Why be moral? (answered)

[Nathan Metric]

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. 

That is assuming there only is one life.  Life is just a bunch of fleeting pleasures. Only Death is Real.

[Max Hartford]

That is assuming there only is one life.  Life is just a bunch of fleeting pleasures. Only Death is Real.

 

Now you're the one who sounds like a nihilist, lol.

[Nathan Metric]

Nope. You have completely misunderstood what I'm saying. All the pleasure. all the wealth, all your strength, and all your memories of friends and family you lose in death. Virtue is the only thing death doesn't take away from you. So you might as well act virtuously rather than pursuing things you are going to lose anyway. 

[Max Hartford]

Nope. You have completely misunderstood what I'm saying. All the pleasure. all the wealth, all your strength, and all your memories of friends and family you lose in death. Virtue is the only thing death doesn't take away from you. So you might as well act virtuously rather than pursuing things you are going to lose anyway. 

 

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.

[Nathan Metric]

No, your virtue is something that exists in reality whether you die or not. Even if you die, the virtuous things you did in life would still have virtue.

 

Death is inevitable and uncertain so you best prepare yourself.

[Max Hartford]

No, your virtue is something that exists in reality whether you die or not. Even if you die, the virtuous things you did in life would still have virtue.

 

Death is inevitable and uncertain so you best prepare yourself.

 

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. 

[Nathan Metric]

That would only be a problem for you my friend. Not me. I'm living virtuously.

 

How do you know my mind won't be around? Where did you think consciousness comes from in the first place? My consciousness will return to wherever it came from. I have something to hope for in death. For you, the best thing you can hope for is that there is nothing after the grave and that your actions truly are as meaningless as you want them to be.

[Nathan Metric]

I believe I made a mistake in a couple of my last responses. On the question of to live logically or to not live logically there was something crucial I missed.

 

Here's how the conversation should of went.

 

Moralist: Logic is virtuous

Nihilist: Why?

Moralist: Why are you asking "why?". Only people who expect people to act logically would ask "why?".

Nihilist:  I am expecting you to act logically.

Moralist: Why?

Nihilist: Because it would serve my illogical goals.

Moralist: So logic only has virtue if it benefits you?

Nihilist: Correct. I want logical things to serve my illogical goals.

Moralist: Oh really? You really think I would be helping you by adopting this nihilistic philosophy of yours? Let's say I start living my life on a purely egotistical basis like you. Let's say I starting jacking your stuff in the middle of the night Tell me, how in the hell would you benefit from that?

Nihilist: You're assuming that is the genuinely egotistical thing to do.

Moralist: What is the egotistical thing for me to do if not accomplishing what I consider to be my goals?

Nihilist: I don't think most egotists will act that way and I don't think you would do that.

Moralist: AHA, so your belief that my nihilistic egotism will serve your goals assumes that I am at the very least going to act in a manner that is conventionally considered to be moral. So really you want conventional egotism for me and nihilistic egotism for yourself. Well, if you want me to act in a conventional manner than why even bother trying to argue me into nihilism? You are contradicting yourself (in your attempt to serve your goals). 

 

So here is the ultimatum Max.

Either

a)You can agree that logic is virtuous and live in the manner that logic demands of you

or

b)You can be a more consistent nihilist and cease all this refuting since you are not actually serving your selfish goals by going around spreading nihilism. Nihilism is useless unless everyone else acts morally.

[Max Hartford]

 

 

So here is the ultimatum Max.

Either

a)You can agree that logic is virtuous and live in the manner that logic demands of you

or

b)You can be a more consistent nihilist and cease all this refuting since you are not actually serving your selfish goals by going around spreading nihilism. Nihilism is useless unless everyone else acts morally.

 

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.

[Nathan Metric]

Ah, so serving your ego just means pursing what you make as your goal. Well, my goal is to be a slave to logic. Hey, if you are going to be a slave to something you might as well be a slave to something virtious. Why you would want to get your hands dirty is beyond me.

[Des]

The lifeboat scenarions, hangling from flagpoles, starving people in the desert, all the extreme situations that critics use to try to invalidate any principle. The only answers I've heard are either to dismiss them as almost never happening, or to say that you can make an exception in that case, or to just break code anyway and it doesn't matter. None of these are satisfying answers.

1.

