Max Hartford
-
Posts
69 -
Joined
-
Days Won
2
Everything posted by Max Hartford
-
Convincing: capable of causing someone to change their behavior or beliefs. This could well be different for different people, so there always be a certain degree of subjectivity involved. There's no degrees: either you cause someone to change or you do not. It's a binary. I have not accepted that being correct is sufficient answer to this question. The standard is: do these arguments or propositions make me want to change my behavior or beliefs? Yours most definitely do not. What's wrong with religion? It asks that you make personal sacrifices in order to secure a spot in an afterlife that is not believable. If the afterlife doesn't exist (which it probably doesn't), than the sacrifices are in vain. Making sense is not preferable for its own sake: it's just preferable if you want to convince an intelligent person of something.
-
Quite right: moralism is a hangover from religion, which is why people who claim to be both atheistic and moralistic don't make much sense.
-
This is the $1 million question, and one that no moralist has ever answered in a convincing fashion. Because you're supposedly trying to provide us with a convincing reason for why we should be moral! If you don't care about that, then why are you still posting in this thread?!
-
1. And if you had said that I was not virtuous, than I would have heartily agreed with you, and also not cared 2. Why is individuality a value? What a bizarre question. We are individuals: why wouldn't we want to value ourselves? 3. What you call virtue doesn't have meaning in the long run! Nothing does! If we're dead, nothing has meaning anymore. Death is the end of everything: the end of your mind. With no mind, there is no meaning. For someone so enamored with logic, I would have thought that you would have accepted this simple truth. 4. Well you didn't actually mention power at all previously, but alright. And yes, preaching morality is more beneficial for those with little power, as Nietzsche argued. But what we should keep in mind is that the power or weakness we're talking about doesn't necessarily have to be individual. A lot of physically weak individuals can band together in an alliance and become a powerful force in their own right, which is what Max Stirner talks about in relation to the Union of Egoists. So lots of people who prefer not to live in a society where murder is rampant can band together, establish a police force of some kind, and use this power to stop and punish murderers. 5. Bribery, aka, positive incentives: it works wonders on children. No abuse required. Also, I would classify indoctrinating children to obey the commands of a universal morality as abuse, just as indoctrinating them to follow religious orders is.
-
1. 'Spiritually bankrupt' and 'evil' are just smear words with no precise meaning. I could equally call you 'spiritually bankrupt' for being a moralist: but there's no point, since it doesn't mean anything. 2. How is saying that you prefer to do one thing over another, even though the other is somehow 'supported by logic', speaking gibberish? Seems pretty comprehensible to me, and probably to most people here as well. No, of course self-interest is not apriori opposed to logic and I never said it was: logic is a tool that is often useful in the pursuit of self-interest. The reason I say that the egoist way is more 'living by your own design' than the moralist way is because the moralist submits themselves to the entirety of a behavioral framework that has been developed without their unique individuality in mind. 3. No, it's not the point I 'missed', it's the point that I vehemently disagree with. Yes, the egoist and the moralist will be equally happy when they're dead, because happiness as a concept loses all meaning once death occurs. But it is the part in between birth and death, life, that matters, because that is all there is (unless you can present some groundbreaking proof of the existence of an afterlife). If you reject 'fleeting pleasures', than you reject everything that makes life worth living, which seems to me like a really dumb move. 4. Huh? You think that only moralists have the willpower to stand up for themselves and their preferences? But history is replete with examples of people rocking the earth itself in pursuit of their own selfish interests: Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Genghis Khan, Joseph Stalin, to name only a few of the most prominent examples. It didn't matter to these men that their preferences 'had no meaning' to other people: they had meaning to them, and that's all that mattered. 5. As long as your children can grasp the idea of a mutually beneficial relationship with you, then there's no problem. Sometimes you give ground to them, sometimes they give ground to you, but all with the goal of maintaining a smooth relationship that ends up benefiting you both. This is how business relationships work: why can't it be how parent-child relationships work? So no, you have not convinced me. And don't delude yourself by thinking that everything you said is all very logical: I just choose to ignore it. Actually, you make a lot of naked assertions, not backed by logic of any kind, as I have tried to show above.
