Why be moral? (answered)

[Max Hartford]

I never claimed universality makes anything binding, but rather that it was a necessary element of a moral rule.

 

But if a 'moral rule' isn't binding, than what is it? A suggestion that isn't backed by incentives of any kind? If so, why bother working out what is or isn't a moral rule? Why not just make suggestions at random?

[shirgall]

But if a 'moral rule' isn't binding, than what is it? A suggestion that isn't backed by incentives of any kind? If so, why bother working out what is or isn't a moral rule? Why not just make suggestions at random?

 

It would be interesting if you addressed what I said instead of what you want to argue about. I am not the one that applied any concept of "binding".

[Max Hartford]

It would be interesting if you addressed what I said instead of what you want to argue about. I am not the one that applied any concept of "binding".

 

Fair enough I suppose... It just seems rather academic to discuss the minutiae of something (moral rules) that has no real world relevance. Kind of like arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.  

[shirgall]

Fair enough I suppose... It just seems rather academic to discuss the minutiae of something (moral rules) that has no real world relevance. Kind of like arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.  

 

 

Except I wasn't arguing as much as I was just clarifying. I won't claim to be the most crisp, but there were misconceptions running about.

[Des]

Good: means that you haven't been duped Moralists like to speak in universals in order to preserve an appearance of objectivity. But the question is: why does the mere fact of being able to be applied universally make a behavioral command binding? This is the question that no one has really been able to answer satisfactorily, at least to my knowledge.

Conclusions about what can be moral, what cannot be moral, and what a person should do in a given situation, are of value to anyone doing his own personal planning, or compiling advice for a friend or loved one. The should or ought : is not to be derived as command from an "is", but as advice to self or other (advisory should or ought from the "is" of reality).

 

For example, one should not (one ought not to) cut a deal with someone whereby he buys at exorbitant price, the right to slap you upside the head whenever he wishes. This is a deal for immorality, similar to the citizen's deal with government, in which the government gains the right to treat the citizen immorally.

 

Inverse example: one should not (one ought not to) cut a deal with someone and slip in some permission to act immorally towards that person, because that would set up an unstable relationship in which that person may both renege on the contract and signal that end of contract with some immoral act like murder.

 

From these examples of advice given in the best interest of the contracting parties, one can derive what morality is and must be (at minimum): no aggression, no fraud, keep your word.

[Nathan Metric]

There's no such thing as a universal preference: preferences are all subjective.

 

Translation: There is such a thing as a universal preference: you ought to hold the correct belief that all preferences are subjective.

[Max Hartford]

Conclusions about what can be moral, what cannot be moral, and what a person should do in a given situation, are of value to anyone doing his own personal planning, or compiling advice for a friend or loved one. The should or ought : is not to be derived as command from an "is", but as advice to self or other (advisory should or ought from the "is" of reality).

 

For example, one should not (one ought not to) cut a deal with someone whereby he buys at exorbitant price, the right to slap you upside the head whenever he wishes. This is a deal for immorality, similar to the citizen's deal with government, in which the government gains the right to treat the citizen immorally.

 

Inverse example: one should not (one ought not to) cut a deal with someone and slip in some permission to act immorally towards that person, because that would set up an unstable relationship in which that person may both renege on the contract and signal that end of contract with some immoral act like murder.

 

From these examples of advice given in the best interest of the contracting parties, one can derive what morality is and must be (at minimum): no aggression, no fraud, keep your word.

 

I agree with the mode of reasoning here (egoistic utilitarian reasoning), but not with all of the conclusions. For your inverse example, I don't think that this conclusion necessary holds for all people (ie. I'm pretty sure that some people have been able to benefit, on net, from aggressive coercion, despite the somewhat unstable relationship it sets up). Perhaps in a world of smarter, less gullible people this would not be the case, but in the current world, coercion can sometimes be a beneficial strategy.

[Max Hartford]

Translation: There is such a thing as a universal preference: you ought to hold the correct belief that all preferences are subjective.

 

That's not universal: you only ought to do that if you're interested in exploring the truth via discussion. If you have no interest in that, then there's no need to hold that preference, hence it's not universal, but subjective still.

[Des]

I agree with the mode of reasoning here (egoistic utilitarian reasoning), but not with all of the conclusions. For your inverse example, I don't think that this conclusion necessary holds for all people (ie. I'm pretty sure that some people have been able to benefit, on net, from aggressive coercion, despite the somewhat unstable relationship it sets up). Perhaps in a world of smarter, less gullible people this would not be the case, but in the current world, coercion can sometimes be a beneficial strategy.

I may be wrong, but I estimate that to get enough stability for the benefit to outweigh the risk cost of coercion, the aggressor must deceive in ways that are about to become very difficult (because the truth has leaked already).  I estimate the smarter people are on the path to abandoning ideology for philosophy, abandoning government and adopting peaceful trade. I expect that those who don't do their own thinking, will just copy what the smarter people do, because most people are smart enough to do that (to see what works and imitate it).

[Des]

"Attempt to discover the truth, rather than attempting to confirm what you already think you know", is the advice you would give to people you care about, for example to your children.

 

"Be moral, except where you endanger your life by doing that", is in the same category of good advice.

 

Why would we say: "Be moral because reality is an absolute dictator that can rule you" ?

Why would we not say: "Be moral in interaction with other moral people, because that way reality in the form of human reaction to your decisions, is less likely to bite you in the rear end" ?

