kenshikenji

you cant invalidate logic. seems you dont even have a grasp on what logic is. it is immutable. youre a waste of your own time.

you can try to cheat actual morality and declare things as moral. that does not make that morality useful in any way. thats the trade off between meta self interest and nap. nap can tell you what is moral by declaration, but it has no reasoning behind it. while meta self interest may be much harder to attain, even imperfect versions of it are an evolutionary advantage (useful) than religion like nap. it is an actual science. the uncertainty is easily overcome by its practicality. its like statistics and probability. there is nothing we know with certainty in this discipline. we all operate on personal subjective probability. but you cant declare a probability distribution as true (as nap is doing) and expect the outcome to be of any benefit to the subject. science creates theories and models that cannot predict the future certainly. but no religion can consistently outperform the predictive capabilities of science. with religion we know what is right and wrong, but in reality what is declared in not actually true. with science you dont cheat your way to "truth" by arbitrary declaration. you must reach your way to truth by reason and evidence using science not religion or philosophy.

again, you dont know anything with certainty. does that mean your knowledge is totally worthless. you dont seem to know that is a nonsequitor. the only thing that matters is you actually know your goal, just not the means to achieve it perfectly. but this should not stop you from trying to do so. morality is only a tool to choose action. and action can only be done by the actor. if your morality does not tell you what to do if a tiger is running loose then it is less usefull than meta self interest. principles CANNOT be broken, if they are then they can only be used as a general rule and not principle. you are not taking into account when dying is in your meta self interest. you seem not to take into account valid possibilities. so saying to be murdered is not in your "self" interest is not true in all cases. whether or not dying is in your meta self interest determines what course of action you should take. youre conflating something being non-subjective (objective) with being universal. this is a conflation stefan makes. they are different. the force due to gravity is different in magnitude for different objects. the height and weight of people is different for different people. this does not make it subjective. it makes it relative and still objective. unless youve taken the full gambit of lower division engineering physics, a full fledged curriculum of mathematics and several years of economics thru upper division game theory and monetary mechanics and gotten A's and some A+'s in those courses youre not as qualified as me in those subjects. im not trying to brag, but im not talking out of my ass when i reference these disciplines. especially when it comes to logic and proving claims. so i dont need to be lectured on what the difference between physics and my own philosophy is.

funny, a meta-self interested person cares about deterring behavior of ANY other animal actor that would harm meta-self existence. so how would your morality that doesnt apply to animals deal with a man eating tiger running loose in your neighborhood? morality is only useful in evaluating relationships between you and other objects and how these objects help your meta-self existence. you wouldnt care about immoral people if they had no affect on your meta self existence. it doesnt matter if these objects choose or not. your only concern is deterring harmful events to your meta self existence. AGAIN STOP MISREPRESENTING EGO UTILITARIANISM. i have linked my relative theory of value. MORALITY IS NOT A SUBJECTIVE VALUE. please watch relative theory of value for dummies. there is no difference between science and ego-utilitarianism. meta-self interest is a physical law, we predict it in the same way from a subject's perspective using sensory data and intelligence. please stop misrepresenting my philosophy. ive taken enough biology, physics, economics, and especially mathematical courses to make sure that my philosophy is entirely consistent with these very strict disciplines. again, you need to be able to distinguish between maximization and increasing and decreasing. when you damage control you maximize meta self interest and you still decrease it. like when your options only include actions that decrease your "self" existence you still maximize meta self existence by minimizing the magnitude of a decrease. only if you put meta self existence in terms of opportunity costs and economic profitability does morality necessarily mean some positive gain. know the difference. also, an element of the set is not the set itself. elements of a set are entirely different actors. unless the elements act in a coordinated way, then the action is not attributed to the set and is element or subset specific. it is possible for a set of objects to act but not in the hypothetical you present. so your argument is invalid there. how was i contradicting myself? i got my definition from the "meme machine" in the opening viii. youre running wild with logical jumps and misrepresenting me. youre not conducting an honest criticism. your criticisms have been emotionally based. you need to drop a lot of your contention and ask more questions before you misrepresent all my answers or misuse my definitions. http://www.amazon.com/The-Meme-Machine-Popular-Science/dp/019286212X no, principles cannot be broken, or it wasnt a principle in the first place. you need to understand what a foundation or what fundamental is. a principle is the foundation of a person's actions. its obviously not a foundation if there is something else underlying it like "self" interest. im not saying it is impossible for it to be a principle, but it is a rare occasion when it actually is. and those people that do are at an evolutionary disadvantage to the ego-utilitarian. it is immoral to not resist murder when staying alive is in your meta self interest and youre able to resist, same for a test. what you dont consider is that nature makes us die because it is in our meta self interest. dying and reproducing (mixing our genes) forces us to evolve our meta selves in order to obtain the optimal combination of definition. remaining static in a dynamic environment is an evolutionary disadvantage. again, the sum of our definition actually doesnt want to stay exactly the same. we all want to improve our meta selves in order to ensure existence. its the same for any set of criteria or group of people. that group wants to get rid of the people or replace them with people that help the group exist.

