Your safety premise is geared more toward the self-preservation instinct.
07Aristotle 6 months ago
@07Aristotle Again, you take consciousness for granted.
CJMAC78 6 months ago
@CJMAC78 You cannot base values on pleasure, then, at the same time plan to have your life long range with this ''happiness''. Like I said, pleasure is not permanent, it is non-stationary, non-static, non-fixed it moves and is controlled by whim. You base your value on the selfish pleasure they give you. You value your wife on the ''happiness'' she gives you, but since pleasure is transient, you will only value your wife so long as she gives you this ''happiness'' .
07Aristotle 6 months ago
@07Aristotle Objectivism does not tell you to follow your "whims". It tells you that YOU that the purpose of your life is to pursue your own RATIONAL self-interest, ie your happiness. That in order to achieve this you must discover what values are in your LONG TERM self-interest. What will destroy your life, or further it. What kind of relationships you should enter into, and what kind you should avoid. And, you're right. If my wife would betray the values I find virtuous in her, I'd leave.
CJMAC78 6 months ago
@CJMAC78 ''What will destroy your life, or further it. What kind of relationships you should enter into, and what kind you should avoid. ''
It is silly to think that, the first thing in anyone's mind, is whether they will get killed or not. I'm sure that is not the thoughts that go to my head when I meet someone. I never said as if humans can never set up their values on their own. I agree that people can place their values on pleasure or rationality. Besides, what makes self-interest (cont)
07Aristotle 6 months ago
@07Aristotle No, if an employer (friend, lover, etc) takes advantage of a skill and I find it my "duty" to serve him... Well, so much for me achieving my long term self-interest, huh? Since my interests have been set apart from myself, huh?
CJMAC78 6 months ago
@CJMAC78 .....it is inter-subjective; hence, it is a homogenous characteristic of a human.
''objectivity= 1. existing independently of perception or an individual's conceptions: are there objective moral values?
2. undistorted by emotion or personal bias
3. of or relating to actual and external phenomena as opposed to thoughts, feelings, etc
Inter-subjective= existing or occurring between conscious minds; if people are capable of sharing it or holding it in common. '' (dictionary com)
07Aristotle 6 months ago
@07Aristotle No the fact my wife is intelligent is of actual objective value, the fact she is honest, trustworthy, etc. are all real values based on an objective view of reality. Her character has values which are real.
CJMAC78 6 months ago
@CJMAC78 ''No the fact my wife is intelligent is of actual objective value, the fact she is honest, trustworthy, etc. are all real values based on an objective view of reality''
No, again, this is inter-subjective; characteristics shared amongst all human beings, dependent on human being. I cited actual dictionary definitions. The only way intelligence, honesty, and trustworthiness can be objective is if you can physically touch them, evidently we cant. They are not ''external phenomenon''.
07Aristotle 6 months ago
@CJMAC78 You have a duty to your job, so long, as your contractual guidelines are not infringed or violated. It is only rational within those guidelines.
Considering, rational self-interest, you valuing your wife can not be the motivation, rather the feelings/emotion you get from her. For if you did not have these feelings, in the beginning, for your wife you would not be with her. This is because you would be denying your highest motivation; 'The ultimate motivation: MY HAPPINESS ', not hers.
07Aristotle 6 months ago
@07Aristotle I have a choice of entering a contract, if it's in my self-interest. My "choice" of not betraying the integrity of my word is in no way a sacrifice, nor is it motivated by duty. I take great pride in that fact.
CJMAC78 6 months ago
@CJMAC78 ....so rational? I know rand proposed this view of 'rational' self-interest, but answer me this; why would it be rational to base a value/moral system on something temporary or changing? What is to promise you will feel the same way about your wife the next day? On this same token, why would you be obligated to stay with your wife, hence her decreasing pleasure value? Keep in mind, that is not to say that this ''loss of pleasure'' is not due to her betraying you, it just leaves in time.
07Aristotle 6 months ago
@07Aristotle My values are based on real things, ie objective criteria. Nothing is temporary about my values, and we've been over this. I'm not obligated to stay with my wife--that's the point... I don't have a disinterested love. I want and need her, because she is the embodiment of my values in a women. She is my joy, and my joy is not motivated by whim... Not for the last 15 years...
CJMAC78 6 months ago
@CJMAC78 There is no binding quality about the basis your value system. If your value system's foundation is in pleasure (i.e. happiness) then how would you account for the times you two have friction? What about the unpleasant emotions that all people in a relationship deal with? There is no binding quality and ,by your standards, you could leave her to avoid pain. It is a natural tendency to avoid pain but duty to her, then, is the rational characteristic that pulls you through bad times.
07Aristotle 6 months ago
@07Aristotle You act as if humans are incapable of any hierarchical system of values. You act as if a disagreement on a minor issue somehow destroys the issues for which you don't disagree. Furthermore, my life is not dependent on my wife, as such. I get great pleasure and would be devastated without it, but I am an end in myself, my happiness is not dependent on my wife alone, nor is her happiness found in me alone.