 

"Try to avoid knowingly typing or speaking incorrect statements into the public internet" is similar good advice, so if someone points out an incorrect statement, he is assuming the author is following that advice (if he isn't, there is no point interacting, is there?).

 

I am not sure if I am correctly interpreting the question "Why be moral?", if I am interpreting it the same way as most other readers. My interpretation is as if I as manager advised the business owner: "buy this machine", then the "Why?", would be a request for a letter of motivation, and the synopsis of the answer would always be "because that will probably make more money than any other deployment of the funds".

 

The synopsis of the answer to "Why be moral?" is: "Because that will probably benefit you", and should be read with the question-answer pair: "When to be moral?" and "Whenever that does not endanger your own life, and sometimes when it does endanger your life, but in those cases use your own discretion".  Like the motivation for a company capital outlay, there is detail in the full motivation, but the synopsis of the answer is quite simple.

 

[My italics are an edit, customer phone call distracted me]

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

If philosophy entirely ignores subjective preferences, than philosophy is entirely useless. So the fact that I'm not talking 'philosophically', according to your definition, does not trouble me in the slightest.

 

There's nothing objectively 'wrong' with it, as I've said a million times. I just doubt that you have the power to actually brainwash people: it's harder than it looks.

 

Actually, rape is a sexual fantasy for some fetishists, so it's not universal. Even if it were though, that would just be by combining the individual, subjective preferences of every single human being, not some magical new kind of 'philosophic' preference.

 

I don't know what you're going on about here: you used the word preferable way too many times. Preferences are about ordering alternatives: an alternative cannot be both higher and lower than another alternative at the same time. 

 

If you just want to be correct, than just post the Pythagorean Theorem over and over again, no need to adhere to some oppressive 'moral code'. I don't take pleasure in correcting people: I take pleasure in discussing interesting intellectual issues.

 

Okay... Then why did you say that my subjective opinion is 'irrelevant to philosophy'? 

 

You misunderstand: I really don't care what is or is not a 'valid philosophical standard'.

 

Saying your opinion is irrelevant to philosophy does not mean philosophy can have nothing to do with subjective opinions. But philosophy is founded on objective standards. 

 

Saying you don't care what is or is not a valid philosophical standard is the most insulting response I've ever gotten on this board. You're on a philosophy forum holding others to objective standards while claiming you don't care about those standards. You are truly contemptible. 

 

 

 

 

You're perfectly free to speak in gibberish: but the inevitable consequence is that no one will be able to understand what the heck you're saying.   

 

What's wrong with no one being able to understand me? 

 

 

 

 

By that definition, you're just making a tautological claim: that which is not wanted is not wanted. Doesn't say anything useful. Because the standard definition of rape is: 'sexual intercourse perpetrated without the consent of the victim'. It is conceivable that a rape fetishist could be surprised in the street and raped without any consent whatsoever: but they might enjoy it nevertheless and secretly be happy that it happened.   

 

No, dummy. Rape by definition is unwanted. What a person may or may not feel at some point afterwards is irrelevant. You can't retroactively want something you didn't want. 

 

 

This is how it is:

 

The truth is that we should act morally, because doing so is the correct thing to do. You have won the debate: congratulations! Unfortunately for you, your victory is an entirely Pyrrhic one. This is because most people care more about their own self-interest than they do about conforming to the dictates of some ivory tower philosophy, and hence will not bother themselves about philosophic morality. For those few who genuinely do not place their self-interest above philosophical morality, such as Mister Nathan Metric, I would sincerely advise them to start: for the sake of their own personal well-being and happiness.

 

In sum: you have won the Internet debate, but in the real world, you have achieved nothing by doing so. 

 

 

So if YOU had won the debate you'd have achieved nothing by doing? So you're just a troll then?

[shirgall]

that just seems like equivocation to me.

 

So 

1) initiation of force is evil ( this is universal)

2) using force to save someones life is the initiation of force

therefore

C) using force to save someones life is evil

 

either 1) is universal or not. If its universal, then its evil to save someones life using force. Whether the person forgives him or not is irrelevant.

 

I dont think anyone would agree with C) , so it cant be universal.

 

I must be missing something here

 

The equivocation you are making is that using force is the same as initiating force. If I whack you with a broom to disconnect you from a plug that is electrocuting you, it's wrong but you might forgive me. The problem is that I couldn't come up with some other way to save you in the time allotted.

 

Lifeboat problems are all about limiting your choices or the time to make them because they think this problem is insurmountable. It's not.

 

"Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife." (Brown v. United States, 1921) Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

[Max Hartford]

 

 

Saying you don't care what is or is not a valid philosophical standard is the most insulting response I've ever gotten on this board. You're on a philosophy forum holding others to objective standards while claiming you don't care about those standards. You are truly contemptible. 

 

 

 

No, dummy. Rape by definition is unwanted. What a person may or may not feel at some point afterwards is irrelevant. You can't retroactively want something you didn't want. 

 

 

 

So if YOU had won the debate you'd have achieved nothing by doing? So you're just a troll then?

 

I said that because you kept obfuscating the very simple point I was trying to make: the standards required for discovering the truth are one thing, but there is no reason we have to care about those standards at all times. We only have to do so when we are interested in effectively discovering the truth, not at other times. If it came off insulting, than I apologize: that was not my intent.

 

It's not necessarily 'unwanted': unasked for yes, but 'unwanted', not necessarily. The two are different concepts.

