Robin Yergenson wrote:Hi Metacrock and Miles,
I would like to point out the at every moment of our adult lives we have the ability to improve another person’s life at the expense of our own. As Jesus said, the poor you will have always, but me you will not have always. We are consciously choosing to obtain and retain goodness for ourselves when we could be finding ways (and there are lots of ways) to benefit others instead. So, are we all self interested? Yes, and rightly so. Are we all swines? Hardly. While we’re all self interested, there are those who rightly recognize self interest to be the basis for their entire value chain and whose self interested actions are known to be right and good, and there are those who just don’t grasp that fact so even though they act in self interested ways, they are confused about those actions being justified and so they feel morally wrong.
self interest is swinish when it is to the exclusion of the good of others. When we put our good ahead of others we are sinning. That's what sin is. But of cousre there's a limit. This has to be understood in a context of "reasonable extent" becuase I can always find millions of people to pour myself out for and I wont go that far. I could only reasonably benefit two are three people in a major sense, then maybe a few hundred indirectly. Some people rationalize never helping anyone.
We have agreed that there is a reasonable range in which our self interest is important but I think we agree there's a time to put other first, no? To everything there is a season.
I am of the former group. You, the latter. Now, does this mean that we should not be charitable to others? Not in the least. It only means that there is a proper context, a hierarchy of values, and when we are charitable in ways that benefit us (whether positively by feeling uplifted through the empathy that we experience in the good deed, or negatively by avoiding the self loathing that we are genetically predisposed with) then it is of value. But this benefit must be greater than the deficit in order to be moral, so for instance plucking your eyes out and donating them for scientific research because it makes you feel warm and fuzzy won’t cut it.
that would fit what I said above we are in agreement there. I can do more good for more people with both eyes. Its' not in the interest of valuing others to blind myself. That's inefficient use.
You have both made statements like the one Miles offered earlier when he said,
mdsimpson: I think there comes a point where there is a high responsibility to the community.
And since I was getting frustrated with such unjustified, skyhook, whim-based opinions, I had said, “Regarding a ‘higher’ morality, neither of you has attempted to demonstrate it, so either you are both being willfully evasive or you have no demonstration and agree that a morality that sacrifices self in order to benefit others has no base, is arbitrary, and is in fact immoral.”
I think we have demonstrated it. you are rationalizing again. You really want to put yourself ahead and not sacrifice. that's how it comes across to me.
Metacrock has now responded with,
Metacrock: You are just rationalizing your own way rather than seeking God. Selflessness for the sake of love is the higher value.
I am a broken record.
Well, I am trying to think well by looking for an objective basis rooted in reality itself for proper moral action. If that’s what you mean then yep, I’m rationalizing.
value is not objective. you can't find a "objective" reaosn to value anything. there is no objective proof in nature to value one thing as opposed to another. no reason why we should look for one. there's no reason objectivity should be such a high value that's' the only way to think about things. people have forgotten the true nature of value becuase they are trying to prove it with idiotic scinece.
science can't tell us how to live!
Now, let’s test your assumption that “Selflessness for the sake of love is the higher value.” The term “love” carries a lot of mystic but when you break it down to its essence it is nothing more than a deeply felt value and feelings do not define objective value.
there is no such thing. values cannot be objective. all you are trying to tie the aura of the scientific upon the subjective as though it's a sanctification of your own desires.
referring to lose as "mystic" is not a disproof of the concept. That's really just using one value to argue against another. Values connect scientific.
One of the impetuses of 20th century scinece was "value free research."
Science doesn't value values!
you are violating Hume's fork. Every time I think we are making progress you prove to me that you really are just another reductionist with no values beyond pseudo scinece of hyper empiricism.
Recall that a being with preferences, one who values, or more simply a “self” is required for the notion of value (including deep objective value) to be coherent. And recall that it is this fact that puts self at the deepest position on our hierarchy of values. What you are promoting then is that it is morally right to pursue a lesser value at the expense of a greater value.
you think stipulating the need for self in formation of values justifies selfishness? that's merely misuse of speech. Self can turn outward to others. Being "self" dose not necessitate selfishness. It's the paradox of Kierkegaard, lose yourself you find yourself. This is what Jesus talked about it, "he who loses his life for my sake shall find it."
Really? When we check to see the roots of this kind of behavior you find that it is just a cleverly disguised form of “sacrifice self for the benefit of your genes” pseudo morality and those who do it well are dead before their time. The world’s religions have all conformed to it and made it seem more palatable. There is a genetic benefit, but we have no moral obligation to our genes. And yes, the beneficiary benefits too, but you have yet to come up with a reason why we ought to sacrifice ourself for others.
what are you talking about here? you are confusing two different things.
I most certainly have told you exactly why we should sacrifice ourselves for other: becuase it's right. it's the basis act of love. Love is the background of the moral universe.
Lose si certainly not veg. you merely avoid reading philosophers who can talk about it. aka Neiburh, Fletcher, Augustine. Love =
the will to the good of the other.
Finally, I had said, “So long as our existence is required in order to coherently discuss those things that are of value to us, our existence is at the bottom of our value chain, whether we grasp that fact or not.” Metacrock responded,
Metacrock: That's a rationalization born by the belief that we have no after life. If we are spiritual beings and if we live on after death in some form then we are not limited by this life. thus our temporal survival is not the greatest value.
Rob:No, there is another kind of survival. I said previously that the stuff (whether spirit stuff, soul stuff, material stuff) that we are of, the stuff that constitutes us is necessarily eternal stuff (ex nihilo nihil fit).
another kind but it's trivial. It's temporal, sort, like the due of morning soon Gone. the other is permanent, eternal.
But it’s quite a stretch to conclude that our infinite other existences are affected by the choices made in this life.
why? what streach? it explains perfectly why we are given a brief time on earth before eternity. We have a chance to make choices and the choices we make determine what happens. that's logical.
No, what we have a justified basis to conclude is that the context for moral action is this life, not the sweet sweet by and by.
You are casting it in those terms to discourage the realization of the emptiness of your value system and the temporarily of your views. It's a distortion of what I said becasue obviously what I said pertains to this life too.If it doesn't why talk of choices? The overall value system is only meaningful in relation to metaphysical reality. A value system rooted only in materialism and this life is not a value system at all. Its' an anti-value system because you are actually teaching the dis value of all real values.
The morality that you are promoting was correctly identified by Nietzsche to be nihilism (stripping this life of significance and meaning in order to invest in an afterlife).
Nietzsche was a fool. He was insane and he wanted to promote his won sense of self worship above all other values. Just because he made a declaration doesn't prove he's right.
The fact that you are alive today tells me that deep down you agree. Your just a little confused on what's really at bottom.
Rob
what utter bull shit. I'm alive because God saved me life and prevent me from killing myself.
If your view is correct you should be able to prove it, not appeal to your favorite immoral thinkers but by scientific data. You must show me some science that proves what values should be. where do you begin? you don't have a starting point.
The materialist/syndicalist must strat from his own selfish desire because his only frame of reference apart form dead matter. With belief in God comes a built in ethical system that is tied to the existence of God. If as long belief in God rationally warranted so are the values he teaches.
.