CJMAC78 6 months ago
@CJMAC78 For the record... I've been with my wife for 15 years, and we've not skipped a beat. (15 years this August 31st.) We married out of selfishness, had a child out of selfishness, and do not betray our selves--or desire the irrational.
CJMAC78 6 months ago
@CJMAC78 ''I get great pleasure and would be devastated without it, but I am an end in myself, my happiness is not dependent on my wife alone, nor is her happiness found in me alone. ''
So if you find this to be true, what would obligate you to your wife if you could no longer derive pleasure (i.e. happiness) out of her? She is relegated to the status of things? Remember this can be a build-up of minor things (idiosyncrasies), not major things like abuse, cheating, stealing finances as such.
07Aristotle 6 months ago
@07Aristotle But, I'd never sacrifice a greater value to a lesser. I wouldn't sacrifice one of my highest values for something so low as your above mentioned issues. If I know longer derived happiness from my wife, I'd have a serious evaluation of both her, and myself. However, 15 years later, and my love is only stronger for her. Cheat that? Not a chance.
CJMAC78 6 months ago
@CJMAC78 Your words: ''The ultimate goal of my life is MY HAPPINESS''
This self-interest is ultimately and undeniably based on a feeling; happiness. Your wife is an object for means to an end in achieving happiness. Your value being your happiness, you don't include an object in the end, it is a means to an end, again. However, it is a truth feelings are temporary, yet your adamant on them not being temporary. The distinction here is what is temporary and what is not; feelings are, wife is not.
07Aristotle 6 months ago
@07Aristotle You act as if you consciousness has no requirements for existence. Furthermore, my emotional responses are based on my knowledge facts, and how they apply to furthering my life in the long term. My life and the values which make it possible, are not "temporary".
CJMAC78 6 months ago
@CJMAC78 It is plain to see that you value a feeling, since you said, ''my highest motivation: my happiness''. Feelings are whimsical. They are not consistent, no one is happy or sad for as long as they live. Your life, by definition, is temporary, thus your feelings, which are dependent on your existence, must also be temporary. Everything you have stated, whether it be human characteristics, feelings, emotions, what you value, are either subjective or inter-subjective, but never objective.
07Aristotle 6 months ago
@07Aristotle Is my consciousness part of reality? Feelings are whimsical to any man who doesn't take his life--or his happiness, seriously. Your feelings are temporary, precisely because your morality is NOT directed toward the goal of YOUR life and happiness, but some unidentified "feeling" (you see that trick bag Kant left you) or bit of b.s. intuition. How can someone claim any objective criteria for mankind, when they undercut his mind as a starting point?
CJMAC78 6 months ago
@CJMAC78 ''Feelings are whimsical to any man who doesn't take his life--or his happiness, seriously''
I still don't understand how pleasurable feelings are crucial to self-preservation and survival instincts in science. I don't think Rand is a scientist or has a grasp of the science of evolutionary biology. An human can have feelings of sadness and not be killed by his feelings alone. Happiness is not crucial to life, therein, not his survival. Rand probably monopolized the word ''life''.
07Aristotle 6 months ago
@07Aristotle Is your consciousness part of reality? Can it be negated?
CJMAC78 6 months ago
@CJMAC78 ''Is your consciousness part of reality? Can it be negated?''
No, it only carries an inter-subjective reality. I can't touch my consciousness. Me being conscious is only dependent on me existing, inter-subjective.
''Someone can say they don't like brushing their teeth, that it "feels" bad...But, that's not in your rational self-interest''
Huh? You haven't explained why ''rational'' self-interest is rational, you have only claimed that it has value to ''life'' somehow.
07Aristotle 6 months ago
@07Aristotle Your mind exists, and your consciousness is not apart from reality, it has requirements. Also, must I really explain the objective value of brushing your and the "self" it would pertain?
CJMAC78 6 months ago
@CJMAC78 By the way, so there is no confusion, when I say duty exists regardless of what anyone acknowledges or thinks, I do not mean to say you do not have a choice, you do, but it exists regardless of what choice you make. Why? because it is not contingent on feelings, emotion, human characteristics, or personal precepts. Duty is responsibility, responsibility a universal binding quality. Everyone has 'A' responsibility and thus duty.
07Aristotle 6 months ago
@07Aristotle Causality is the only thing that exists whether you choose to identify it, or not. Nobody has any responsibility.... They have choices. Your entire Kantian framework of "duty", is built on the inflated whim of "intuition" and "feelings", or emotions. The first think your emotional master told you was-- take your mind out of the equation.
CJMAC78 6 months ago
@CJMAC78 ''Causality is the only thing that exists whether you choose to identify it, or not.''
That does not make it objective, it is inter-subjective only. Remember, it is dependent on us, it is an internal not external phenomenon.
''Nobody has any responsibility.... They have choices''
I've repeated myself so many times, you do have a choice, it is whether you make the responsible one that matters. Is it responsible or irresponsible behavior to kill someone? Accountability is important!.