 

Because of the nature of the subject matter, the fact of 'winning the debate' achieves little on its own, because most people wouldn't bother changing their behavior as a result. What would achieve something is if a response were convincing (ie. likely to make others change their behavior), the adjective which you have heaped so much inexplicable scorn on. 

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

I said that because you kept obfuscating the very simple point I was trying to make: the standards required for discovering the truth are one thing, but there is no reason we have to care about those standards at all times. 

 

If there was "no reason" to "care" then there's no reason to accept your argument that there's no reason to care. You are literally spouting self-detonating nonsense. 

The reason to "care" is because it's correct. IT'S CORRECT.

But I'm not talking about "caring". You have framed this as whether we do or do not care. I didn't bring up caring. But to the degree that an emotion like caring is relevant you can't pick and choose which times to be correct. Truth is universal, which means it applies at all times. You can choose to be correct or wrong. You can't choose to be correct some of the time and wrong some of the time. That's just choosing wrong. 

If you don't care about being wrong then why are you here? 

 

 

 

It's not necessarily 'unwanted': unasked for yes, but 'unwanted', not necessarily. The two are different concepts. 

 

It is necessarily unwanted. A necessary property of rape is that it is unwanted. That's the god-damn definition of rape. Stop arguing this. It's absurd. 

 

 

 

 

Because of the nature of the subject matter, the fact of 'winning the debate' achieves little on its own, because most people wouldn't bother changing their behavior as a result. What would achieve something is if a response were convincing (ie. likely to make others change their behavior), the adjective which you have heaped so much inexplicable scorn on.

 

So now we're back to the practicalities of what is effective at changing behavior. I've already gone over this. Why are you on a philosophy forum if your goal is to change behavior and you think reason is highly ineffective? Are you retarded or something? 

[Nathan Metric]

That's not universal: you only ought to do that if you're interested in exploring the truth via discussion. If you have no interest in that, then there's no need to hold that preference, hence it's not universal, but subjective still.

Oh, so you're saying it is not universally preferable to believe that all values are subjective? GREAT! So you're agreeing with us then. It is NOT universally preferable to believe that values are subjective so therefore there is no reason for anyone to adopt this nihilistic philosophy of yours.

[Des]

Oh, so you're saying it is not universally preferable to believe that all values are subjective? GREAT! So you're agreeing with us then. It is NOT universally preferable to believe that values are subjective so therefore there is no reason for anyone to adopt this nihilistic philosophy of yours.

Umm, shouldn't we be estimating whether the philosophic propositions are correct, rather than whether they are nihilistic, or assigning them to the proposer as if he owned them?

 

I get your point, though. If the proposition that all values are subjective, can itself be taken as a subjective proposition, then it would be within reason to take it as false, from one's subjective perspective. However, that was not Max's proposition. Max proposed that preference for the truth is not universal, which diverges from the proposition that preference for the truth is not universalisable (i.e. we can all prefer truth over falsehood, without this preference creating some logical or physical conflict).

[Des]

Re-stated: "I advise everyone to prefer truth over falsehood" - well okay then, what argument can be made against that advice?

"I advise everyone to prefer falsehood over truth" - Well is it true that this is good advice? If so, we should prefer that which is false, and not prefer to accept that this is good advice.

"I advise everyone to be indifferent to the truth or falsehood of all statements" - okay, then we can be indifferent to the question of whether or not that is good advice (and ignore it as advice).

 

"I advise everyone to be moral except where moral decision endangers the life of the decision maker (and at own discretion even when it does endanger his life)" - what is the argument against this advice?

I don't think I need to construct the arguments against advising immorality or advising indifference to immorality (but i could).

 

If the question is "Why follow the above advice to be moral (conditionally)?", the answer is: because that conditional compliance with morality is likely to save your life.

If I say "be moral", and you say "Ha, you're a moralist". Then okay, you called me a name. Does not explain why I should desist from advising morality.

[Nathan Metric]

Umm, shouldn't we be estimating whether the philosophic propositions are correct, rather than whether they are nihilistic, or assigning them to the proposer as if he owned them?

 

I get your point, though. If the proposition that all values are subjective, can itself be taken as a subjective proposition, then it would be within reason to take it as false, from one's subjective perspective. However, that was not Max's proposition. Max proposed that preference for the truth is not universal, which diverges from the proposition that preference for the truth is not universalisable (i.e. we can all prefer truth over falsehood, without this preference creating some logical or physical conflict).

In order for something to be true there has to be a logical way to argue for it. There is no way to argue "all values are subjective" in a logically consistent manner because it imposes no duty on the listener to accept it. Rather it destroys the foundation necessary for the claim to have any meaning at all.

[Des]

That's not universal: you only ought to do that if you're interested in exploring the truth via discussion. If you have no interest in that, then there's no need to hold that preference, hence it's not universal, but subjective still.

 

 

In order for something to be true there has to be a logical way to argue for it. There is no way to argue "all values are subjective" in a logically consistent manner because it imposes no duty on the listener to accept it. Rather it destroys the foundation necessary for the claim to have any meaning at all.

 

I can't see any reason to argue against the proposition that preferences are subjective.

 

Nevertheless, people universally prefer to be alive in the way that horses universally have 4 legs.

With an exception to either of above - there is clearly something wrong with that horse/person.