Valid answer to Topic question is: be moral with all who have agreed to be moral with you because they are more likely to hold up their end of the deal if you hold up your end - and then you are more likely to survive.

2.

You are being moral in the interest of your survival (to be neither murdered nor robbed to death [by starvation or exposure]), therefore anyone who expects you to not steal or to not trespass, in any situation when you must do either one to survive: computed incorrectly.

3.

The guy who owns the balcony under the flagpole (from which you hang by one slippery hand), and has a contract with you to treat you morally- assume there are other people contracted to be reciprocally moral with him: Will they still want that contract with him after he blows you away for trespassing (by eventually falling onto his balcony)? No claim of technical compliance with morality can get them to want that contract, or to want to be anywhere near him. If he were being technically moral for the valid reason as in (1) above, then he was wasting his freedom to kill at his pleasure (and take the same consequences as killing when "technically moral").

 

I have a careful answer to the topic question, and this careful, atheist and self-interested answer also leads to answers the lifeboat type questions. I'll stop typing and take questions on this if anyone has any.

[Max Hartford]

Ah, so serving your ego just means pursing what you make as your goal. Well, my goal is to be a slave to logic. Hey, if you are going to be a slave to something you might as well be a slave to something virtious. Why you would want to get your hands dirty is beyond me.

 

If you really want to be a slave to logic, just for the hell of it, then all power to you. 

[Nick900]

I was about to create this as a post but I guess I'll put it here since its a sub-question of this ...

 

Why be moral when you can count on others being moral even if you're not? Look at the example of Stefs donations, some people will donate a lot of money keeping the channel alive but others can not bother donating because they can rely on others doing it for them. By not donating they are not losing out on the valuable content because you can rely on other people doing the 'right thing' and donating. You can pretty much rely on other people having empathy and doing the right thing in various situations, so it would be pretty risk-free for you to not do the moral thing and it have no negative consequences.

 

So why bother being moral? Why not lie and cheat and steal and take government money? - By not doing it changes nothing, by doing it benefits you.  

[Nathan Metric]

So why bother being moral? Why not lie and cheat and steal and take government money? - By not doing it changes nothing, by doing it benefits you.  

Why benefit yourself? Why do some things "benefit" you and other things don't "benefit" you? What determines what "benefit" is in the first place?

[Torero]

Taking government money is not immoral. If a thief steals my bike, bed and bath tub, it's perfectly ok to steal back that bottle of shampoo.

 

So in that sense I agree with Phil. The stealing and cheating parts against the general people are things we can overcome and indeed be moral.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

If you really want to be a slave to logic, just for the hell of it, then all power to you. 

 

It doesn't matter whether you're a slave to logic or not (leaving aside the fact you're holding people here to a universal standard of logic). If you don't adhere to correct ethics then you'll be wrong.  

 

So why bother being moral? 

 

Because it's correct. 

[Nick900]

Because it's correct. 

 

Correct? - Did Jebus tell you that?

 

It seems that if you want to maximize your own gains its incorrect, why is that wrong?

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Correct? - Did Jebus tell you that?

 

It seems that if you want to maximize your own gains its incorrect, why is that wrong?

 

No, reason told me that. Immoral theories, rules and justifications are all wrong (logically inconsistent, break with universality, etc). They are incorrect. So if you want the ethics that underlie your behavior to be correct then you should adhere to correct morality. It's just a choice. You can choose to be correct or incorrect. 

 

Your snarky question "Did Jebus tell you that?" amuses me. Because you act as if Jebus telling someone something would be wrong or somehow inferior. But unless you accept that being correct is preferable to being incorrect then you have absolutely no basis for thinking this other than your delusional arrogance. 

 

Maximizing one's own gains is irrelevant to the philosophy. 

[Nathan Metric]

First of all, what "maximizes your own gain" is whatever the hell you want it be. Even when I am acting the way I morally should act I am also acting the way I want act,

Second, since egoism is basically just pursuing whatever goal you want you can either

a)do what you want and do what is morally good

b)do what you want and do what is morally bad.

 

Either way you are a acting in an egotistical manner.  The choice comes down to whether you want to be moral (apply logic to one's goals) or not be moral (not apply logic to one's goals). You have to be retarded to choose the latter

[Torero]

Egoism would mean one's self-interest is guarded well.

Egocentrism is when you lost eye for the self-interest of others.

 

Nothing wrong with egoism, a lot wrong with egocentrism...

