A rejection of the Non-Aggression Priniciple

[Slavik]

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.

If self interest is different to almost every person, I do not see how you can claim it to be objective, or are you back to subjective is a subset of objective argument?

 

I gave you an example, you have not given me any.  I asked for a specific example to move from abstract to something more substantial.  I didnt ask for a historical example, you can give a hypothetical one, instead of saying it might be.

 

Again, I gave an example of stealing an apple and your answer was "how can you be wrong for doing something you SHOULD do?"  Can you point to where in my example I said you should do something, point it please instead of stating abstracts as yet again I asked for specifics.

[kenshikenji]

Ethic - 

a :  a set of moral principles :  a theory or system of moral values 

b : the principles of conduct governing an individual or a group<professional ethics>

c :  a guiding philosophy

d :  a consciousness of moral importance 

3 : plural :  a set of moral issues or aspects (as rightness)

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ethic

 

Moral -

a :  of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior :  ethical <moral judgments>

b :  expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior <a moral poem>

c :  conforming to a standard of right behavior

d :  sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment <a moral obligation>

e :  capable of right and wrong action <a moral agent>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/moral

 

Principle - 

a :  a comprehensive and fundamental law, doctrine, or assumption

 

b (1) :  a rule or code of conduct (2) :  habitual devotion to right principles <a man of principle>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/principle

 

Right and wrong are themselves the objectives, it's the entire point of philosophy. We are discussing what is moral and what is immoral, what is right and wrong. Whether an individual has an objective of being right or wrong is irrelevant.

 

N.A.P. says initiating force against another is immoral. ego-utilitarianism says initiating force against another could be moral or it could be immoral depending on how it later effects your (an object) "definition" and how it effects "any set of criteria that describes you" and the "concept of you or ANY other object" (as stated by your definition of "self" or meta-self).

 

So, ONLY things that positively effect your (you being an object) "definition" and how it effects "any set of criteria that describes you" and the "concept of you or ANY other object" can be considered moral, and EVERYTHING else is immoral. An example would be if you are a student in a class and another student in a different class but the same grade does poorly on a test causing a third person to think students in your grade are less intelligent you are being immoral since that negatively effects a "set of criteria that describes you. I don't know how one would make any decisions or get anything done if this is the decision process they must go through with every thought or action. Also, what if I do something that is immoral say kill someone in a way that doesn't benefit me then it turns out in 50 years to benefit my "meta-self" since that person did not have the negative effect on someone he would have had wouldn't that mean that immoral act now becomes moral? Also, if "each variation within a species is a meta-self" if someone with brown hair does something immoral doesn't that mean I am being immoral? Blue eyes? I have a scar isn't that a variation?

 

Now if you want to redefine terms I think it would be a better idea to state that up front so that we don't all show up expecting to play chess when you're playing Cones of Dunshire ;P

 

and just for giggles after watching you read your numbered list on "Self":

Meme - 

:  an idea, behavior, style, or usage that spreads from person to person within a culture

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.

[Koroviev]

Right - 

being in accordance with what is just, good, or proper 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/right

 

Wrong - 

an injurious, unfair, or unjust act :  action or conduct inflicting harm without due provocation or just cause

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wrong

(odd that the definition of wrong lines up directly with the N.A.P.)

 

 

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.

 

First off, morals and principles only apply to humans. You cannot say a shark is moral or immoral for killing a fish just as you cannot say it is moral or immoral for killing cancer cells. I'd like to see an example of how nature does not favor the NAP. I think you misunderstood my test scores example I was not saying comparatively anyone was smarter or dumber I was saying that because a third party to a third party (sixth party?) formed a criteria that described a group that a person belonged to that person would be immoral even though it had nothing else to do with that person. "Meta-self" - an objects  "definition" and "any set of criteria that describes an object" and the "concept of an object or ANY other object."  Basically what you are saying is that no one can ever know for certain if they are being moral or immoral since no one can ever know all of the effects they have on themselves as well as their "meta-selves," which in turn would mean ego-utilitarianism, although an interesting though, is completely useless. Lastly I still fail to see how NAP is not a principle (it still seems to meet all of the criteria) or why anyone should "reject immediately" the NAP. 

 

Also, your definition said a meme was an element of culture...

[kenshikenji]

If self interest is different to almost every person, I do not see how you can claim it to be objective, or are you back to subjective is a subset of objective argument?

 

I gave you an example, you have not given me any.  I asked for a specific example to move from abstract to something more substantial.  I didnt ask for a historical example, you can give a hypothetical one, instead of saying it might be.

 

Again, I gave an example of stealing an apple and your answer was "how can you be wrong for doing something you SHOULD do?"  Can you point to where in my example I said you should do something, point it please instead of stating abstracts as yet again I asked for specifics.

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.