 

Trading my moral behaviour for the moral behaviour of others, can be objectively linked to the preference for being alive. If I have that preference, I want others to be moral. Why should they? They should because I'm going to undermine any deal in which they get to act immorally, and I won't necessarily abide by moral rules in opposing those who don't abide by moral rules (why should I?). Alternately, if I trust someone to abide by moral rules, I will restrict myself to those rules in dealing with him - so it is a valuable deal (it is objectively valuable if he prefers life [which is a universal preference because the exceptions are faulty people in the way that 5-legged horses are faulty horses]).

 

I see in the above quotes, Max referring to a particular preference being subjective, and Nathan discussing the different proposition that all values are subjective. If you two disagree, please disagree over the same proposition (that would be my personal preference   for you to regard howsoever you will).

[Max Hartford]

If there was "no reason" to "care" then there's no reason to accept your argument that there's no reason to care. You are literally spouting self-detonating nonsense. 

The reason to "care" is because it's correct. IT'S CORRECT.

But I'm not talking about "caring". You have framed this as whether we do or do not care. I didn't bring up caring. But to the degree that an emotion like caring is relevant you can't pick and choose which times to be correct. Truth is universal, which means it applies at all times. You can choose to be correct or wrong. You can't choose to be correct some of the time and wrong some of the time. That's just choosing wrong. 

If you don't care about being wrong then why are you here? 

 

 

So now we're back to the practicalities of what is effective at changing behavior. I've already gone over this. Why are you on a philosophy forum if your goal is to change behavior and you think reason is highly ineffective? Are you retarded or something? 

 

But there is a reason to care that there is no reason to care about morality: it enables us to pursue our self-interest more effectively. If you want to shut your ears to this, fine: but it's only you that loses out. Perhaps others will choose more wisely.

 

And what the hell do you mean 'you can't choose to be correct some of the time and wrong some of the time'? Of course you can: I could say, 'Joseph Stalin was a man', and be correct, and the next moment say, 'Adolf Hitler was a woman', and be wrong. How is that 'just choosing wrong'?

 

I'm on a philosophy forum, primarily, because arguing with moralists amuses me, and secondarily, because some people might actually see the value in what I'm saying (for the advancement of their self-interest, not because of 'reason'), which would be cool. Why are you?

Oh, so you're saying it is not universally preferable to believe that all values are subjective? GREAT! So you're agreeing with us then. It is NOT universally preferable to believe that values are subjective so therefore there is no reason for anyone to adopt this nihilistic philosophy of yours.

 

Come on, Mr. Metric, you know very well that there is a reason to adopt it. The reason is to advance our self-interest, as I've said many many times already. Just because you think that self-interest is fleeting, or illusory, or irrational, or whatever, doesn't mean that it's unimportant to the vast majority of the human population.The majority would probably consider it the most important thing in life to advance, well above 'reason', or 'virtue', or 'the truth', or 'UPB', or all these other concepts.

[Nathan Metric]

What is this mythical "self-interest" thing you keep referring to and why should we pursue it?

In fact let me add a hypothetical. Right now, I am going through a stressful period in my life. I'm not sure what I want to do with it. I don't know what my "self-interest" is exactly.

 

So what should my self-interest be? Should my self-interest be what it should be or what it shouldn't be?

[Max Hartford]

What is this mythical "self-interest" thing you keep referring to and why should we pursue it?

In fact let me add a hypothetical. Right now, I am going through a stressful period in my life. I'm not sure what I want to do with it. I don't know what my "self-interest" is exactly.

 

So what should my self-interest be? Should my self-interest be what it should be or what it shouldn't be?

 

I would define it as: whatever you, unencumbered by fixed behavioral ideas derived from universalistic systems of thought, feel would best advance your own happiness and pleasure at the moment.

 

You're right: not everyone will always have a clear idea of what this is, what path to take. When faced with this, one option is to take refuge in religion, or other fixed codes of behavior, so that you can blindly follow a path forged by others, rather than blazing your own. I do not believe that this is the most rewarding option though: to persevere, to discover who you really are and what you really want out of life, I believe this is the road followed by the most fulfilled individuals.  

 

As Max Stirner so eloquently put it: “Therefore turn to yourselves rather than to your gods or idols. Bring out from yourselves what is in you, bring it to the light, bring yourselves to revelation.”

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

But there is a reason to care that there is no reason to care about morality: it enables us to pursue our self-interest more effectively. If you want to shut your ears to this, fine: but it's only you that loses out. Perhaps others will choose more wisely.

 

The only significant reason to not care about morality in the pursuit of this "self interest" is if your "self-interest" involves violating some that morality. So that raises the obvious question; Why are you considering rape, robbery, assault or murder to be in your self-interest? Why are you keeping these options open? Do you think you might WANT to rape or murder someone at some point? Have you already done something and now want to debate morality to convince yourself it's just arbitrary preference? 

 

Why would not caring about it allow us to pursue our "self-interest" more effectively? Maybe our self-interest is better when we follow morality. I have no interest whatsoever in violating anyone so it's actually against my "self-interest" to not care about it. Again you have subtly framed this in terms on what's effective, not what's true or valid.  Yes, we all get it. Morality sets limits on your behavior and that may conflict with your "self-interest". So what? Science and reason also set limits on what you can believe and accept as true. So what? 

 

How have I "shut my ears"? I have addressed and completely refuted everything you've argued. Please don't concern troll me with "you're losing out" and "perhaps others will choose more wisely".  Everything you say is self-refuting. I could write pages about all the BS loaded into your comment.