-
Alright: so either: 1. We can live our life happily, according to our own designs. Or... 2. We can resign ourselves to a gloomy life of self-sacrifice and 'pursuing virtue', a life that you say is so crappy that death comes as a relief... I know which I would choose...
-
2. Logic is a tool that we use to understand reality and to advance our self-interest within reality. Don't know what you mean when you say it 'transcends' reality. It's a human mental construct: not some divine force. 3. I disagree: I think true love is accepting and celebrating a person as they are, not as you want them to be. But our definitions are equally arbitrary: after all, it's just semantics around the word 'love'. As for your 'valid' marriage based on 'duty', it sounds like a real drag. One based on enjoying one another's company and helping one another to mutually benefit would seem to be a better marriage to me. Morality doesn't eliminate conflicts of interest: it just tells people to suppress their actual interests to worship it. If we all followed the arbitrary commands of a dictator there'd be no conflicts of interest, but I wouldn't want to live in such a society. My self-esteem is just fine, thanks, and I don't want other people recognize my virtue: I want them to understand and celebrate 'me', whatever that may be. You don't really 'lose' pleasures, you consume them. Everything is fleeting, so may as well make the time we have as pleasurable as possible. I don't think I really want 'moral courage': sounds like it'd involve a lot of fruitless sacrifices. Well, I haven't had any children yet, so I suppose we'll just have to see. I think you could raise children without morality, just like you can raise them without religion. Just have to make your explanations a little more nuanced and well-rounded. Would probably make them smarter in the long-run. 4. The totality of who I am causes me to act in the ways that I do: there's no one, specific part of me that dictates all of my actions. And the same applies to you, by the way: you can't honestly claim that everything you do is dictated by your pursuit of your 'logical virtue'. If it were, then you would do nothing for fun, and you would eat exclusively based on calorie and nutrient requirements, not taste. I hope that this is not how you live your life: if it is, I feel sorry for you.
-
2. There's no need to justify it: self-interest is a primary that precedes the development of logic. 3. But the fact is, the only reason that you've hitherto offered for being moral is because doing so is logical. And it's a good thing too, because all these other things you mention don't make sense. Why would you need to subscribe to a logic-based morality in order to love and be loved? If you don't want to destroy things, then don't, no need for morality. I consider myself beautiful, and that's all that matters. Not sure what on earth you mean by 'transcendence': probably something nonsensical I would imagine. There's no reason to believe that there's an afterlife, and even if we did, there's no reason to believe acting logically would secure us a better place in it. The only meaning in the world are the ones we create for ourselves, which both egoists and moralists can do alike. 4. No, I'm pretty sure the words 'to me' disqualifies it from sounding like an unalterable absolute truth. And yes, you can just say it's a great reward to you: people just might not believe you though. Why can't I make it my self-interest to be logical? Well, you can't just change what makes you happy or not. If I could, life would be so much easier! Then I could turn working 80 hours a week at a tedious job into the greatest joy! Unfortunately, it's not that easy. We like what we like. For the most part, tastes are a given. What am I a slave to? I don't know: perhaps my need for amusement? My stomach? Who cares: the point is, whatever it is, it is a part of me, not some abstract, alien idea.
-
And 'getting to claim that we are truly logical' is a prize worth making a thousand moralistic sacrifices for? Seems like a pretty crappy reward to me.
-
If you really want to be a slave to logic, just for the hell of it, then all power to you.
-
I reject this ultimatum: no one except the person themselves can determine what their own selfish goals are. I enjoy expounding the egoist position more than I dread the consequences of the unlikely event that my expositions actually caused anyone to change their minds, AND that the only thing stopping these former moralists from behaving in a manner that is detrimental to myself was their belief in universal morality. It's a risk I'm most certainly willing to take.
-
Okay, but so would the unvirtuous things that you did in life. And without your mind around to make the distinction, it really doesn't matter which it is.