[neeeel]

The choice comes down to whether you want to be moral (apply logic to one's goals)

 

Is this your definition of morality, or have I misunderstood? Ie, your definition of morality is "applying logic to ones goals" ?

[Nick900]

No, reason told me that. Immoral theories, rules and justifications are all wrong (logically inconsistent, break with universality, etc). They are incorrect. So if you want the ethics that underlie your behavior to be correct then you should adhere to correct morality. It's just a choice. You can choose to be correct or incorrect.

 

Your snarky question "Did Jebus tell you that?" amuses me. Because you act as if Jebus telling someone something would be wrong or somehow inferior. But unless you accept that being correct is preferable to being incorrect then you have absolutely no basis for thinking this other than your delusional arrogance.

 

Maximizing one's own gains is irrelevant to the philosophy.

I didn't mean it to be snarky, just sarcastically playful

[Nathan Metric]

Yes, but we need to understand what it actually means to apply logic to one's goals. Simply having goals and fulfilling those goals by logical means is not in and of itself acting logically. It is only when you apply logic to your choice of goals that you get to claim you are truly logical.

 

Acting morally is a logical goal because one cannot logically argue against a decision to act morally.

Acting immorally is not a logical goal because there is no way to logically justify acting immorally.

[neeeel]

Yes, but we need to understand what it actually means to apply logic to one's goals. Simply having goals and fulfilling those goals by logical means is not in and of itself acting logically. It is only when you apply logic to your choice of goals that you get to claim you are truly logical.

 

Acting morally is a logical goal because one cannot logically argue against a decision to act morally.

Acting immorally is not a logical goal because there is no way to logically justify acting immorally.

 

Im not sure I agree.

There will always be some premise in the logical argument that you have to just agree to, in order for the logic to be valid and sound. Logic tells you nothing about what you ought to do, unless you accept all the premises, and theres always some point at which you just have to accept a premise, or the logic fails..

 

edit: I can see that by this argument, I am arguing against using logic at all, and obviously I use logic, so that could be seen as contradictory. I dont think that that makes my argument invalid though

[Nathan Metric]

You disagree? Okay then show us how you can justify acting immorally with a logical argument. Please amuse everyone.

 

 

1)Logic is obviously better than illogic.

2)Acting in a matter that is logical is better than acting in a manner that is illogical.

3)Pursuing virtue can be logically justified and pursuing vice cannot be logically justified.

C)Therefore, you ought to act morally.

[Max Hartford]

 Simply having goals and fulfilling those goals by logical means is not in and of itself acting logically. It is only when you apply logic to your choice of goals that you get to claim you are truly logical.

 

 

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.

[Nathan Metric]

And that is supposed to mean.....what exactly?

 

1)You're admitting that my argument is logical.

 

2)You expect my answers to serve your self-interest for no good reason. There is no way you can justify pursuing this illogical (immoral) self-interest of yours so you're objection has no meaning whatsoever.

 

3)It's a laughable strawman argument to say that the only benefit to acting morally is being logical. What about the possibility of love? What about all the benefits that come from not destroying things? What about all the benefits that come from having moral courage? What about the ability to live as a beautiful rather than an ugly individual (and how that affects happiness and your ability to express yourself artistically)? What about the possibility of transcendence? What about the reduction of fear you have for the afterlife if there is one? What about the ability to find meaning in sadness, pain, and death?

 

4)What is a "crappy" and "not crappy" is whatever the hell you want it to be!  You make it sound like this is some kind of unalterable absolute truth that being moral in order to be logical is some "crappy" deal. You know I can just say "Well it is a great reward for me!" and there is no way you can argue against that.

You cannot invoke self-interest to debunk logic dude, Self-interest can be molded into anything including a reverence for logic. So the real question you ought to be asking is why can't you make it your self-interest to be logical?

 

What are you really a slave to? Whatever it is it's not your Ego.

[Max Hartford]

And that is supposed to mean.....what exactly?

 

1)You're admitting that my argument is logical.

 

2)You expect my answers to serve your self-interest for no good reason. There is no way you can justify pursuing this illogical (immoral) self-interest of yours so you're objection has no meaning whatsoever.