07Aristotle 6 months ago
@07Aristotle It's you who don't get it. Your entire worldview is built on the b.s. notion of "feelings" or "intuition" toward duty. Someone can say they don't like brushing their teeth, that it "feels" bad...But, that's not in your rational self-interest. We know that brushing our teeth is a value, that it's an objective fact that it's in my "self-interest"--That it's the good. Not because I have a duty, but because I love my life, and I plan it long range. I do this by pursuing real values.
CJMAC78 6 months ago
@CJMAC78 This catchphrase of rational self-interest has nothing to do with evolutionary biology's self-preservation and survival instincts, even though, you make it sound like it does. Pleasure is not crucial to the survival of an organism; only the acquiring of advantageous traits during the process of natural selection assures survival, not the value of pleasure. Rand is not an evolutionary biologist, or a scientist for that matter.
07Aristotle 6 months ago
@07Aristotle Man has no automatic code of survival, and that would mean no automatic desire for self-preservation. I contend that you must discover and choose. So, you contend that humans--with the most complex minds on the planet-- can live by the same means as any mindless organism on earth. That your consciousness is the insignificant thing in the way of your life.... However, you are your consciousness.... Now look how you treat it.
CJMAC78 6 months ago
@CJMAC78 ''Man has no automatic code of survival, and that would mean no automatic desire for self-preservation. ''
Is this a joke? This clearly goes against evolutionary science. We do have an instinct to survive. Have you ever heard on the ''fight or flight'' response? This was the result of many years of evolution, it is what preserved our primate ancestors from predators that were threatening to our survival. Choosing not to survive is not only unnatural, its foolish.
07Aristotle 6 months ago
@07Aristotle So, you're telling me that 'you' had knowledge of how to survive from birth? Why did you even bother with any philosophy then? However, you're using the misguided remnants of a primitive animal as your standard of value...
CJMAC78 6 months ago
@CJMAC78 ''So, you contend that humans--with the most complex minds on the planet-- can live by the same means as any mindless organism on earth''
Not only me, but evolutionary biologists as well. You see, lower animals, also, have instincts to survive, they have instinctual fear and behavior patterns ingrained in their functioning. The former to protect themselves from predators and the latter to provide take home/care of offspring, and also hunt for food. The survival instinct is in genes.
07Aristotle 6 months ago
Respond to this video... Again, don't have a survival instinct for hunting, providing for offspring, etc. We don't live by our survival instinct, because they are not reliable-- because they've been discarded by the very evolution you speak of... Guess what part was suppose to pick up the slack???
CJMAC78 6 months ago
@CJMAC78 ''they are not reliable''
Not reliable?!?! These are the same instincts you rely on when trying to avoid a, for example, in the moment car accident. We need instincts in order to be able to react quickly in situations that would, otherwise, no afford us any time to think. It is called a sympathetic nervous system response!
07Aristotle 6 months ago
@07Aristotle Oh, people have a reaction all right, but you can't say it's a mechanism for survival in man. An instinct won't tell him how many feet it takes his car to stop, what kind of oversteering might be involved to avoid the accident, what point of impact will provide the least amount of damage, etc. He has no automatic code of survival-- It must be learned and integrated into his mind. Your animal example would be a hysterical madman trying anything.
CJMAC78 5 months ago
@CJMAC78 ''An instinct won't tell him how many feet it takes his car to stop, what kind of oversteering might be involved to avoid the accident, what point of impact will provide the least amount of damage, etc.''
Nonsense, an instinct just needs to be an instinct.
''but you can't say it's a mechanism for survival in man.''
Yes, I can it is a proven scientific fact; the fight or flight response and adrenal reactions.
07Aristotle 5 months ago
@07Aristotle Yet, that instinct will not provide the before mentioned information, duh. It doesn't tell him what is in his self-interest, only an immediate reaction without context. Just as millions of children must LEARN that the stove is hot. No automatic knowledge.
CJMAC78 5 months ago
@CJMAC78 ''Yet, that instinct will not provide the before mentioned information, duh.''
Instincts are instincts.
''It doesn't tell him what is in his self-interest, only an immediate reaction''
Definition.
''Just as millions of children must LEARN that the stove is hot.''
Instincts are not knowledge, just reactions, knowledge is ASSOCIATED with reactions, hello.
''So, I can't learn how to swim, I must wait for generations of conditioning, ''
We live on land, no survival urgency.
07Aristotle 5 months ago
@07Aristotle -But, that won't keep him alive in a civilized society, only a sub-human one, and not for long. -That one must learn about the world and what will further his life, or drain it.
-Right, dumbass. Instincts will not give you the knowledge for living. You must discover what is in your self-interest. Then you can integrate that knowledge into proper reactions for the situations you encounter in life. -Lol, tell that to someone in a flood. It's such a bunch of semantics with you.
CJMAC78 5 months ago
@CJMAC78 ''But, that won't keep him alive in a civilized society, only a sub-human one, and not for long.That one must learn about the world and what will further his life, or drain it.''