-
Huh? That doesn't make any sense. Virtue is an idea. If you're dead, you can't think of ideas any more. Hence, death takes 'virtue' away from you too. Nothing from our lives will survive death, so we may as well enjoy our brief time here while it lasts.
-
Now you're the one who sounds like a nihilist, lol.
-
You seem to be using a strange definition of either 'ego' or 'slave'. Because the way I see it, ego=self, and slave-to-self= not a slave at all. Also, even if we do say that egoists are slaves to their egos, this 'slavery' is more conducive to personal happiness than 'slavery to virtue', however logical such slavery may be. Is the choice to opt for personal happiness over 'living logically' arbitrary? Sure: but it is a choice that the vast majority of people are going to be comfortable making, because they intuitively understand that personal happiness is all there is to get out of life.
-
I don't demand good logic from my opponents, I simply suggest that their responses be persuasive. What do I mean by persuasive? Just what the Merrium-Webster dictionary defines it as: "able to cause people to do or believe something". In certain contexts, good logic is the most persuasive thing (ie. in the sciences that try to describe how the world works). In others, good logic is not very persuasive (ie. when talking about what ultimate ends people would do well to pursue). The fact that you call it a 'waste of time' to try to explain your reasons to a vast group of people whom you label "sociopaths" is testament to the fact that your approach is not very persuasive for people outside of the small world of FDR.
-
Really? Moralists know the meaning of life? What is it then? And please, please do not say that the meaning of life is to live in such a way that we avoid performative contradictions at all costs! Because then I could just ask: why avoid performative contradictions? And off we go round and round again. There is such thing as should, but only if attached to an 'if-then' statement. My implied 'if-then' statement for why the conversation 'should' stop there is: 'if we don't want to keep asking why indefinitely and bore everyone present to death, then we should stop the conversation at subjective enjoyment." I don't actually like labeling myself a nihilist, I prefer the term egoist. The egoist is satisfied with self-enjoyment as an ultimate end of life, despite the fact that there is no 'moral significance' to it. Is it an arbitrary choice, from a logical perspective? Absolutely. But the egoist takes pride in the fact that he lives according to his own arbitrary will, rather than subordinating himself to a mere idea (The Truth). There is something exhilarating, and very self-liberating about the egoist attitude: I recommend you give it a try sometime.
-
I address these points in a blog post I wrote. I will quote the relevant passage here: Every time one member of society engages in an individually beneficial action that has bearings on the rules governing the social order, it becomes more probable that this kind of behavior will become a more general behavior amongst members of society. This is so due to the addition of the actor to the number of citizens engaging in that kind of action, and due to the possibility of imitation by other citizens who see that this kind of action can be beneficial to individuals. For example, if the actor is deciding whether or not to mug a man in the street and steal his wallet, he should consider what would happen if more and more people in society started doing that. Security of person and property would become less secure, which would result in a less productive, less prosperous, less peaceful, and more fearful society for everyone. The actor was looking to benefit himself materially with his action, but his material interests and other interests would be hurt if his action became generalized and performed by more and more people in society. Now, this effect is of course only a probabilistic effect (there is no guarantee that others will imitate the action), and should be discounted by the actor accordingly. Nevertheless, the reality of the effect remains, as demonstrated by phenomena such as the impoverishment caused by widespread interest group politicking, and must be taken into account by any rational egoist intent on advancing his self-interest. On these grounds, I would object to Bonnie and Clyde beating the homeless man to death, because it inches the scales towards a more brutish social order, which I would not want.
-
I find this post incredibly rude. You know nothing about my childhood or my parents, yet you make wild accusations about 'childhood trauma' and 'sadistic' parents, trying to use it as an ad hominem attack. Drop the psychobabble dude: it has no place in a respectful intellectual discussion.