 

 

 

And what the hell do you mean 'you can't choose to be correct some of the time and wrong some of the time'? Of course you can: I could say, 'Joseph Stalin was a man', and be correct, and the next moment say, 'Adolf Hitler was a woman', and be wrong. How is that 'just choosing wrong'?

 

Ugh, such a lazy response.  You go for the the dullest, most depressingly obvious response as if I just didn't think of that. So exhausting. 

Make an effort to think. 

 

It's not about what you CAN say. I can accept logic is valid but still SAY "logic is wrong". But I will be WRONG.

Truth is universal so if you choose truth as your standard then you necessarily accept the methodology everywhere and at all times. So when you say "Stalin was a man" you are making a correct statement but you're using the wrong methodology. When you say "Hitler was a woman" you are either lying/joking etc or are mistaken. Do you understand?

 

 

I'm on a philosophy forum, primarily, because arguing with moralists amuses me, and secondarily, because some people might actually see the value in what I'm saying (for the advancement of their self-interest, not because of 'reason'), which would be cool. Why are you?

 

Well, you've been proven wrong about the advancement of their self-interest so the only reason you remain is that you find it amusing. That's pretty insulting.

I'm here because I care about what's true. I believe you are here to attempt to debate away your anxiety over morality. Because it's it's not very plausible that you'd think your "self-interest" is well served debating strangers on some forum about something you claim not to care about. 

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

I would define it as: whatever you, unencumbered by fixed behavioral ideas derived from universalistic systems of thought, feel would best advance your own happiness and pleasure at the moment.

 

Does this apply universally?

 

 

 

  As Max Stirner so eloquently put it: “Therefore turn to yourselves rather than to your gods or idols. Bring out from yourselves what is in you, bring it to the light, bring yourselves to revelation.”

 

What if that's not in your "self-interest"? 

[Des]

What is this mythical "self-interest" thing you keep referring to and why should we pursue it?

In fact let me add a hypothetical. Right now, I am going through a stressful period in my life. I'm not sure what I want to do with it. I don't know what my "self-interest" is exactly.

 

So what should my self-interest be? Should my self-interest be what it should be or what it shouldn't be?

We can say what is not rationally and objectively in your self interest. What is not rationally and objectively in your self interest is for you to be dead.

Using that standard, we can derive that ingesting addictive substances, making immoral decisions harmful to people who could otherwise be trusted to treat you morally, and many other types of decisions objectively go against your self interest, based on the statistical likelihood of the outcome that the decision will be instrumental to your death.

[Max Hartford]

The only significant reason to not care about morality in the pursuit of this "self interest" is if your "self-interest" involves violating some that morality. So that raises the obvious question; Why are you considering rape, robbery, assault or murder to be in your self-interest? Why are you keeping these options open? Do you think you might WANT to rape or murder someone at some point? Have you already done something and now want to debate morality to convince yourself it's just arbitrary preference? 

 

Why would not caring about it allow us to pursue our "self-interest" more effectively? Maybe our self-interest is better when we follow morality. I have no interest whatsoever in violating anyone so it's actually against my "self-interest" to not care about it. Again you have subtly framed this in terms on what's effective, not what's true or valid.  Yes, we all get it. Morality sets limits on your behavior and that may conflict with your "self-interest". So what? Science and reason also set limits on what you can believe and accept as true. So what? 

 

How have I "shut my ears"? I have addressed and completely refuted everything you've argued. Please don't concern troll me with "you're losing out" and "perhaps others will choose more wisely".  Everything you say is self-refuting. I could write pages about all the BS loaded into your comment.

 

 

 

Ugh, such a lazy response.  You go for the the dullest, most depressingly obvious response as if I just didn't think of that. So exhausting. 

Make an effort to think. 

 

It's not about what you CAN say. I can accept logic is valid but still SAY "logic is wrong". But I will be WRONG.

Truth is universal so if you choose truth as your standard then you necessarily accept the methodology everywhere and at all times. So when you say "Stalin was a man" you are making a correct statement but you're using the wrong methodology. When you say "Hitler was a woman" you are either lying/joking etc or are mistaken. Do you understand?

 

 

Well, you've been proven wrong about the advancement of their self-interest so the only reason you remain is that you find it amusing. That's pretty insulting.

I'm here because I care about what's true. I believe you are here to attempt to debate away your anxiety over morality. Because it's it's not very plausible that you'd think your "self-interest" is well served debating strangers on some forum about something you claim not to care about. 

 

1. No I do not have any intention of raping, murdering, or assaulting anyone: I think that doing those things would be stupid and pointless. However, most moral systems prohibit more things than these. For instance, lying and cheating are often prohibited, things which I would definitely consider doing if the payoff was right. Some even suggest we have a duty to speak out the truth of politics and philosophy and such at all relevant times, something which could be quite damaging if followed. Also, I haven't, but would consider, hiring the services of a prostitute. In addition, I'm a minarchist libertarian, not an anarchist, so I could see people benefiting from certain uses of government coercion, such as to provide policing/defense, a bit of pure income redistribution, and occasionally using eminent domain for infrastructure projects. Being a devout moralist forces you to advocate anarchy, even if you don't believe it would be the system most conducive to our welfare. 

 

2. Why? Why do we have to just choose one standard for all times? Why can't we prefer truth sometimes, and emotions other times? Logical reasoning in some circumstances, arbitrary opinions in others?