What ever you say Charles Darwin.
''Right, dumbass. Instincts will not give you the knowledge for living.''
You said it, not me.
''Then you can integrate that knowledge into proper reactions for the situations you encounter in life''
Yes, through associations.
07Aristotle 5 months ago
@07Aristotle I've been saying it. An instinct is not your means of survival. Knowledge is the means to that end, and only by acting on that knowledge. Through conscious observation,drrr
CJMAC78 5 months ago
@CJMAC78 ''An instinct is not your means of survival. Knowledge is the means to that end, and only by acting on that knowledge''
No, the instincts are the means to an end, the end being knowledge; 1 reaction, 2 association to object, and 3 knowledge or awareness of that object and its effective and/or affective influence.
07Aristotle 5 months ago
@07Aristotle You leave out awareness of the reality your directly perceiving, and logic. An instinct tells me nothing about stopping a car in your accident. It doesn't allow me the ability to take abstract concepts and deal with them. It doesn't tell me how to live in a world.
CJMAC78 5 months ago
@CJMAC78 ''Lol, tell that to someone in a flood.''
Oh my, we wouldn't want to do that.
''It's such a bunch of semantics with you.''
This is what retards say when they don't understand what is being said.
''All my previous answers apply. It's not a "straw man", if you ignore the word "causality" at ever turn. ''
No, causality is not what a straw man is.
''Who was it talking about a "straw man"''
Not talking about them, using them .
07Aristotle 5 months ago
@07Aristotle This is a complete circle jerk. You're not interested in dealing with the fact you have no way of defending any of Kants' nonsense. .
CJMAC78 5 months ago
@CJMAC78 ''You're not interested in dealing with the fact you have no way of defending any of Kants' nonsense''
Kant doesn't use ambiguous and vague catchphrases like; rational self-interest, value of life, prolonging life etc. Whatever these mean.
07Aristotle 5 months ago
@07Aristotle I think your speaking of yourself. Mr. Noumenal... It's such a joke.
CJMAC78 5 months ago
@CJMAC78 Continuing a debate with you would be henceforth void of sense.
07Aristotle 5 months ago
@07Aristotle It's a senseless debate, I'm guilty of wasting my time.. I've come to the conclusion you mark all of your own comments as 'spam'. Half of everything you've said here, you've marked for deletion. It's hard to follow somebody who cuts his own argument out before I can respond. But, you know that already.
CJMAC78 5 months ago
@CJMAC78 ''our animal example would be a hysterical madman trying anything. ''
Duh?
''It must be learned and integrated into his mind.''
Nope! Instincts cannot be learned in one day, per se, rather, they are a result of many years of genetic conditioning, again natural selection.
''No, you're negating a fact of reality. ''
No, your randian catchphrases negate reality.
'' We can't survive on instinct. That's my point.''
Your point goes against the findings in evolutionary biology.
07Aristotle 5 months ago
@07Aristotle So, I can't learn how to swim, I must wait for generations of conditioning, and then your make believe world produces the perfect swimmer... Ridiculous. Also, nobody said you can integrate all those variables in a day, week or year. One must constantly expand his/her knowledge.
CJMAC78 5 months ago
@CJMAC78 ''because they've been discarded by the very evolution you speak of.''
You are ignorant of science my friend, you've obviously forgotten some very important facts--as is self-evident in your response.
''Again, don't have a survival instinct for hunting, providing for offspring, etc''
You feel fear and panic, don't you? We still carry these responses now, they tell us when we are in danger and provide us with resources as to how to act.
07Aristotle 6 months ago
@07Aristotle No, you're negating a fact of reality. We do not live by instinct.
Yeah, and they aren't reliable. We can't survive on instinct. That's my point.
CJMAC78 5 months ago
@CJMAC78...with constant interpersonal relations, and, as a result, through a long historical timeline, we humans are able to discern the difference between pleasure/pain and, what is more, good/evil. That is the objectivity of duty, is that, it was able to exist despite our being cognizant of it or not. That is the very definition of objectivity!
07Aristotle 6 months ago
@07Aristotle You mean discovering causal connections allows volitional beings the ability to choices that are in the self-interest. Ya know, things that further their life. Again, that's not duty. That's your misguided feelings toward an unexplained feeling.
CJMAC78 5 months ago
@CJMAC78 ''Ya know, things that further their life.''
Naah.
''It's becoming civilized that took us from primitive jungle dwelling tribes, and delivered us into the civilized world.''
Wrong! We industrialized.
''But, you are the one arguing for that as your alternative to duty. ''
Straw man.
''Well, by all means, go live with them and tell me how great that is. How "human" it is. I see something barely above a wild animal. ''
Wow, you're an asshole.
07Aristotle 5 months ago
@07Aristotle "naah" Only if your life is not your highest value.
"Wrong! We industrialized." YES that's exactly what I mean. That when men were free to pursue THEIR INTERESTS, they created the HIGHEST STANDARD OF LIVING IN HUMAN HISTORY!!! THEY ALLOWED FOR THE INCREASE IN POPULATION NEVER BEFORE SEEN!!!
