Mandinka2 said:
OK Good morning all , I left off here - well we need to reintroduce what I wrote here or else we'll get muddled:
I am not suggesting ANYTHING , or at least I didnt up to this post ,my posts were simply aimed at pointing out the deficiencies in your argument , and in fact its strength (its acknowledgement of man's nature). Interesting that we're kinda edging closer to Nietzche here lol . In any case I do NOT suggest mere subsistence or any of the other mediocrities you mention but the problem is , has always been "if morally obtained and rational" because you must first answer the question :who sets the morals , what are the nature of morals and how can we be sure that the guardian of these morals has both society's and his own interests at heart. I don't think this is entirely possible sadly.
It is entirely impossible for those, such as yourself, who continue to claim that such attempts are futile, mainly because you hold to the concepts of Universal Skepticism. When you believe that morality is a social construct of "others", "society", "the Bourgeousie", "God", whatever, and not a set of principles which are discovered through the use of human reasoning, then you won't ever "find" them. Although in real life you hold to concepts that have been given to you by others -you don't wish to live in a world without rules and limitations, you want restrictions placed on what others may do to you -in our debate you cling to your intellectual abyss of skepticism: "who's morality?", "who decides these morals", "we can't ever really know", blah, blah, blah.....
To answer your question: reality is, it is axiomatic -yes there are philosophies of ignorance which question this, but they are fools, so please do not present them -and man must understand it to live life. Man's only advantage over all of the beasts is his rational capacity, it is his guide in life. Morals are the principles of human action which deal with "good" and "bad", with regards to self and others. Discarding legal systems, can you not reason why murder is wrong? Can you not reason why theft is wrong? Can you not fathom why a society where such actions were allowed would not be one where individuals would care to exist? If you can determine why such actions would not be reasonable to accept, then you have discovered a moral concept. While I may not be murdered or robbed immediately, my chances are high, if I live in a society where such actions are condoned. Even if I steal and rob, I have little protection in such a society, thus MY life and property are constantly threatened.
You seem to think that selfishness implies disregard for others, this is not true. I can be selfish and very giving, for giving often rewards the person with pleasure, a sense of happiness for such actions. When you try to imply that selfishness equates to radical anarchism, where each man attempts to live in solitude only for his own goal, with no regard for his fellow man, you describe the IRRATIONAL selfishness, which I am not considering. Man must live in the context of his world, since that is for most of us "society", then I must live rationally in society, often times in an irrational society.
Once again you do "sometimes" : perhaps you are "working" to generate tobacco products which any actuary will tell you are a mind boggling draw upon the health resources of a country
I have already discussed such ideas in other threads. Society has no rights, only individuals. Men trade for goods of desire; if men wish to smoke, this is their right, but they must accept the consequences of their actions, especially now that greater knowledge of its health effects are known. If men can prove that they were misled or a product was tainted, etc. then they have a right to take such issues to court.
This "health resources of a country" crap is socialistic smoke and mirrors. Have YOU ever questioned how did this "country" create its healthcare system without individuals?? How did it coordinate all of those resources to create a system of medicine?? Once you accept that individuals create the industries of a nation, each individual doing so for various reasons, then you accept that you are not "drawing upon" or "costing" anything. You are merely doing business. Does the hospital owner complain that he is doing MORE business because of certain illnesses, such as smoking related illnesses? And do not present the idea of "lost productivity", since all productivity is the individual's, no country or company can lay claim to the efforts of any person.
you are pre-supposing the existence of an entire set of morals without questioning where they came from , who taught them , what incentives were there for the teachers to teach them , all questions which might involve conflicts with the idea of individual maximisation of utility.
No...you are pre-supposing that I accept all doctrines espoused as morality. I do not. Part of being rational is the ability to question, to investigate to reason, to study, to judge and decide. You imply that man simply is a sponge absorbing words others tell him, but with no capacity to filter out that which is incorrect; I state that man has this capacity, not that many men do this, but it is within their nature.
Secondly this idea of "caring" for others , as Schopenhauer famously wrote , "why care ?" , what purpose is served on the individual to care for others if that care is not returned in kind ? It is not always rational to care you see.
What the hell are you talking about?? When the hell did I ever mention anything about "caring" indiscriminately?
You know I have read Marx , but I do not see your connection: can you quote a passage please? "My" idea of the relative prioritasation of "WANTS" and "NEEDS" is pretty much enforced in successful societies ,taught down through generations so that males will care for their families rather than follow their natural drive to mate with as many fertile females as possible (just a poor example I concede).
And you are telling me that you cannot reason why such actions are "good", are superior to indiscriminate promiscuity? You cannot fathom why monogamy promotes a greater benefit to the formation of functional families and societies than mere "fuck em and run" life?
The reference was to Marx's: "From each according to his ability, To each according to his needs."
Well there's no need to get rattled chum - check your post - you defined rational selfishness as one which "promotes (societal) good"
No, it promotes the self-interest of the individual, which does NOT contradict with life in society. I can live for my self-interests and it not detract from my life in society, in fact it can have the external effect of promoting good in society. If I live a moral life, do not harm others, and start a company, which becomes very prosperous and hires many people in the area, and provides a good that many people desire, and I raise my children to be good moral individuals, who go on to become successful, and I die and grant my estate to my wife and children and leave some to charities of my choosing...Have I not lived life for myself AND provided things for society???
and irrational selfishness as one contravening the CURRENT moral laws we find in the West but you also say: "Since it is a virtue of man to be rational, for it benefits him over irrationality". Now hopefully you are smiling to yourself and realising that this was another oversight on your part because you are saying rationalism is that which de facto benefits society and not neccessarily the individual ! (HINT: This is not rational! )
You must be joking, right??? You are attempting to claim that man, as individual, DOES NOT benefit from his rational capacity; that somehow living as primitives, believing that eclipses are caused by moon gods, believing that illnesses are due to demons, is better than using his capacity to understand his world????
The individual is the only rational agent in society; society has no rational capacity. All which society has is FROM the individual. So, when new medicine is created it is due to individuals, not "country" or "state". Man's efforts are for his benefit and have the external benefit of helping others.
"that man, as individual, must adhere to morality for optimal existence"
Why ? This is also irrational , whose morality , let me guess - societies ? And then you're back to contradicting yourself because you are now forcing socieites wants ahead of the individual's in the mind (via "morality") of the individual.
I give up...you will continue to throw out this diatribe of philosophical skepticism.
Go ahead and continue living life blind; I prefer to use my ability to reason.
It is interesting indeed that at the end you are conceding that the unbridled "wanting" , the "irrational selfishness" you defined earlier is a "good" thing.
I never implied this for I explained that I was discussing "RATIONAL" selfishness.
Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