 

3)It's a laughable strawman argument to say that the only benefit to acting morally is being logical. What about the possibility of love? What about all the benefits that come from not destroying things? What about all the benefits that come from having moral courage? What about the ability to live as a beautiful rather than an ugly individual (and how that affects happiness and your ability to express yourself artistically)? What about the possibility of transcendence? What about the reduction of fear you have for the afterlife if there is one? What about the ability to find meaning in sadness, pain, and death?

 

4)What is a "crappy" and "not crappy" is whatever the hell you want it to be!  You make it sound like this is some kind of unalterable absolute truth that being moral in order to be logical is some "crappy" deal. You know I can just say "Well it is a great reward for me!" and there is no way you can argue against that.

You cannot invoke self-interest to debunk logic dude, Self-interest can be molded into anything including a reverence for logic. So the real question you ought to be asking is why can't you make it your self-interest to be logical?

 

What are you really a slave to? Whatever it is it's not your Ego.

 

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.

[Nathan Metric]

2)Wrong. There is no such thing as "self-interest" without reality and reality is transcended only by logic.

 

 

3) Associating with someone because they serve your mere self-interest both a)is not actual love and b)it is not a good basis for marriage. True love is the attraction to virtue and a valid marriage is based on duty. Not self-interest.

 

Morality allows for a society with no conflicts of interests. Conflicts of interest lead to chaos and destruction. So it's not true that you can live a non-destructive life without living morally.

 

Oh really? You think you are such a noble individual pursuing this illogical immoral self-interest of yours? What about your self-esteem? What about the ability for other people to recognize your virtue?

 

By "transcendence" I mean the societal evolution that results when you have a society that is free from destructive conflicts of interest and is free to grow unabated. Has nothing to do with an afterlife. But the possibility of an afterlife is another good reason to be moral. Death is certain and unknowable. Only death is real so you might as well live virtuously rather than chase fleeting pleasures that you will lose in the end.

 

Oh also, are you admitting that you can find meaning in pain, sadness and death by living morally? Are you also admitting that possessing morality allows one to have moral courage in face of evil? Even if morality was complete nonsense going around spreading nihilism and publicly expressing your nihilism would be pointless because there is no capacity for moral courage in nihilism.

 

There is also no way to be honest with one's children as a nihilist. You can't just teach children that morality is nonsense. You HAVE to impose moral absolutes on them awhile at the same time getting them to believe you actually believe in those moral absolutes. With nihilism there is no capacity for intimacy with children. You are forced to live a double life.

 

 

4)Okay, so basically you cannot pinpoint what you are actually a slave to. Does that not trouble you?

I at least know what I am serving (logic). You clearly do not (otherwise you would be able to pinpoint exactly what part of causes you to act in such illogical and immoralistic manners).

So what you are serving is more alien and abstract than what I am serving.

[Max Hartford]

2)Wrong. There is no such thing as "self-interest" without reality and reality is transcended only by logic.

 

 

3) Associating with someone because they serve your mere self-interest both a)is not actual love and b)it is not a good basis for marriage. True love is the attraction to virtue and a valid marriage is based on duty. Not self-interest.

 

Morality allows for a society with no conflicts of interests. Conflicts of interest lead to chaos and destruction. So it's not true that you can live a non-destructive life without living morally.

 

Oh really? You think you are such a noble individual pursuing this illogical immoral self-interest of yours? What about your self-esteem? What about the ability for other people to recognize your virtue?

 

By "transcendence" I mean the societal evolution that results when you have a society that is free from destructive conflicts of interest and is free to grow unabated. Has nothing to do with an afterlife. But the possibility of an afterlife is another good reason to be moral. Death is certain and unknowable. Only death is real so you might as well live virtuously rather than chase fleeting pleasures that you will lose in the end.

 

Oh also, are you admitting that you can find meaning in pain, sadness and death by living morally? Are you also admitting that possessing morality allows one to have moral courage in face of evil? Even if morality was complete nonsense going around spreading nihilism and publicly expressing your nihilism would be pointless because there is no capacity for moral courage in nihilism.

 

There is also no way to be honest with one's children as a nihilist. You can't just teach children that morality is nonsense. You HAVE to impose moral absolutes on them awhile at the same time getting them to believe you actually believe in those moral absolutes. With nihilism there is no capacity for intimacy with children. You are forced to live a double life.

 

 

4)Okay, so basically you cannot pinpoint what you are actually a slave to. Does that not trouble you?