"Straw man" Causality
You hold that as your alternative to the whim of "duty". They're are barely above animals, I do not admire them. However, feel free.
CJMAC78 5 months ago
@CJMAC78 ''''Dude, brushing your teeth is for hygiene, and its one of the many things that have taken out of the fuckin jungle''
Are you serious? You are saying we have got out of the ''jungle'' because we happen to be a little more civil than the average primate? That is so elementary. Tell that to the indigenous tribes, existing today, that they don't belong in the category of humans because they don't practice the grooming techniques we do, and have been accustomed to. That is absurd.
07Aristotle 6 months ago
@07Aristotle You misunderstand. It's becoming civilized that took us from primitive jungle dwelling tribes, and delivered us into the civilized world. But, you are the one arguing for that as your alternative to duty. However, if you think those tribes that still exist today are doing so great at "surviving"... Well, by all means, go live with them and tell me how great that is. How "human" it is. I see something barely above a wild animal.
CJMAC78 5 months ago
@CJMAC78 ...diseases. We are becoming dependent on healthcare. The only process we cling to is a little thing called natural selection. With natural selection we are able to retain, to some degree, the advantageous traits that are constantly being dispersed at birth to continue this ongoing growing process. This, only, is what is extending our lives.
07Aristotle 6 months ago
@07Aristotle Yeah, discovering the cure to diseases, clean water, electric power, motorized transportation, etc. couldn't possibly have any value, huh?. All those people who refuse to see that value and how it comes about sure "cling" to those values with a ferociousness that can only be matched by a hungry animal. However, this desire for these things WILL NOT give them the automatic knowledge on how to achieve those values.
CJMAC78 5 months ago
@CJMAC78 ''We know that brushing our teeth is a value, that it's an objective fact that it's in my "self-interest"--That it's the good.''
Nothing but randian nonsense. You and rand have no idea what objectivity means. I have provided DICTIONARY definitions for you. Nothing in your statement is objective. REMEMBER it has to be more than 'real' to be objective. It has to be uninfluenced by emotions, or feelings, or external and tangible, or independently existing.
07Aristotle 6 months ago
@07Aristotle Brushing your teeth with prolong the overall life of your teeth. However, let's say the irrational man uses pure sugar, and the rational man uses Crest toothpaste... Is it an objective fact that brushing with sugar will destroy his teeth? I understand that you're having problems including that "you" that's left out all the time, but slow down and think.
CJMAC78 6 months ago
@CJMAC78 We are primates of the animal kingdom, which ever way you look at it, and we only need bare necessities of our environment to survive,so, pleasurable feelings, luxuries are secondary to the organisms survival. It is a scientific fact.
''Brushing your teeth with prolong the overall life of your teeth. ''
Dude, brushing your teeth is for grooming purposes, its hygienic. If primates and other lower life forms don't have to brush teeth, that means it is not crucial to survival.
07Aristotle 6 months ago
@07Aristotle So, that's your alternative.... Either you want mind to be a mindless animal living like a primate, or you want him following some unexplained emotional whim you call "duty". Dude, brushing your teeth is for hygiene, and it's one of the many things which have taken us out of the fuckin' jungle, extended human life, and the quality of it... But, that would mean you pursued values that applied to your life LONG RANGE!
CJMAC78 6 months ago
@CJMAC78 ''So, that's your alternative.... Either you want mind to be a mindless animal living like a primate, or you want him following some unexplained emotional whim you call "duty"''
What?!?! I have to say, you should make a living distorting peoples position because your a professional at it. At any rate, I NEVER stated that man is a mindless primate without duty. Where do you get off? I do say that man, because of his evolutionary position, has discovered duty. We live in a society ....
07Aristotle 6 months ago
@07Aristotle What man can do is discover causal connections, and he can proceed in discovering the values that further his live-- both body and spirit (consciousness). "Duty" is your unexplained whim.
CJMAC78 5 months ago
@CJMAC78 ''extended human life, and the quality of it''
With industrialization creating stress and promoting inactivity, this has actually hampered our life expectancy's increase. Poor nutrition, mixed in with our rate consumerism, has forced food companies to sacrifice quality for quantity, thank supply and demand. You have the illusion of quality. The amount of childhood mandated vaccinations is conditioning our immune system to become weaker, and thereby, leaving us prone to more (cont)
07Aristotle 6 months ago
@07Aristotle This is the root of all your sides evil. You mean to tell me that the GREATEST country on earth--which citizens experienced an increase in the quality of living NEVER BEFORE SEEN- is the cause for all these depraved positions you mention? That the factories and machines, the medicine and its practitioners, that a political theory of individual rights and men who understood them. YOU TELL ME WHAT THE QUALITY OF LIFE WAS BEFORE INTELLIGENT MEN TOOK THEM FROM KINGS AND TRIBES!