 

3. I don't care about the contents of morality: you're right about that. But I do care about helping others to self-liberate from the dictates of morality, whenever they prove to be counter to the individual's wishes. And don't bother asking me why I care about this: I just do. Tastes are a given.

[Max Hartford]

Does this apply universally?

 

 

 

What if that's not in your "self-interest"? 

 

It's just my definition of the word: I don't know what you mean 'apply universally'.

 

How could discovering what your self-interest is not be in your self-interest? These potshots of yours aren't making a lot of sense...

[Max Hartford]

We can say what is not rationally and objectively in your self interest. What is not rationally and objectively in your self interest is for you to be dead.

Using that standard, we can derive that ingesting addictive substances, making immoral decisions harmful to people who could otherwise be trusted to treat you morally, and many other types of decisions objectively go against your self interest, based on the statistical likelihood of the outcome that the decision will be instrumental to your death.

 

Hmm, but here we run into the problem of quantity vs quality of life. Is eating Krispy Kreme donuts 'objectively' against people's self-interest? On one hand, a lot of people find them delicious, and hence derive a lot of pleasure from eating them. On the other hand, they are unhealthy to the body, and increase the likelihood of an earlier death. I submit that only the individual, subjectively, can determine whether such a course of action is in their self-interest or not. The same applies for all of the other activities you mention, although more people will probably find it against their subjective self-interests in the cases you mention. 

[Nathan Metric]

This is my last response for real this time for I'm deleting my account after this one.

 

I would define it as: whatever you, unencumbered by fixed behavioral ideas derived from universalistic systems of thought, feel would best advance your own happiness and pleasure at the moment.

 

You're right: not everyone will always have a clear idea of what this is, what path to take. When faced with this, one option is to take refuge in religion, or other fixed codes of behavior, so that you can blindly follow a path forged by others, rather than blazing your own. I do not believe that this is the most rewarding option though: to persevere, to discover who you really are and what you really want out of life, I believe this is the road followed by the most fulfilled individuals.  

 

As Max Stirner so eloquently put it: “Therefore turn to yourselves rather than to your gods or idols. Bring out from yourselves what is in you, bring it to the light, bring yourselves to revelation.”

 

 

Which of course answers nothing. What exactly is my "happiness" and "pleasure" other than the fulfillment of my self-interest? So simply saying my self-interest is what advances my own happiness and pleasure answers nothing. Answers nothing

 

If I might interject, I believe the point is that there is no *should*, or certainly that a *should* need not be imposed from any external source. Value is subjective. So whatever value you place on your different options and choices, they are what they for you and only you can determine which is the best for you. I don't see any *should* in pursuing self interest. It is your free option to do or don't do, however you see fit.

 

That can be an overwhelming thought, and I share some of your same concerns. After being neglected and erased in my upbringing, my own self-interest has been and continues to be a struggle to find. But it is possible to rebuild that connection to yourself. It is a psychological journey, moreso than a philosophical one, in my opinion. Philosopher, know thyself! What do you want? What do you value? These are important questions to get in touch with. 

 

This is a very off-the-cuff response and I hope it makes some sense to you. In any case, I think I can empathize with your feelings and where you're coming from.

 

Oh so are you saying I SHOULD believe that there is no such thing as "should"?

 

It was a hypothetical. I already know exactly what I want and what I want is to do what I should do. Why will there are 4 reasons why.

 

The Number 1 reason is because nihilism is intellectual hypocrisy. There is no way to argue for nihilism in a logically consistent manner.

 

The Number 2 reason is that only death is real. Death is inevitable, uncertain, and absolute. So life should be about finding meaning in death rather than accentuating the pleasure of life. Death negates all fleeting pleasures. The more meaningful life is to a person the more meaningless death becomes. All the pleasure, all the wealth, all the power, all the friends, and all the fame you acquired for your personal enjoyment are taken away from you in death.  I see no fulfillment in a life centered around so called "personal fulfillment".

 

The Number 3 reason is that the government and criminals rely on the fact that you

a)value life and fear death

and

b)have no strong beliefs

in order to control you.

Nihilists then are part of the enemy. For one, they try to manipulate you into accentuating the pleasure of life and they get you doubt everything. Only men who don't fear of death and are uncorrupted by doubt can take on evil. "Freedom" is a state of mind. Period. And we are too damn egotistical, too damn happy, too damn calculating, too damn fat, and too damn comfortable to do what is necessary to be free.

 

The Number 4 reason is probably the most subjective reason. My personal reason for living morally is because quite frankly I see no egotistical reason for living. My favorite pastime is sleeping or not being conscious at all.  My work sucks, I hate the human race, women would not enjoy my company (wouldn't be able to sleep sharing a bed with someone), marriage is a drag, the music is terrible, the movies are unreal and I see no avenue for meaningful accomplishment in my hobbies.The only reason I live is duty. i would not want to cause my dad or my sister to suffer from me prematurely dying. Without them I would be a completely unhinged and dangerous individual.

 

So basically there is NOTHING anyone can do to convince me to abandon morality. I used to be a nihilistic person in my youth i don't plan on returning to that state. Ever. With virtue there is power and with evil there is no power.

 

[Max Hartford]

This is my last response for real this time for I'm deleting my account after this one.

 

 

Which of course answers nothing. What exactly is my "happiness" and "pleasure" other than the fulfillment of my self-interest? So simply saying my self-interest is what advances my own happiness and pleasure answers nothing. Answers nothing

 

 

Oh so are you saying I SHOULD believe that there is no such thing as "should"?