the morality of ego utilitarinism applies to all things. whether it be aliens or inanimate objects. dont know what you are referring to with your test score example. and you jump logic a lot. physics knows nothing for certain. its laws and constants are just historical observation. that doesnt mean its useless. you can know somethings for certain, but certainty is inversely proportional to how specific the knowledge is. ego-utilitarianism is certain about what nature selects for. that is "self" interested qualities. nap cannot be a principle of someone whod violate it. it is easy to see i would commit a simple act of kicking the shin for a million dollars if offered. obviously it is "self" interest that determines this choice. ideas are elements of culture. dont know what the criticism is here. self interest is like height or weight or skin color, while it varies from person to person, it is still objective. you need to learn the distinction between relative and subjective. first you say "Can you switch from hypothetical and give an example where murder is moral?" and now you tell me to go back to hypothetical. here is one, if a person had the only cure for a disease that would kill me, my wife, and my only child and that person would only administer the cure if i killed his retarded son, then i would oblige. This is what any "self"-interested person would do. your example of the apple was irrelevant. the fact that should has to do with normative action, what is right, is in direct contradiction to being also wrong. id like to see you try to make a significant distinction between right and normative actions. none of it makes any sense without objectives.

is height of a person objective? it varies from person to person. again please rewatch my video "relative theory of value for dummies". do not fall into the same conflation molyneux makes that objective is universal. you need to learn the difference between relative and subjective is. you specifically said "Can you switch from hypothetical and give an example where murder is moral?" there is no other alternative than historical. now you want me to go back to hypothetical? i can make an infinite amount of these. if you had the cure for my wife and child's disease and would only administer it if i would kill his retarded son i would murder him. happy? doesnt matter what example you were giving. normative claims are right and wrong. by saying you should do something but its wrong is a contradiction. by definition should is right.

again, you fail to define right and wrong. any terms (morals or ethics) that contains poorly defined terms in its definition is itself poorly defined. until you define right and wrong, nothing you talk about makes any sense. right and wrong MUST come from objectives nature does not favor NAP over "self"interest. you cannot deny this, this proves that NAP is not sustainable relative to "self"interest. while nap works in most circumstances, "self" interest works in ALL circumstances. even a small advantage over the long run will render the inferior motive extinct. again TRUE morality is NOT MERELY a positive effect on "self" interest, but the MAXIMIZATION of it. or you can compare the values of two strategies. in other words you can compare relative morality in a pair-wise fashion. but something cannot be moral without comparison. ego-utilitarianism and meta-self-interest would say that aggression were moral if there were no non-aggression options that better affect meta-self existence. So even options that positively affect "self" existence are not necessarily moral. with your example of test scores, this is irrelevant. ego-utilitarianism does not say subjective value is actual value. if you decide to compare raw scores from different classes instead of standardizing the scores for comparison due to difficulty you do yourself a disfavor. in other words doing so is relatively immoral compared to standardizing the score because you may misvalue someones intelligence. thats why over time people learn to use standardized scores. as far as your killing example something does not change in morality over time. the morality of an action already takes into account all consequences in the future. i dont understand your variation question. you can answer any question you have by actually doing thought experiments of each component meta-self acting in their own meta-self interest. memes can transcend cultures. that definition i dont agree with.