CJMAC78 5 months ago
@CJMAC78 ''Yeah, discovering the cure to diseases, clean water, electric power, motorized transportation, etc. couldn't possibly have any value, huh?''
Dollars and cents, First and foremost.
''All those people who refuse to see that value and how it comes about sure "cling" to those values with a ferociousness that can only be matched by a hungry animal.''
You're equivocating, don't be a moron.
07Aristotle 5 months ago
@07Aristotle You mean self-interest is the driving force in every great discover? Wow, no shit.
"You're equivocating, don't be a moron." You're ignoring the very fucking reality you live in.
CJMAC78 5 months ago
@CJMAC78 ''You're ignoring the very fucking reality you live in. ''
Look up the definition of equivocation.
''YES that's exactly what I mean''
Civility and industrializing have completely different meanings.
''"Straw man" Causality''
Look up the definition of straw man please.
''What? The industrial era took place during the 19th century--when America was most free''
I meant free from ways of old agriculture.
07Aristotle 5 months ago
@07Aristotle All my previous answers apply. It's not a "straw man", if you ignore the word "causality" at ever turn.
CJMAC78 5 months ago
@CJMAC78 ''You mean to tell me that the GREATEST country on earth--which citizens experienced an increase in the quality of living NEVER BEFORE SEEN- is the cause for all these depraved positions you mention?''
Yes, its a combinations of special interest groups, leverage, and financial growth. As a result, our national debt to china far exceeds our net-worth as a country. They basically own us. You're such a hyperborean, you're so innocent.
'
07Aristotle 5 months ago
@07Aristotle What? The industrial era took place during the 19th century--when America was most free. It's your duty stricken altruism that has overrun the last 100 years. If you really think ANYONE who is for free market capitalism finds these markets "free", you really are out of your mind. Furthermore, Ayn Rand, called for a complete separation of 'state and economics'. The regulations on industry are ENDLESS!
CJMAC78 5 months ago
@CJMAC78 ''If you really think ANYONE who is for free market capitalism finds these markets "free", you really are out of your mind.''
If you have money then you matter.
''Furthermore, Ayn Rand, called for a complete separation of 'state and economics'''
Great, more areas she can superimpose her catchphrases.
07Aristotle 5 months ago
@07Aristotle Who was it talking about a "straw man". Right...
CJMAC78 5 months ago
@CJMAC78 ''However, let's say the irrational man uses pure sugar, and the rational man uses Crest toothpaste..''
Irrelevant, it is not a good or evil thing to use pure sugar on your teeth, it is not prudent. Because we know it is detrimental to your teeth. Whether it is a question of prolonging your life is ridiculous. We did not come this far along the evolutionary chain because we brushed our teeth.
07Aristotle 6 months ago
@CJMAC78 True, choice factors in, but whether you kill someone or not will determine the responsibility/irresponsibility of that choice.
''The first think your emotional master told you was-- take your mind out of the equation. ''
No, he does not. On the contrary he advocates the use of your mind, reason. Kant states that the moral imperative is motivated by what is rational. He said what is moral is what is rational. It is better to make a choice on reason.
07Aristotle 6 months ago
@07Aristotle No, he clearly decided your consciousness has no requirements. That it is somehow apart from the rest of reality... Oh, I hold reason as an absolute, and by choice.
CJMAC78 6 months ago
@CJMAC78 ''If I know longer derived happiness from my wife, I'd have a serious evaluation of both her, and myself.''
This is exactly my point, in this instance, your wife's feelings or highest motivation turn obsolete. Hence, because, you could no longer derive the feeling of happiness from her, in any case, the fact that your with her for 15 yrs does not matter in such a context. What you value is more important.
07Aristotle 6 months ago
@07Aristotle You act as if some whim of the moment makes this possible.. The love I feel for my wife is based on values that are real. She isn't some mindless zombie, nor is anyone else. As I clearly pointed out before, if my wife betrayed her values, I would leave. If she became a whore, risked the life of our child, disappeared, etc. Yes, I'd leave. However, duty would demand you stay. What value is your morality holding up in these cases?
CJMAC78 6 months ago
@CJMAC78 Though, what is between your wife and you is real, it is contingent on emotion and feelings. This is not what objectivity is. Remember, you have choice and you will always have choice. The choice to do something out of capriciousness or duty. Your choice.
07Aristotle 6 months ago
@07Aristotle Her character is an OBJECTIVE fact of reality. If she betrayed it, she'd be contradicting what I valued in her... That is real. It's not a duty that I choose not to cheat on my wife. It's a matter of my personal desire to be a man of integrity. It's in my interest to make my wife happy by living up to my word. Are you honest out of "duty"? I mean, do you find no personal selfish value in your character, or those you values character?
CJMAC78 6 months ago
@CJMAC78 ''Her character is an OBJECTIVE fact of reality''
No, that characteristic is dependent on her, NOT independent of her. It is inter-subjective. If I can touch her characteristic then we are talking about objectivity, but it is a dependent, REAL human characteristic.