-
Everything that you say here could equally be used by a religious person against an atheist. If I advise people not to believe in Christianity, does that mean that I'm totally okay with people doing everything that was forbidden by the Ten Commandments? Of course not: I just find other, more solid ways of convincing them to refrain from acting in certain ways. Just because I advise people not to be bound by moral restrictions, does not mean I cheer on random acts of violence. Such acts reduce the quality of my life and of those I care about, hence I support the use of force (something that is far more convincing to a violent person than philosophical arguments) to try to prevent or disincentivize such acts. And no, I don't have any standards other than "personal happiness", as long as this is taken in a sufficiently broad way so as to include my empathy for the people that I care about.
-
1. If you recall, I asked a question (Why be Moral?). People provided answers. I explained why I do not think those answers are very convincing. I'm not trying to 'correct' anyone's logic or anything, just trying to point out that people who do not have a pre-existing reason (self-righteousness, boredom, etc...) to care about universal morality, will not find the result of FDR logic games to be a very convincing reason for changing their behavior. 2. Sorry, I should have been clearer: I meant to say one best fights religion with atheism, and moralism with amoralism (egoism). 3. You set me an impossible task, so I will set you one too: explain why truth is better than happiness without invoking arbitrary preferences. 4. Honestly, the main reason I'm here is because discussing these things is amusing to me. Secondarily, I think that many individuals would be better off if they didn't shackle themselves unnecessarily with moralistic restrictions. If listening to me results in their self-liberation, than I am happy for them. If you see no value in what I am saying, than I do not particularly care if you change your beliefs or not. "Your entire life makes no sense. Your very existence is an arbitrary choice." This is very true, yet it is true not just for me, but for every life form that has ever graced the earth with its presence, whether they realize it or not.
-
1. Just add an 'if' statement, and the oughts follow: 'if' you want to convince people to come around to your way of thinking, you 'ought' to do all those things. If you don't, then I wouldn't say you 'ought' to do anything at all. 2. Never said egoism was most effective way of fighting religion. 3. Better a happy being than a rational being is what I say. Who cares about labels? 4. No, again, the egoist can care about the truth in certain instances, and ignore it in others. It's unclear what 'morality' (ie. you're good, you're evil, blah blah blah) has to do with any of this.
-
Example 1: Semantic trickery with the word 'good'. When the nihilist asks for a 'good' answer, he is asking for a convincing answer, not for an answer that is morally righteous. And no, they are not somehow, mysteriously the same, just because the word 'good' can be used in both contexts. Linguistic conventions do not alter the nature of the world. Example 2: No one would ever ask for a bad answer, except as a joke. Example 3: This conversation should stop after 'Because it feels good'. Life has no objective meaning; living yourself out for subjective enjoyment is all there is.
-
Well, if you state it that way, without any supporting arguments or reasons, than it must be true! "What uses morality has are irrelevant to the validity of it": Maybe so, but what validity morality has, is irrelevant without any uses for it. But you see, if we just reject all of morality, than we don't have to care about people making moral claims, just as atheists don't have to care about people making 'religious claims'. We can fight one religion with a different religion, or one morality with a different morality, but the easiest way to fight them all is just with atheism and amoralism. I will end with a quotation from Max Stirner, which makes the point I'm trying to get across more eloquently than I have been: “As you produce innumerable things by your activity, yes, shape the earth’s surface anew and set up works of men everywhere, so too you may still ascertain numberless truths by your thinking, and we will gladly take delight in them. Nevertheless, as I do not please to hand myself over to serve your newly discovered machines mechanically, but only help to set them running for my benefit, so too I will only use your truths, without letting myself be used for their demands. All truths beneath me are to my liking; a truth above me, a truth that I should have to direct myself by, I am not acquainted with.” This is true of most moralists. But if you're an egoist, you save yourself the trouble of having to rationalize, because you don't care about the labels 'moral' and 'immoral'. Sorry, that's just not accurate. If I ask you the question: "What do you prefer, blonde girls or brunette girls," there is no 'right' or 'wrong' answer. Questions can legitimately ask people for their personal opinion, they don't always have to be about some universal, objective truth.
-
But better than most!
