Ethical question

[velvett]

I'd negotiate.

 

[Imakarum_Mirabilis]

I'd easily kill a million. Most people are only there to create a base of the lowly that builds up to the peak of a pyramid that represents the mighty.

 

[plornive]

This is a very good question. They would have to read my mind to see who was most important to me though because even I don't know.

I don't have kids so I'm with plornive on this one. Fuck dying.

I had this conversation with my friends one day only much more watered down. I have this theory that I have to be happy in order to make other people happy. The easiest way to make other people happy is to be happy yourself and have a smile on your face. SO there is no point in subordinating my happiness to the happiness of others, especially if I don't know them.

SO anyway I asked my friend, if you had a choice between delivering a punch to a completely random stranger, or being punched yourself, which would you choose? He and my other friend both responded with "I would choose to be punched." I think that's crazy. Moreover, they think I am crazy because I would choose to punch.

I am a known quantity. I know I am a good person and have the ability to spread happiness. The stranger is an unknown quantity. I think that there is no way of knowing for sure but overall what is best for the world is to punch the stranger. To decide to be punched shows a level of self-loathing that I do not understand. It's almost like you are selling yourself short.

Does this make sense? plornive?

I like the "known quantity" analysis. My consciousness is the only thing I can verify. I also agree with your "self-loathing" comment. I totally agree with you.

From an outside perspective, selflessness changes nothing. Either way, someone is going to die. It might as well not be me.

 

[Lumberg]

Either way, someone is going to die. It might as well not be me.

That's my argument in a nutshell.

 

[atlantabiolab]

This is a very good question. They would have to read my mind to see who was most important to me though because even I don't know.

I don't have kids so I'm with plornive on this one. Fuck dying.

I had this conversation with my friends one day only much more watered down. I have this theory that I have to be happy in order to make other people happy. The easiest way to make other people happy is to be happy yourself and have a smile on your face. SO there is no point in subordinating my happiness to the happiness of others, especially if I don't know them.

Being happy aids in affecting the emotional state of others, for others do not like to be surrounded by unhappy people, but being a selfish animal, you act good towards others, not for altruistic reasons, but because you selfishly derive pleasure from the happiness of those you act upon. When you realize that acting "good", -doing good acts, giving gifts, saying pleasant things, -rewards you with the pleasure of seeing and knowing others' happiness, then acting "good" no longer is conceived as a chore or inconvenient. You realize that the act is the means to the end, pleasure.

You must act to derive pleasure from life, it is not an innate state.

SO anyway I asked my friend, if you had a choice between delivering a punch to a completely random stranger, or being punched yourself, which would you choose? He and my other friend both responded with "I would choose to be punched." I think that's crazy. Moreover, they think I am crazy because I would choose to punch.

Your decision is made from emotion, not ethics. It is similar to the way animals exist. You don't want the pain of the blow, but this has nothing to do with what is "good", for your decision has made you "bad", by becoming the person who is commiting an immoral act. To prevent personal pain, you have become an inflicter of pain.

I am a known quantity. I know I am a good person and have the ability to spread happiness. The stranger is an unknown quantity. I think that there is no way of knowing for sure but overall what is best for the world is to punch the stranger. To decide to be punched shows a level of self-loathing that I do not understand. It's almost like you are selling yourself short.

You cannot be a "good" person by commiting "bad" actions. Ethics and morality are derivations of actions, not your opinion of yourself. Each person IS a known quantity, they have known rights, of which you would be violating if you choose to be the deliverer of pain. If each person were not equal, then our system of law is based on lies, and then we could all, with impunity, act towards others in any manner we wished. Your concept allows for all manner of corruption and evil to spread, all for the sole purpose of reducing personal discomfort.

To decide to be punched is the ethically correct answer, for you retain the authority of moral law by not becoming a criminal to reduce your personal discomfort. By taking the blow, you have the authority of moral law on your side, which in a society that respects the rule of law, permits you to take actions against the immoral person, with the full force of society on your side.