''living up to my word''<<<<=====''Are you honest out of "duty"?''
^^Implies duty/responsibility. ^^Your honest out of word, promise and you keeping that would require duty to that promise, your word is biding you.
07Aristotle 6 months ago
@07Aristotle Yes, and she exists as a conscious being. She can be judged by her character. Unless... Unless your saying a person can be judged as anything at anytime, and that their character is meaningless, that it's not "real". That's a choice of my character, not duty. I have no feeling of "duty" in this regard, it's in my rational self-interest.
CJMAC78 6 months ago
@CJMAC78 ''Unless... Unless your saying a person can be judged as anything at anytime, and that their character is meaningless, that it's not "real".''
Your wife, herself, is objective because she is tangible. I never said that her character is meaningless, only, that it is an inter-subjective reality. Please don't straw man my position. You need to refresh yourself on actual definitions my friend.
07Aristotle 6 months ago
@CJMAC78 There is no promise of evasion of unpleasantness in relationships, according to the categorical imperative, morality is what is rational. Is it rational to stay with someone that has cheated on you, wasted her talent, and spits in her own face? But emotional unpleasantness in relationships is something completely different; disagreements, bad days, bad communication, prioritizing, finances as these all can be overcome with, categorical imperative based, duty.
07Aristotle 6 months ago
@07Aristotle While you're driven by a "feeling" (one I OBVIOUSLY don't feel) to perform "duty", but you have no objective basis for why you should perform duty. The question your code ultimately evades is the purpose of your duty... What ultimate goal does your duty deliver you? It can't be pleasure, or happiness for yourself.. Well, since that would mean you cheated your system, huh? So, what is the purpose of your morality? It's mankind that Kant completely left out of his morality.
CJMAC78 6 months ago
@CJMAC78 Your boss and loved ones would agree that ''choosing'' not to come to work because of pleasure would be irresponsible. You have a the responsibility to be a good sumerian, you have a responsibility to be a good father, you have a responsibility to be a good employee, you have a responsibility to be a good husband etc. Whether or not you choose, which I agree with, to comply with responsibility that is up to you. I'm not saying you do not have a choice, you do.
07Aristotle 6 months ago
@07Aristotle "Choosing" not to go to work would be irresponsible had I made a commitment. I assume I'd entered into an agreement to mutual benefit... However, if I decided not to go to work, it would be because my boss failed to meet his end of the contractual agreement (as we are contractual animals); and since I'm not working out of duty, it's the right decision.
CJMAC78 6 months ago
@CJMAC78 Responsibilities/duties exist regardless of whether you do it out of pleasure or responsibilities/duties. You can ignore duties/responsibilities all day long, that does not mean they do not exist. Love or contract ties these actions to responsibilities/duties. Pleasure is just a byproduct of an action. If you want to base your choices on pleasure, I could say you could have a responsibility toward pleasure.
Why cannot good will effect you and the person it is being expressed to?
07Aristotle 6 months ago
@07Aristotle The good will toward those I love is not a sacrifice, nor any kind of duty. It's a choice of action people I value, and their reciprocation is one of my greatest selfish pleasure. Because that value is real and not set apart from the ultimate goal: Your own life.
CJMAC78 6 months ago
@CJMAC78 Whatever you think, as I said before, pleasure is always a byproduct of an action; a reaction. Pleasure is dependent on action and if it is dependent on us acting,therefore, it must be subjective. You value a person, so long, as they please you but there is no relationship to that person. If your relationship is based on a ''pleasure principle'' you can never promise to value them because eventually they lose their hedonistic value.
07Aristotle 6 months ago
@07Aristotle I value the character of my wife. It is her dedication to her happiness; she is productive, beautiful, intelligent, and proud of it. I want her happiness and for her to find happiness in me. It is my selfish pleasure I derive from it... However, according to your Kantian duty, I should love her if she betrayed her values: cheated on me, wasted her talent, and spit in her own face... How very "objective" of Mr. Kant, huh?
CJMAC78 6 months ago
@CJMAC78 Check out opponent process theory; it states that things that once give you pleasure, over time, eventually decrease to restore equilibrium. That is why you hear of ''gate-way'' drugs because one drug eventually loses its ''pleasing'' affect, then the other more stronger affective drug gives you a better high. But is that really how you see your loved ones as drugs? I believe it is unethical to even view them as sources of pleasure.
07Aristotle 6 months ago
@07Aristotle Damn... I thought I answered this. Anyway... If you in fact think that your pleasure/pain mechanism has no purpose in your life, and that it makes no difference if you eat garbage or a steak dinner, drink poison or water, or even eat at all... Well, the joke is truly on you. My wife is the embodiment of my values in another human being-- and if I betrayed her, I'd be betraying myself. I think it's unethical to remove "the pursuit of happiness" from the purpose of human life.
CJMAC78 6 months ago
@CJMAC78 The basic distinction between us is, on this example, that I would not mind to eat good food over not so good food, or eat not so good food over good food. I would rather have food to eat anyways, but pleasure-sufficing food, that you would rather have, is a demand you place on yourself because something has to please you, in this case good food. Your assumption is that ''pursuit of happiness'' only operates on a ''pleasure principle'', but objects of pleasure are never permanent.