[kenshikenji]

Right - 

being in accordance with what is just, good, or proper 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/right

 

Wrong - 

an injurious, unfair, or unjust act :  action or conduct inflicting harm without due provocation or just cause

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wrong

(odd that the definition of wrong lines up directly with the N.A.P.)

 

 

 

First off, morals and principles only apply to humans. You cannot say a shark is moral or immoral for killing a fish just as you cannot say it is moral or immoral for killing cancer cells. I'd like to see an example of how nature does not favor the NAP. I think you misunderstood my test scores example I was not saying comparatively anyone was smarter or dumber I was saying that because a third party to a third party (sixth party?) formed a criteria that described a group that a person belonged to that person would be immoral even though it had nothing else to do with that person. "Meta-self" - an objects  "definition" and "any set of criteria that describes an object" and the "concept of an object or ANY other object."  Basically what you are saying is that no one can ever know for certain if they are being moral or immoral since no one can ever know all of the effects they have on themselves as well as their "meta-selves," which in turn would mean ego-utilitarianism, although an interesting though, is completely useless. Lastly I still fail to see how NAP is not a principle (it still seems to meet all of the criteria) or why anyone should "reject immediately" the NAP. 

 

Also, your definition said a meme was an element of culture...

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.

If self interest is different to almost every person, I do not see how you can claim it to be objective, or are you back to subjective is a subset of objective argument?

 

I gave you an example, you have not given me any.  I asked for a specific example to move from abstract to something more substantial.  I didnt ask for a historical example, you can give a hypothetical one, instead of saying it might be.

 

Again, I gave an example of stealing an apple and your answer was "how can you be wrong for doing something you SHOULD do?"  Can you point to where in my example I said you should do something, point it please instead of stating abstracts as yet again I asked for specifics.

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.  

[Koroviev]

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.

Morality can only apply to beings that can conceptualize morality otherwise you would have immoral cancer cells and moral sharks. The reason for this is that sharks and cancer cells do not have the ability to reason and make choices instead they just act on their instincts. the morality of ego utilitarianism does not exist because ego utilitarianism does not say whether or not things or moral instead it says you may think one thing is moral but most likely it will turn out to be immoral. There is absolutely no methodology behind it other than do something and hope it works out in your "meta-favor".

 

The difference between physics and ego utilitarianism is that physics uses past evidence to predict future actions and reactions. if it said anything could react in any way and you could not predict ever predict how something would react using physics then physics would be just as unhelpful. What you are proposing is future observation which as far as I know is not possible.

 

My example just took your definition of "meta-self" and followed it to a conclusion.  "Meta-self" - an objects  "definition" and "any set of criteria that describes an object" and the "concept of an object or ANY other object." so you are moral if you are maximizing your "meta-self interest." this means that anything that decreases your "meta-self interest" is immoral. since "meta-self" is  "any set of criteria that describes an object" and something that describes someone in a group I am associated with also describes my "meta-self" I am being immoral because someone else in my "meta-self" group has lowered the "meta-self interest."

 

Where'd ideas come from I thought we were defining memes and the criticism was you were contradicting yourself and had an inaccurate definition?

 

Now onto the main "point" of your topic. From what I understand you are saying the NAP is invalid because someone can choose to violate it. This is obviously not correct. A principle is different from a law you can choose to break a principle you cannot choose to not be effected by gravity. And, even if your argument was valid that does not mean we should all "reject the NAP immediately." Not to mention, I can also choose to do something that is not in my "meta-self interest" which by your logic would say we should reject ego-utilitarianism immediately as well.

[Slavik]

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.

Objective is that which can be verified externally by all parties without opinions.  So height is objective since you can use external means to measure it.  Please do not say fallacy when referring to the debate you have had.  At the very best it is still debatable, your outside conclusions are irrelevant since in the debate you did not prove anything.  You nee to stop talking down to people.

 

I get that you would do that, and by what standards doe it make it moral?

 

Again where did you see me say you should do something?  Do you really not get what Im asking?  I didnt say you should steal an apple, its a false dichotomy that you made up, you could have asked for the apple.  And nowhere did  I say if you are starving you should steal, so  stop arguing a straw man.

[Koroviev]

Also, according to what you are proposing it would be immoral to get murdered, get hit by a drunk driver, not study for a test, or to grow old.

[kenshikenji]

Morality can only apply to beings that can conceptualize morality otherwise you would have immoral cancer cells and moral sharks. The reason for this is that sharks and cancer cells do not have the ability to reason and make choices instead they just act on their instincts. the morality of ego utilitarianism does not exist because ego utilitarianism does not say whether or not things or moral instead it says you may think one thing is moral but most likely it will turn out to be immoral. There is absolutely no methodology behind it other than do something and hope it works out in your "meta-favor".

