Ethical question

[DcupSheepNipples]

You are captured by evil people. You must choose between your death and the person closest to you. The death will be the most painful, slow death imaginable. Who do you choose?

I choose the person closest to me! Sorry anabolicmd but it looks like you will have to be disemboweled!

 

[anabolicmd]

Re: Re: Ethical question

I choose the person closest to me! Sorry anabolicmd but it looks like you will have to be disemboweled!

With a good sword and a six pointed mace I can take out a villagefull of those savages.

 

[atlantabiolab]

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

If he performs his services for the promotion of his own pleasure, i.e. doing good deeds to many for the purpose of deriving pleasure from these deeds, then he is not "selfless", but "selfish". The term "selfish", as that of "pride", has been irrationally demonized by religion and various ideologies. There is nothing wrong with "rational selfishness", the promotion of my personal pleasure, as long as the actions required do not infringe upon the rights of others or clashes with morality/ethics.

The concept of altruism is that of acting to towards the benefit of all, save yourself. All actions must be for the self-interest of others and not oneself.

 

[Lumberg]

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.



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.



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.

I could kinda see that. But what if the choice was, either you die or some random person dies?

 

[plornive]

Re: Re: Re: Ethical question

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.

I see all of your points. But I still disagree because I have a different set of premises --- a completely different paradigm. In reality, I don't feel bad after being selfish. And I do feel bad after being selfless. And I don't always think in "good" vs. "bad". One can also think of ethics in the context of social functionality or individual functionality. Not everyone is wired with your moral circuitry.

You talked past me and Lumberg without even addressing or acknowledging our premises.

 

[plornive]

Re: Re: Re: Ethical question

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.

The person that is closest to me is not my most valuable possession. I doubt it will ever be that way, but acknowledge that it is possible.

On a smaller scale, I have gotten over any past mistakes I have made. And I have gotten over losing people I cared about --- in fact it made me stronger, smarter and more confident. It has been truly liberating to be released from a relationship before, although it has been painful.

 

[Spartacus]

how do you guys make any progress in the gym while smoking all this weed?

 

[Heahy Minister]

There's always another choice.

 

[Yarg!]

I would yell shanidigans towards the evil people then go into fetal mode and cry. Eventually I will die for my love one.