 

[biteme]

Being happy aids in affecting the emotional state of others, for others do not like to be surrounded by unhappy people, but being a selfish animal, you act good towards others, not for altruistic reasons, but because you selfishly derive pleasure from the happiness of those you act upon. When you realize that acting "good", -doing good acts, giving gifts, saying pleasant things, -rewards you with the pleasure of seeing and knowing others' happiness, then acting "good" no longer is conceived as a chore or inconvenient. You realize that the act is the means to the end, pleasure.

You must act to derive pleasure from life, it is not an innate state.

I do not agree. Sometimes doing what is best for others may cause you pain, not pleasure. And besides, everyone benefits from a selfless person.

 

[atlantabiolab]

Re: Re: Ethical question

The death of the person closest to me. It would be awful to know that person died. I am selfish and independent, though.

Such a thing would be liberating while agonizing.

Since the purpose of living is to "be" happy, this action acts counter to this idea. You save your life, by intentionally handing over your most valuable possession to death. So you have killed a major source of your happiness and compounded it with the lifelong realization that you enabled it.

This is irrationally selfish.

 

[atlantabiolab]

Being happy aids in affecting the emotional state of others, for others do not like to be surrounded by unhappy people, but being a selfish animal, you act good towards others, not for altruistic reasons, but because you selfishly derive pleasure from the happiness of those you act upon. When you realize that acting "good", -doing good acts, giving gifts, saying pleasant things, -rewards you with the pleasure of seeing and knowing others' happiness, then acting "good" no longer is conceived as a chore or inconvenient. You realize that the act is the means to the end, pleasure.

You must act to derive pleasure from life, it is not an innate state.

I do not agree. Sometimes doing what is best for others may cause you pain, not pleasure.

Since you did not elaborate, I must assume you are still on topic, which is dealing with preventing physical pain or inflicting physical pain. I do not talk of promoting the "good" in reference to purely physical pleasure, but mainly the cognitive sense of right and wrong. Sometimes accepting the physical pain promotes my emotional pleasure, for I value the protection of the other over the value of my own pleasure. This is the foundation of parenting. I value providing for another person, my child, more than leaving him to his own abilities, in order to pursue purely personal aims. This former decision gives me greater emotional and rational pleasure than the latter, which is purely physical.

If we used the idea of acting only in order to promote physical pleasure, then we would have to accept rape, incest, theft, physical assaults, murder, etc., for each one of these have attached situations of promoting one's physical pleasure or protecting one from physical discomfort. We do not accept these acts as "good" for we do not consider the fact that one may derive pleasure or prevent one's harm from them; we look at the implications of the acts on the recepients who are being deprived their happiness.

And besides, everyone benefits from a selfless person.

Except the selfless person. This is why altruism is irrational, it does not the promote the happiness of the moral agent, it makes him the slave of humanity.

 

[biteme]

I do not agree. Sometimes doing what is best for others may cause you pain, not pleasure.

Since you did not elaborate, I must assume you are still on topic, which is dealing with preventing physical pain or inflicting physical pain. I do not talk of promoting the "good" in reference to purely physical pleasure, but mainly the cognitive sense of right and wrong. Sometimes accepting the physical pain promotes my emotional pleasure, for I value the protection of the other over the value of my own pleasure. This is the foundation of parenting. I value providing for another person, my child, more than leaving him to his own abilities, in order to pursue purely personal aims. This former decision gives me greater emotional and rational pleasure than the latter, which is purely physical.

If we used the idea of acting only in order to promote physical pleasure, then we would have to accept rape, incest, theft, physical assaults, murder, etc., for each one of these have attached situations of promoting one's physical pleasure or protecting one from physical discomfort. We do not accept these acts as "good" for we do not consider the fact that one may derive pleasure or prevent one's harm from them; we look at the implications of the acts on the recepients who are being deprived their happiness.




Except the selfless person. This is why altruism is irrational, it does not the promote the happiness of the moral agent, it makes him the slave of humanity. [/B][/QUOTE]

You said earlier that the selfless person benefits by feelings of happiness for sacrificing for others?

 

[biteme]

Gotta go workout arms. Read reply when I get back. Adios.