 

The difference between physics and ego utilitarianism is that physics uses past evidence to predict future actions and reactions. if it said anything could react in any way and you could not predict ever predict how something would react using physics then physics would be just as unhelpful. What you are proposing is future observation which as far as I know is not possible.

 

My example just took your definition of "meta-self" and followed it to a conclusion.  "Meta-self" - an objects  "definition" and "any set of criteria that describes an object" and the "concept of an object or ANY other object." so you are moral if you are maximizing your "meta-self interest." this means that anything that decreases your "meta-self interest" is immoral. since "meta-self" is  "any set of criteria that describes an object" and something that describes someone in a group I am associated with also describes my "meta-self" I am being immoral because someone else in my "meta-self" group has lowered the "meta-self interest."

 

Where'd ideas come from I thought we were defining memes and the criticism was you were contradicting yourself and had an inaccurate definition?

 

Now onto the main "point" of your topic. From what I understand you are saying the NAP is invalid because someone can choose to violate it. This is obviously not correct. A principle is different from a law you can choose to break a principle you cannot choose to not be effected by gravity. And, even if your argument was valid that does not mean we should all "reject the NAP immediately." Not to mention, I can also choose to do something that is not in my "meta-self interest" which by your logic would say we should reject ego-utilitarianism immediately as well.

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.

 

Also, according to what you are proposing it would be immoral to get murdered, get hit by a drunk driver, not study for a test, or to grow old.

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.

[Koroviev]

That is exactly the issue. With what you are proposing there there is no way to tell if what you are doing is moral. The Nazis were doing something moral because they were doing what maximized the Nazi "meta-self" but then it turns out, simply because they lost, that what they were doing was immoral. If they had won guess who would still be considered the shining example of morality. Therefore ego-utilitarianism is of no help to them. How does ego-utilitarianism help me to decide whether or not I should take an action if there is no way to tell what effect my actions will have on the "meta-self," which you CANNOT know without reading the future.

 

If a tiger is running lose the tiger is neither moral or immoral it is simply a tiger. It cannot make choices it cannot understand the consequences of it's actions therefor it is not morally responsible. The entire point is to help people who want to be moral make moral choices. It does not matter what I tell the tiger it will still not choose any differently. 

 

Science is the study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science From everything you have provided ego-utilitarianism does nothing to help people make choices, decisions, or provide any insight into how or why things are the way they are. Instead if you have to consider every possible consequence of every single one of your actions you'd never be able to make a choice at all. Now you can use ego-utilitarianism to look back and say the Nazis were immoral, and you will find out they were, just as long as it doesn't turn out they were right, in which case all of a sudden what was immoral now becomes moral (don't take this out of context I'm not saying the Nazis were right just an example). I can't see how this would be helpful at all in day to day life.

 

Principles should not be broken, yes. However, this does not mean they cannot be broken or that if they are broken that does not make them not a principle. If this is still confusing please see the definition I provided above. Now, if you want to change the definition of principle that's a different discussion (that honestly I don't want even to try to talk about), but a principle is not invalid if someone chooses to violate it. Again, even if your definition of a principle is correct (it's not) ego-utilitarianism can be violated as well which would make it invalid.

 

As for the topic of murder, once again, if you are murdered your are decreasing the "meta-self interest" which is the opposite of what is moral (increasing the "meta-self interest") therefor it is immoral. Now I'm sure you can come up with some hypothetical situation where it increases the "meta-self interest" but that does not negate the point.

 

I agree that morality is not subjective which means it does not change based on the outcome or the reasoning behind it. If murder is immoral for one person it is immoral for all people. This does not change no matter who wins, this does not change no matter how much time has passed. To make moral decisions you need principles to guide you in deciding what is right and what is wrong, and you need to be able to make those distinctions in the moment otherwise it is of no use to you.

 

Finally, I hope you weren't using the "I've taken a couple college classes, so I know better than you" argument because guess what so have I and this is definitely not the place for that argument. I really do hope you can use some of what you've learned from those courses to do something good in the world instead of what appears to be simply trying to tear down the few people who actually are.

 

Good Luck!

[kenshikenji]

That is exactly the issue. With what you are proposing there there is no way to tell if what you are doing is moral. The Nazis were doing something moral because they were doing what maximized the Nazi "meta-self" but then it turns out, simply because they lost, that what they were doing was immoral. If they had won guess who would still be considered the shining example of morality. Therefore ego-utilitarianism is of no help to them. How does ego-utilitarianism help me to decide whether or not I should take an action if there is no way to tell what effect my actions will have on the "meta-self," which you CANNOT know without reading the future.

 

If a tiger is running lose the tiger is neither moral or immoral it is simply a tiger. It cannot make choices it cannot understand the consequences of it's actions therefor it is not morally responsible. The entire point is to help people who want to be moral make moral choices. It does not matter what I tell the tiger it will still not choose any differently. 