 

It was a hypothetical. I already know exactly what I want and what I want is to do what I should do. Why will there are 4 reasons why.

 

The Number 1 reason is because nihilism is intellectual hypocrisy. There is no way to argue for nihilism in a logically consistent manner.

 

The Number 2 reason is that only death is real. Death is inevitable, uncertain, and absolute. So life should be about finding meaning in death rather than accentuating the pleasure of life. Death negates all fleeting pleasures. The more meaningful life is to a person the more meaningless death becomes. All the pleasure, all the wealth, all the power, all the friends, and all the fame you acquired for your personal enjoyment are taken away from you in death.  I see no fulfillment in a life centered around so called "personal fulfillment".

 

The Number 3 reason is that the government and criminals rely on the fact that you

a)value life and fear death

and

b)have no strong beliefs

in order to control you.

Nihilists then are part of the enemy. For one, they try to manipulate you into accentuating the pleasure of life and they get you doubt everything. Only men who don't fear of death and are uncorrupted by doubt can take on evil. "Freedom" is a state of mind. Period. And we are too damn egotistical, too damn happy, too damn calculating, too damn fat, and too damn comfortable to do what is necessary to be free.

 

The Number 4 reason is probably the most subjective reason. My personal reason for living morally is because quite frankly I see no egotistical reason for living. My favorite pastime is sleeping or not being conscious at all.  My work sucks, I hate the human race, women would not enjoy my company (wouldn't be able to sleep sharing a bed with someone), marriage is a drag, the music is terrible, the movies are unreal and I see no avenue for meaningful accomplishment in my hobbies.The only reason I live is duty. i would not want to cause my dad or my sister to suffer from me prematurely dying. Without them I would be a completely unhinged and dangerous individual.

 

So basically there is NOTHING anyone can do to convince me to abandon morality. I used to be a nihilistic person in my youth i don't plan on returning to that state. Ever. With virtue there is power and with evil there is no power.

 

Happiness and pleasure are things that you feel inside of you. Just because it is difficult to describe such emotions using words doesn't mean that they do not exist. Language is incomplete: it cannot describe all of reality. Yet when we say pleasure, most people know generally what we're talking about, because they have experienced the feeling themselves. The feeling associated most closely with sex and eating good food, but also with taking pride in our work, seeing something interesting, etc... So now, self-interest does not equal pleasure: self-interest is the pursuit of that primordial feeling.

 

Now, to comment on your four reasons:

 

1. You're probably right: yet for me, the pursuit of happiness and pleasure trumps the pursuit of logical consistency.

 

2. Death is simply the cessation of life. It doesn't matter how 'meaningful' it is, because after it has occurred, all meaning disappears, along with your consciousness. Only the existence of an afterlife could change this: yet we have no reason to believe that there is such a thing and no idea what it's nature would be if it did. Not a smart thing to build your life around really.

 

3. Better to be happy (taken in the broadest sense of the word) and a slave, than miserable and free. Because what the heck's the point of freedom if it doesn't make us happy? You do a disservice to all those who believe in the value of liberty by positing misery to be its prerequisite.

 

4. I'm really sorry to hear that, man. I've found that the more we think about the meaning of life and such, the more miserable we are. You might try not thinking so much, and just try to enjoy the little things of being alive (the sights, the sound of the birds, the food, the conversation, etc...) There is no reason to enjoy these things: but the thing is, it doesn't matter that there's not. We are what we are: may as well make the most of it.      

[Max Hartford]

It looks like Nathan Metric still has an account, despite his pronouncements. So I'll just leave this podcast link here. I found it quite fascinating and helpful: http://www.fdrpodcasts.com/#/1243/the-meaning-of-life-part-1-meaninglessness

 

Yeah, that's a good one: thanks for sharing. Uncharacteristically Max Stirner-like from Stef: I approve

[Des]

Hmm, but here we run into the problem of quantity vs quality of life. Is eating Krispy Kreme donuts 'objectively' against people's self-interest? On one hand, a lot of people find them delicious, and hence derive a lot of pleasure from eating them. On the other hand, they are unhealthy to the body, and increase the likelihood of an earlier death. I submit that only the individual, subjectively, can determine whether such a course of action is in their self-interest or not. The same applies for all of the other activities you mention, although more people will probably find it against their subjective self-interests in the cases you mention. 

The position "x is the moral decision", is a position one can either accept rationally, or reject as illogical, if one can show illogic. The position "no decisions have moral content" is not one I have a need to argue against. I don't need to argue against this position, because I can ask you, as the holder of such a position (correct me if your position is different), I can ask: Will you agree to a non-aggression pact with me, and can you give me references I can contact to establish whether or not I can trust you to abide by the non-aggression pact?

One answer I can't get, from (your / that) position on morality, is: "I can't make a non-aggression pact with you because such a pact would be immoral".

 

On the other hand, a person professing obedience to one or more deities, would have to know his deity pretty well to able to make a non-aggression pact with me. I'd expect something more like "Sure, I won't kill you unless like Abraham, I'm commanded to".

 

Another point that I keep re-typing in various forms, is: When technology improves life expectancy, long before it reaches the point of a mere 1000 years maximum (for the technology of the time), life expectancy actually tends to infinity (because how much better will the technology get in the next 1000 years?). With near infinite life expectancy, the quality vs quantity balance tilts over permanently to one side.