I at least know what I am serving (logic). You clearly do not (otherwise you would be able to pinpoint exactly what part of causes you to act in such illogical and immoralistic manners).

So what you are serving is more alien and abstract than what I am serving.

 

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.

[Nathan Metric]

This is my last comment.

 

Transcendent does not mean "divine". It just means "higher than" something else.

 

"Logic" is NOT a mental construct. Logic is the system of transcendent, abstract, non-conceptual laws that apply to everything and nothing. Nothing is higher than logic. Not even reality and definitely not self-interest.

 

 

 

Marriage is a drag PERIOD. If everyone determined the value of marriage from an egotistical standpoint (which is happening right now in the native population of Western countries) marriage would decline. Marriage makes absolutely no sense from an egotistical standpoint especially if you're a man. To marry as Schopenhauer is to "halve one's liberties and to double one's duties". You get less sex. You now have to share your bed with a partner. You have buy a bigger house. You have more bills to pay for. You have to deal with kids. You got more yard work to do. There is the looming threat of divorce, You can't turn your guitar amps as loud anymore. You get less time for your hobbies. Etc. All that is a huge drag.

 

There is however one good reason to marry even despite the fact that it is drag: because it's virtuous. Marriage is the foundation of society. Children are necessary in order to keep the human race going, to preserve one's good genes, and to counter the irrationality of older people who albeit accumulate a lot of wisdom they also accumulate a lot of bigotries. Children when given proper respect and care are good at exposing the intellectual bigotries of adults.

 

 

Universal morality eliminates conflicts of interest. If you have two people who value something non-rivalrous like logic or the truth there is not going to be any conflicts of interest between them. If however you base morality on something subjective like "self-interest" you are pretty much guaranteed to have conflicts of interests. Max Stirner was wrong. There cannot be a "union of egoists". You can only have a union between the rational.

 

 

It doesn't matter how many pleasures you experience in life for the more pleasurable your life is the more meaningless and painful death becomes. Death negates all fleeting pleasures. Only a person motivated to pursue virtue can find meaning in death. A person who pursues virtue lives a painful existence by volition and only experiences happiness as an accident. Death than becomes meaningful for death takes away all the pain, all the uncertainties and questions that come with old age, and the dilemma of having to make responsible choices.

 

I think it is safe to say that you and I have completely opposite philosophies on life and death. To you life is about doing what you want to do. To me, life is about doing what you should do and what you should do is live as though the truth matters.  To you, life is only about life. To me, life is about finding meaning in death. Trying to find meaning in that which is is inevitable, uncertain, and absolute.

 

Life is fleeting. Only death is real.

 

 

Of course, I don't expect any what I just said to convince you because you only value logic when it serves your self-interest. Something of which I find completely incomprehensible because there is nothing fixed and unalterable about "self-interest". Self-interest by definition is subjective. Not objective. (the word "self" is synonymous with subjective) Your self-interest is only in opposition to logic if you want it to be. Not because it is by nature opposed to logic. So anytime you say you don't value logic when it comes to choosing your goals because that goes against you "self-interest" you are just spouting gibberish. There is no reason apriori for your self-interest to be in opposition to that.  There is no reason why you can't make it your self-interest to apply logic to your choice of goals. You're just inventing a barrier that doesn't exist.

 

But I'll just assume for a moment that self-interest is objective so that way I can get to the last thing I want to respond to.

You say you do not want moral courage. That is completely incomprehensible to me. Without appealing to morality your preferences have no meaning to anyone else. If my self-interest contradicts your self-interest and I am more powerful than you are then my self-interest supercedes your self-interest in matters of public policy. Everything just reduces to might makes right and if you have no might you are completely screwed. Without moral courage you have no ability protect your self-interest against those that are more powerful than you are. You have no way to rally a handful of troops against a massive foe. You have no way to argue people out of doing something you despise which benefits them. You affectingly have no rights or dignity at all.

 

That alone is should be enough of a reason why one should reject nihilism. If nihilists understood the value of moral courage they wouldn't go around preaching nihilism. Unless of course they are sadistic/masochist and like making already small and fragile human beings feel even more insignificant.

[neeeel]

 

There is however one good reason to marry even despite the fact that it is drag: because it's virtuous. Marriage is the foundation of society. Children are necessary in order to keep the human race going, to preserve one's good genes, and to counter the irrationality of older people who albeit accumulate a lot of wisdom they also accumulate a lot of bigotries. Children when given proper respect and care are good at exposing the intellectual bigotries of adults.

