As more of us interact on a given thread it does become confusing trying to determine who responded to who. Have you ever looked at what it would take to move to the branching thread system that CARM uses? It seems like it goes hand-in-hand with increased participation which is a good thing.
Metacrock: I am not saying that you personally are selfish. I understand we are not arguing about whether or not to value humans but where to the draw the line in personal sacrifice. Sorry If I got feisty.
When I speak of "selfish monster" I am speaking of human nature, what we all have, not anyone person in particular.
Thanks for clarifying. And since you are toning down your feistiness, I'll tone down my response that I had prepared. But before moving to it, I would like to clarify that I am a very selfish person. Everything I do is ultimately motivated by personal benefit to me personally. I work hard to provide for my family and to be valued by my company, I exchange value with my friends, family, and coworkers, I try to expose the error in our human society, and on and on, all because I derive actual personal selfish benefit by doing so. I make no attempt to label this ultimate motive for self benefit a negative thing in any sense. Rather, as I have demonstrated, it is the proper basis for action of any kind. The real negative, the real monster that needs exposed is stupidity which results in innocent error. Why do people cheat? Stupidity. Why do people behave is self destructive ways? Stupidity. Why do people prey on people? Stupidity. At bottom, the root of a moral evil is not selfishness. It is believing something to be true that isn’t, and then acting on that belief, forming entire world views rooted in such error. The common enemy of us all that we should recognize and be allied against is what? Stupidity.
Now, for context, I have claimed,
1. As rational volitional beings, we have to grasp enough of the essentials about reality so that when we choose to act in order to obtain some goal, we obtain our goal a sufficient amount of time. This is what we “ought” to do.
2. Entailed in this broadest condition of “oughts,” we also have to determine what it is that we "ought" to act to obtain. Now, it is our nature as an organism to prefer to live and thrive. In terms of value, since nothing will be of value to me if I no longer exist, I need to maintain my existence in order to make value of any kind coherent in any sense. That’s because things do not have intrinsic value. Value is only coherent with respect to a valuer. So then, that most fundamental value of living and thriving needs to be recognized as our deepest value and the basis for all our actions.
Metocrock: That’s because you bought into the big lie that life ends and we don't live on. We do live on. There's more to life than life. We sacrifice for others we are not just throwing away what we have we are making our lives more meaningful.
Well, not exactly. Because ex nihilo nihil fit (from nothing comes nothing) is a fact, and because the inverse (that which is something cannot become nothing) is also a fact, that which we are of, our fundamental essence, whether it be mind-stuff, spirit-stuff, material-stuff, whatever the stuff of Rob and Metacrock is, is necessarily eternal (change too, cannot come from or become nothing). So, even though there may be astronomically long stretches between states of conscious existence, conscious existence is what we have done an infinite number of times and it is what we will do an infinite number of times. But how does that change my two claims (1 and 2 above) in any way? And you say,
Metocrock: That's not a human response it's a selfish monster response. Believing the lie of materialism really cuts you off from the good. Making yourself the no one priority of your life you cut yourself off from the good of others.
I have demonstrated an integrated basis for morality based on rational self interest. You need to demonstrate the error and to offer an integrated basis for your moral presuppositions. You say,
Metocrock: The reasons for rejecting can't be that "I am no 1 on my own hit parade and so much more important than anyone else."
• Do you agree that it is our nature as rational beings to prefer to live and thrive? If not why not?
• Do you agree that it is important to avoid pursuing a lesser value at the expense of a greater value? If not why not?
• Do you agree that values require a valuer so that our values, those things that benefit us absolutely whether we grasp it or not, can only be our values when we exist? If not why not?
If you do not agree to these things, please demonstrate the error. If you do agree with these things, then please explain to me how it is that our own life is not at the bottom of our personal chain of values. And please share with us what you do consider to be at bottom and demonstrate why you think so. I have avoided arbitrariness in my demonstration of self interest as the basis for all moral action. Let’s see you try that with your moral system. Please don’t disagree just for the sake of disagreeing. We cannot expect to make progress that way. Where is the error that exists between us?