[Edit: I am referring to life expectancy before factoring in accidents and murder, tending to infinity. After accidents and murder factored in, there should be a pretty finite number there, but a malleable finite number depending on the risk of accident and murder. Precisely why murder and (non-)aggression will become an area of huge concern]

 

If one can but dodge death 100 more years, how much quality might one cram into those 100 to make up for the slight loss of quality that may come from being non-aggressive and trustworthy?

 

Because this is a predictable aspect of the future, We can already advise planners to plan accordingly. Why plan a system with some aggressive content (like taxation), when it is certain that all such (q:q balancing) systems will eventually be dismantled?

 

Taxation and the government supported by taxation, has been made obsolete by the innovation of insurance. This was not recognised until long after insurance was first introduced, but Hans-Hermann Hoppe observed this (and I think he did not put it in the succinct summary sentence I have just typed here - but he did write the detailed observations).

[Max Hartford]

The position "x is the moral decision", is a position one can either accept rationally, or reject as illogical, if one can show illogic. The position "no decisions have moral content" is not one I have a need to argue against. I don't need to argue against this position, because I can ask you, as the holder of such a position (correct me if your position is different), I can ask: Will you agree to a non-aggression pact with me, and can you give me references I can contact to establish whether or not I can trust you to abide by the non-aggression pact?

One answer I can't get, from (your / that) position on morality, is: "I can't make a non-aggression pact with you because such a pact would be immoral".

 

On the other hand, a person professing obedience to one or more deities, would have to know his deity pretty well to able to make a non-aggression pact with me. I'd expect something more like "Sure, I won't kill you unless like Abraham, I'm commanded to".

 

Another point that I keep re-typing in various forms, is: When technology improves life expectancy, long before it reaches the point of a mere 1000 years maximum (for the technology of the time), life expectancy actually tends to infinity (because how much better will the technology get in the next 1000 years?). With near infinite life expectancy, the quality vs quantity balance tilts over permanently to one side.

[Edit: I am referring to life expectancy before factoring in accidents and murder, tending to infinity. After accidents and murder factored in, there should be a pretty finite number there, but a malleable finite number depending on the risk of accident and murder. Precisely why murder and (non-)aggression will become an area of huge concern]

 

If one can but dodge death 100 more years, how much quality might one cram into those 100 to make up for the slight loss of quality that may come from being non-aggressive and trustworthy?

 

Because this is a predictable aspect of the future, We can already advise planners to plan accordingly. Why plan a system with some aggressive content (like taxation), when it is certain that all such (q:q balancing) systems will eventually be dismantled?

 

Taxation and the government supported by taxation, has been made obsolete by the innovation of insurance. This was not recognised until long after insurance was first introduced, but Hans-Hermann Hoppe observed this (and I think he did not put it in the succinct summary sentence I have just typed here - but he did write the detailed observations).

 

Interesting point, but I'm not so sure that near-infinite life expectancy is such a sure thing. Perhaps at a certain point, the body just gives out (as it seems to do around 90-100 for most people), and besides turning people into cyborgs in a way that still makes life worth living (which would require a huge leap in technology), there's nothing much you could do to extend their life past this point. 

[Des]

Interesting point, but I'm not so sure that near-infinite life expectancy is such a sure thing. Perhaps at a certain point, the body just gives out (as it seems to do around 90-100 for most people), and besides turning people into cyborgs in a way that still makes life worth living (which would require a huge leap in technology), there's nothing much you could do to extend their life past this point. 

In principle, extending life is a matter of having nanomachines in each cell of the body, turfing out whatever should not be there.

It is do-able, just hugely complicated to specify the details, and of course, we are not yet building the nanomachines that will build the nanomachines that will do that job.

 

One example of what the panacea machines will do, is, detect whatever old-person skin cells do that messes with production of elastin and collagen, and correct that, so they work like young-person cells.

 

Trees live thousands of years, some fish apparently close to 1000 years, the error in human biology is a result of evolution doing whatever makes genetic patterns survive, with complete disregard of your preference. Now we are the masters each, of our own longevity, if we co-operate, and we can now assert our individual preferences for being alive longer (it is error from my perspective, natural process from a more external view).

 

Bringing it back to the topic of this thread: you have helped me find other words for what I wish to communicate: I predict people will in general switch from seeking the extra quality of life that adds risk of death, and find safer ways to enjoy more time alive (because the ceiling on life expectancy will practically disappear).

 

Okay, maybe you are correct that people need not regard their behavioural adjustment as "becoming moral". Perhaps they could see instead the personal benefit of using best practices of "conflict resolution". Hoppe uses the term "conflict-resolving" often, when explaining the benefit of the concepts of private property and natural law (another term he uses).

 

From Hoppe, I understand that a key problem with voting in a state, is that the voter cannot sell up his share and buy into another state instead. This is a conflict-producing (or immoral) way to treat the citizen. He can't take his share and join people of like mind with himself: instead, other people take his share and use it to buy human action (war, abortion, regulation), that he would never agree to buy with his share. The citizen endlessly argues with his fellow citizens over this, instead of making a clean and civilised break away from them.

[Tundra]

Translation: There is such a thing as a universal preference: you ought to hold the correct belief that all preferences are subjective.

Correct translation: There is no such thing as a universal preference, but if you hold the subjective preference that truth is valuable then you might want to consider holding the true belief that all preferences are subjective.

 

No where did Mr. Max assert that anyone OUGHT to believe the truth.