 

Science is the study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science From everything you have provided ego-utilitarianism does nothing to help people make choices, decisions, or provide any insight into how or why things are the way they are. Instead if you have to consider every possible consequence of every single one of your actions you'd never be able to make a choice at all. Now you can use ego-utilitarianism to look back and say the Nazis were immoral, and you will find out they were, just as long as it doesn't turn out they were right, in which case all of a sudden what was immoral now becomes moral (don't take this out of context I'm not saying the Nazis were right just an example). I can't see how this would be helpful at all in day to day life.

 

Principles should not be broken, yes. However, this does not mean they cannot be broken or that if they are broken that does not make them not a principle. If this is still confusing please see the definition I provided above. Now, if you want to change the definition of principle that's a different discussion (that honestly I don't want even to try to talk about), but a principle is not invalid if someone chooses to violate it. Again, even if your definition of a principle is correct (it's not) ego-utilitarianism can be violated as well which would make it invalid.

 

As for the topic of murder, once again, if you are murdered your are decreasing the "meta-self interest" which is the opposite of what is moral (increasing the "meta-self interest") therefor it is immoral. Now I'm sure you can come up with some hypothetical situation where it increases the "meta-self interest" but that does not negate the point.

 

I agree that morality is not subjective which means it does not change based on the outcome or the reasoning behind it. If murder is immoral for one person it is immoral for all people. This does not change no matter who wins, this does not change no matter how much time has passed. To make moral decisions you need principles to guide you in deciding what is right and what is wrong, and you need to be able to make those distinctions in the moment otherwise it is of no use to you.

 

Finally, I hope you weren't using the "I've taken a couple college classes, so I know better than you" argument because guess what so have I and this is definitely not the place for that argument. I really do hope you can use some of what you've learned from those courses to do something good in the world instead of what appears to be simply trying to tear down the few people who actually are.

 

Good Luck!

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.

[kenshikenji]

That is exactly the issue. With what you are proposing there there is no way to tell if what you are doing is moral. The Nazis were doing something moral because they were doing what maximized the Nazi "meta-self" but then it turns out, simply because they lost, that what they were doing was immoral. If they had won guess who would still be considered the shining example of morality. Therefore ego-utilitarianism is of no help to them. How does ego-utilitarianism help me to decide whether or not I should take an action if there is no way to tell what effect my actions will have on the "meta-self," which you CANNOT know without reading the future.

 

 

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.

[Frosty]

NAP its NOT a  principle  and its not universally preferrable.

 

This is bad critique, most points I've found flaws with but I'm just going to address the first few because I don't want to waste too much time on this.

 

1) NAP doesn't assume non-aggression as a primary objective, this is a badly worded mess, the NAP is a principle which cannot make assumptions, people make assumptions. NAP is a principle reasoned from logic. It doesn't condemn aggression it condems the initiation of aggression, so point 1 is basically invalid.

 

2) NAP doesn't claim to tell you what valid options to take, this is simply outside the scope of the principle, it can only tell you whether an action is moral or not. This is like saying that the Newtonian laws of motion don't explain quantum behaviour, it's simply beyond the scope of the law to describe this. Just because you believe another moral system gives you more specific guidance on how to behave doesn't make the NAP invalid.

 

3) NAP allows for the response of force sufficient to stop aggression against yourself up to an including killing someone, the proportion of aggression depends on the proportion that's being used against you. Most self defence law already takes this into account because people understand in a very general way what is an appropriate amount of force.

 

4) NAP isn't a full set of rules for all moral behaviour, so this point is irrelevant, principles are fundamental truths from which we build more complex ideas from, morality is not completely constructed from just the NAP, there are other reasons outside of the NAP to consider not feeding a child as immoral.

 

5) This is wrong, the duration of the self defence is simple, it's sustain as long as there's aggression towards you, because it's the initiation of force that is immoral. If someone ceases force against you and then you attack them that is the initiation of aggression.

 

6) NAP is a principle for working out the morality of an action, to be valid it doesn't need to stop all aggression between people, it's not a law enforced by a state which has a record of working or not, it's just a moral principle, again you completely lack any understanding of the scope of the NAP.

 

7) This is where I stop, you might as well be trolling at this point.

 

Basically you don't understand the NAP and should probably research it before trying to critique it. Understand that it has scope and that just because it can't tell you to buy a hamster or a pigeon to have as a pet doesn't make it invalid. It's either a valid principle or it isn't, it's reasoned using logic and critiques should be demonstrating why that logic is faulty, the rest of this mess isn't an argument for anything.

 

As someone else pointed out, you clearly have another agenda and the NAP stands in your way for justifying your own brand of morality, you're attacking the NAP out of necessity which is why the rebuttals are erroneous. Approaching the NAP from a consequentialist point of view doesn't result in valid universal principles.