 

 

This seems like a pretty hefty claim, and Im not sure that you have shown that its true.

 

This is your logic, as I understand it.

 

P1) Something that exposes intellectual bigotries of adults is virtuous

P2) children expose intellectual bigotries of adults

C1) children are virtuous

   P3) It is desirable ( virtuous?) to propagate virtuousness

   P4) from C1, children display virtuousness

   C2) it is desirable to propagate children

      P5) Marriage is the best way to propagate children who are virtuous

      C3) marriage is virtuous

 

 

this seems very flimsy to me. P1 isnt proven, P3 has a lot of hidden premises, C2 and C3 seems circular( its virtuous to be virtuous) , and I have been very generous in interpreting some of your statements ( eg marriage is the foundation of society)

 

 

It doesn't matter how many pleasures you experience in life for the more pleasurable your life is the more meaningless and painful death becomes. Death negates all fleeting pleasures. Only a person motivated to pursue virtue can find meaning in death. A person who pursues virtue lives a painful existence by volition and only experiences happiness as an accident. Death than becomes meaningful for death takes away all the pain, all the uncertainties and questions that come with old age, and the dilemma of having to make responsible choices.

 

 

Meaning is subjective.

[Max Hartford]

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...

[Torero]

There are many more options than just those two.

 

I live my life happily, put my own self-interests and of my beloved other Homo sapiens at the forefront and I find peace in virtue and moral.

 

That's different from actively discouraging others to live acoording to "restricting" morals.

[Nathan Metric]

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...

Sigh. Oversimplification. Let's recap all my arguments.

 

1)My position (be moral) is the logical justified position. You've admitted this. That alone should be enough to convince you but you're so spiritually bankrupt and evil that you question why we should be logical in the first place.

 

2)"What is good for you" is subjective so anytime you say it is not good for you to submit to logic you're just speaking gibberish. There is nothing about subjective self-interest that is apriori opposed to being logical. Either way you live you are living "by your own design".

 

3)A life of fleeting pleasures is negated by death so in actually an illogical hedonist lifestyle is not actually any happier than a moral lifestyle. That was the point you missed. On the gradient of happiness both lifestyles end up being at zero in the end. The difference is the latter lifestyle is a moral lifestyle awhile the other one is not.

 

4)Even if we go all the way with assuming your self-interest is something objective and unalterable you have to be complete fool to not see the benefit of having moral courage. Moral courage is not about "sacrifice". It's about having the willpower to actually stick up for yourself and your preferences. Your preferences have no meaning to anyone else without morality. So preaching nihilism makes no sense even from an egotistical standpoint.

 

5)There is no way to have any kind of intimacy with your children. You cannot justify your behavior by "well I just want to!". You need morality. You need logic to reason with children otherwise you have to resort to verbal abuse, physical abuse or just outright neglect them because you have to treat all selfish desires equally.

 

 

If that doesn't convince you then I'm done. You cannot reason with someone who doesn't even value logic in the first place. 

This seems like a pretty hefty claim, and Im not sure that you have shown that its true.

 

This is your logic, as I understand it.

 

P1) Something that exposes intellectual bigotries of adults is virtuous

P2) children expose intellectual bigotries of adults

C1) children are virtuous

   P3) It is desirable ( virtuous?) to propagate virtuousness

   P4) from C1, children display virtuousness

   C2) it is desirable to propagate children

      P5) Marriage is the best way to propagate children who are virtuous

      C3) marriage is virtuous

 

 

this seems very flimsy to me. P1 isnt proven, P3 has a lot of hidden premises, C2 and C3 seems circular( its virtuous to be virtuous) , and I have been very generous in interpreting some of your statements ( eg marriage is the foundation of society)

My argument would be

 

1)Thou shall pursue virtue.

2)Truth is the prime virtue.

3)Therefore, you should pursue the truth.

4)A Adults accumulate both wisdom and bigotries over time.

4)B) Humans are mortal

5)A Children with given proper care and respect are good at exposing the intellectual bigotries of adults via a series of "why?" questions.

5)B) Children prolong the species.

6)Therefore, propagating children is virtuous.

7)Therefore, marriage is the virtuous.

 

There. Nothing circular.

 

 

"Meaning is subjective".....and that means......what exactly?