like i said, nature decides if what you did is in accordance with your self interest. "self" interest isnt subjective. its objectively relative. no one can know every event in history, there may be no accounts for when it was moral. that doesnt prove they dont exist in history. you cant show it has never happened in history either. but im not a historian. also you cant use history to prove or disprove my claim because there is no control group. in other words you would have to see the consequences of all possible action to compare. you only have an experimental group without a control group. i dont believe in the is/ought dichotomy. everything must be derived from reality. and as ive said before ALL normative claims come from positive well-defined objectives. in other words ALL should's are derived from is's. your dichotomy is a fallacy. well defined objective determines the relative value of all possible strategies.

you just answered your own question. again, youre trying to prove ALL murder is immoral by showing an instance of one. that is not valid proof. to show that some murder is moral, you just have to show one instance. who do you think has the taller burden of proof? if murdering a useless retarded person or criminal would guarantee the safety of my genes or the human race i would do it. happy? there is one instance that satisfies my burden of proof and disproves yours. i get all my "shoulds" from well -defined objectives, as should any logical person. rejecting the non aggression principle is just acknowledging nature,economics, and science. i dont dismiss the value of non-aggression WHEN it is profitable. but it is a tall claim to say it is a priniciple when it is apparently not. please watch my video on the "self". "self" isnt limited one ones physical body. i may change the term to meta-self just to distinguish it from self. just because i present the general form of what is moral, doesnt mean i can easily classify any action as fitting that criteria. to determine if something is truly in one's "self" interest, you must put it through a cost/benefit analysis that i dont even know the specific form of. or you can analyze the consequences. natural selection has EVERYTHING to do with "self" interest. it is not just survival of the species, but particular forms of the species. META-SELVES or "SELVES". each variation within the species is a meta-self. wrong? again wrong in what respect? right and wrong only have meaning with respect to objectives.

especially when you dont know what axioms are based on. axioms always have reasoning, they are either made to avoid contradictions to help deduce logical truths or through empirical observation. just the fact that money can be made to be continuous makes costs/benefits continuous. but you dont seem to really know what youre talking about.

how is this a valid criticism? so what? information and intelligence is not perfect, so subjective valuation is not perfect. but that does not invalidate the existence of true value. but the thing is nature selects for those who can best determine the consequences. the implications are the same implications that natural selection impose on us. as far as practicality it helps us identify what we want to know, not only that it does not over value the mind like other theories. it also demands more precision than blunt principles like NAP. i agree somewhat but survival of what? ego-utilitarianism says its your genes and memes or anything can describe you. not merely your physical body. my theory accounts for empathy of others and does not rule out self-sacrifice for others given the circumstances warrant it.

there is nothing in the definition of aggression that prevents it from being justified. again, you have no definition for the word "justify". you must refer to self interest in order to justify something. also, i am not making the case that ALL aggression is justifiable. i am making a claim that ALL aggression that is in one's "self"-interest is by definition justifiable. this only pertains to some aggression. objective consequences are absolutely not irrelevant. they help form your future subjective preference. what is horseshit is what doesnt have rationale behind it. when "self" interest has natural selection behind it, thats pretty good foundation to build your reasoing off of. by declaring aggression as "wrong" without being able to give reason why and with respect to what objective makes NAP the only thing that is horseshit.

thats not an argument. why is it correct? correct with respect to what objective? Self interest can be right or wrong because existence is what Nature selects for. again you dont know what youre talking about. subjective preference has objective consequences.

i understand methodology and conclusions. you can guess the right answer, but having a faulty methodology is not reliable in attaining conclusions in general UPB is a faulty methodology. proving NAP is not going to be easy. and in order to do so you MUST do it building off other sciences and "self" interest. all of morality pertains to objectives. you cannot use reason without well-defined objectives. right and wrong labels that you apply to action ONLY make sense when you compare the consequences with the objective. if you give me a well defined objective, the "right" course of action is determined.

then "why" accept NAP? can you make an argument without appealing to "self" interest? i doubt you can because you dont see rational and reason is the same thing as "self" interest.