07Aristotle 6 months ago
@07Aristotle You can say that when a meal never pleases you. I choose a good meal, precisely because my life is a value. My highest value. Your morality places you as insignificant.
CJMAC78 6 months ago
@CJMAC78 '' You can say that when a meal never pleases you. I choose a good meal, precisely because my life is a value.''
A good meal is not detrimental to you being alive, it is just a luxury. You valuing your life has nothing to do luxuries. I agree, assuring your survival should be a foremost value, but this is not contingent on having the good, luxurious, pleasant things in life. Pleasure is not linked to survival self-preservation or ''survival of the fittest'' mentality.
07Aristotle 6 months ago
@07Aristotle The fact you'll likely eat a dinner tonight that brings you 'pleasure', is the proof that my chosen moral code has your 'happiness' in mind. You better eat dry rice and water for dinner, otherwise.
CJMAC78 6 months ago
@CJMAC78 I admitted you cannot escape pleasure, but responsibilities/duties are objective, they are independent of natural human inclinations and wants. Pleasure is just a natural biological side effect, along with pain. They are, again, by products on human action(s) or decision(s). Duties/responsibilities are not natural biological side effects and, therefore, not dependent on human sentience, hence their being objective.
07Aristotle 6 months ago
@07Aristotle Man is a natural part of the universe. Your moral teacher started off by setting man apart from the rest of reality. You cannot decide what is in the objective interest of anything, by setting it apart from everything.
CJMAC78 6 months ago
@CJMAC78 All Kant is promotes is that moral judgments should not be made on the motivation of achieving personal pleasure, but on establishing good or ''good will'', as he defines it. You want to achieve happiness for your loved ones on the basis of pleasure, and not duties/responsibilities, but I ask you: Are there no obligations that would bind you to the ones you love? Could you love them one day and physically abuse them the next day? Nothing would stop you because no obligations bind you.
07Aristotle 6 months ago
@07Aristotle Good will? For whom and for what?... Not you! Is it duty that keeps you from turning on those you love? Do you personally hate those close to you? What kind of person turns on his loved one so quickly....
CJMAC78 6 months ago
@CJMAC78 Hence, duties/responsibilities only give you that obligation and therefore without duties/responsibilities obligations would not be present.
I'm not sure ''oughts'' are fickle, or arbitrary for that matter, and I can not see value existing without duties/responsibilities to it.
07Aristotle 6 months ago
@07Aristotle It's the fact that I love them out of choice and not duty, that makes it all the more beautiful. No duties or obligations are present... I have choices.
CJMAC78 6 months ago
@CJMAC78....will have the opposite effect, being that, this would be a means to an end for objective morality. Hence, the means are not dependent on our sentience, but on our good sense. Inherently good acts have essentially a non-selfish fundementality to them and by this can a moral act be thus derived objectively.
07Aristotle 6 months ago
@CJMAC78 Our species, with our competitive instinct to survive, creates a hostile enviornment to our nieghbor, as we see them as obstacles to our survival. Our being selfish and pleasure-seeking depends on us and, thus, also our means to an end for subjective morality. Conversely non-selfish, altruistic behavior (cont)
07Aristotle 6 months ago
@CJMAC78 I would like to distinguish between what is subjective and objective knowing of good for the individual. Pleasure and pain are contingent on human sentience; we have no "duty" except to ourselves and our self-preservation as a natural instinct. Such a society will promote a darwinian morality.
07Aristotle 6 months ago
@07Aristotle Man has no automatic code of morality and no automatic knowledge. or desire to live for that matter... I don't recognize duty, so it's really your subjective whim placing this ideal above what my mind knows better than..
CJMAC78 6 months ago
@CJMAC78 Would it be ethical and rational for a woman to stay with an abusive husband? Because reason is what kant's categorial imperative proports--it is a duty and morality with its fundamentals in reason.
07Aristotle 6 months ago
@CJMAC78 I dont think you can reconcile the concepts of selfishness and pleasure-seeking with any sort of objectivity. Anything objective exists regardless of the individual, in otherwords, its cause is not contingent on human sentience. Feelings ''love'', selfishness, and pleasure-seeking behavior are contingent on the human and it is therefore subjective. Duty applies to objective concepts of moral questions.
07Aristotle 6 months ago
@07Aristotle Is human life somehow exempt from the whole of the universe? Can man live be any random means, or does he have to KNOW what is good for him; what will bring him pleasure, or pain? You completely set mankind outside the realm of reality, and propose he's incapable of knowing what is actually good for him by the standard of human existence as such, and place his own life as of no personal value at all. Do you truly believe your own mind so useless that you must sacrifice it to others?
CJMAC78 6 months ago
No one is calling for a DUTY to be self-reliant, it is however an IDEAL.
caniacstanleycup 6 months ago