Why be moral? (answered)

[Will Torbald]

Well, does your theory differ that much from Stefan's distinction between aesthetically preferable behavior and non-aesthetically preferable behavior?

 

Yes, because it makes a distinction between "being good" and "doing good". The person who doesn't help isn't doing good, but is it being good? UPB conflates being with doing far too graciously. If you do evil, you are evil. If you don't do evil, you are good? I think this is a translation error between being and doing. In the other theory, to be good it is not enough to do good. To be evil it is not enough to do evil. I'll have to flesh it out to explain what I mean in a more specific way. The aesthetic categories are somewhat useful, but what is aesthetically preferable to one person can be aesthetically negative to someone else given cultural differences or just context. UPB would say that a person not helping simply looks bad, but is still being good.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

To build a bridge, it is required to follow the correct principles of bridge building. Therefore we should build a bridge, because it is correct ??

It's not required to follow correct principles to build a bridge. 

[Max Hartford]

You're asking why is it correct that we should conform to principles that are correct?

Because otherwise you will be wrong.

If that's not true (conforming to reason and evidence) then there's no requirement to accept any of your arguments or conclusions. Why should we? (this is what I asked you in the first place on your original post). 

 

 

No, of course there's no 'requirement' to accept my conclusions, you're not 'required' to do anything. If you want to enslave yourself to useless moralistic phantoms, that is your prerogative. But perhaps not everyone wants to believe in useless things like you; it is to them I direct my words.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

No, of course there's no 'requirement' to accept my conclusions, you're not 'required' to do anything. 

 

Of course there's a requirement. You accepted the requirement when you began to debate. A debate or any such rational discourse necessarily requires both parties subject themselves to an objective standard they are both required to conform to. 

 

If you want to enslave yourself to useless moralistic phantoms, that is your prerogative. But perhaps not everyone wants to believe in useless things like you; it is to them I direct my words.

 

 

Snark is not an argument. Saying useless moralistic phantoms is like saying useless scientific phantoms or useless rational phantoms. After all, by your standard I'm not required to accept scientific or rational conclusions. 

You are trying to pull the rug out from under ethics but you've fallen on your ass. 

[Max Hartford]

Of course there's a requirement. You accepted the requirement when you began to debate. A debate or any such rational discourse necessarily requires both parties subject themselves to an objective standard they are both required to conform to. 

 

 

Snark is not an argument. Saying useless moralistic phantoms is like saying useless scientific phantoms or useless rational phantoms. After all, by your standard I'm not required to accept scientific or rational conclusions. 

You are trying to pull the rug out from under ethics but you've fallen on your ass. 

 

Let's not call it a debate then, let's call it an exchange of rhetoric, or advise, or whatever. Anyway, why would you allow the provisional, temporary requirements of some internet discussion to affect your decision-making outside of that context? Doesn't seem like a persuasive reason to act morally.

 

The difference is that science and rationality do have egoistic uses for the individual actor, whereas moralism is only useful for bamboozling gullible people.

[Lykourgos]

You are trying to pull the rug out from under ethics but you've fallen on your ass. 

 

You actually have to produce that rug, first.

[square4]

It's not required to follow correct principles to build a bridge. 

 

 

We cannot randomly do things and expect a bridge to emerge, so there are some required principles of bridge building. Or do you want to reserve the word "principles" for moral principles?

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Let's not call it a debate then, let's call it an exchange of rhetoric, or advise, or whatever. Anyway, why would you allow the provisional, temporary requirements of some internet discussion to affect your decision-making outside of that context? Doesn't seem like a persuasive reason to act morally.

 

The difference is that science and rationality do have egoistic uses for the individual actor, whereas moralism is only useful for bamboozling gullible people.

 

Changing what you call the interaction doesn't change the logic and necessary principles required for it. They are not provisional or temporary requirements. As soon as you debate you implicitly set up an objective standard of truth by which we both must compare our arguments and propositions. That standard applies universally which means to everyone at all times. They are UPB. 

 

What uses morality has are irrelevant to the validity of it. Your relativism has no place on this forum. No one cares about your subjective arbitrary preferences. This is a philosophy forum, not post-modern waffle talk.

I don't know what "moralism" is but if you're talking about UPB then your statement that it's only useful for bamboozling gullible people is wrong. People make moral claims and put forward moral theories all the time and being able to distinguish the wrong ones from valid ones is obviously of use. Do you think the defeat of the moral justifications for slavery being proven wrong (itself a proof of objective morality) was useful to the slaves? Do you think Stefan's attempt to defeat the moral theories and justifications around hitting kids will help kids? Do you think the moral theories around free speech, separation of church and state and free market principles helped YOU? 

You actually have to produce that rug, first.

He says while pulling the rug out from under himself.

 

If you're right then I don't have to do jack-shit.

We cannot randomly do things and expect a bridge to emerge, so there are some required principles of bridge building. Or do you want to reserve the word "principles" for moral principles?

 

 I could pray for a bridge. Is praying an engineering principle? 

[Guest Gee]

Why be moral?

 

You don't have a choice, anything you do you rationalise as not immoral.

[ThomasTheIdealist]

Your relativism has no place on this forum. No one cares about your subjective arbitrary preferences. This is a philosophy forum, not post-modern waffle talk.

 

I care. I like how the discussion has turned to debating moral realism. I have heard very little to convince me that morality is more than preference, even if some of those preferences are nearly universal among human beings.

 

The original question of "why be moral?" perhaps begs the questions, making it only a question to be considered by those that accept moral premises, people who probably wouldn't ask the question anyways. Though I'm an expressivist of sorts, so I see the question as something like "why be something you want to be?" And when phrased more clearly like that, the answer is not difficult, novel, or even worth discussing.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

I care. I like how the discussion has turned to debating moral realism. I have heard very little to convince me that morality is more than preference, even if some of those preferences are nearly universal among human beings.

 

The original question of "why be moral?" perhaps begs the questions, making it only a question to be considered by those that accept moral premises, people who probably wouldn't ask the question anyways. Though I'm an expressivist of sorts, so I see the question as something like "why be something you want to be?" And when phrased more clearly like that, the answer is not difficult, novel, or even worth discussing.

 

Morality is a preference,  just like science and reason are preferences. You can prefer to have the theories and justifications that underlie your behavior be rational or you can prefer the other. Asking "Why be moral?" is like asking "Why be scientific?" or "Why be rational?". The answer is, because if you don't you'll be wrong. If being wrong / right is not sufficient reason then you're not asking a valid question, because asking the question presupposes that being right or wrong is a sufficient answer. See?

[Max Hartford]

They are not provisional or temporary requirements. As soon as you debate you implicitly set up an objective standard of truth by which we both must compare our arguments and propositions. That standard applies universally which means to everyone at all times.

 

Well, if you state it that way, without any supporting arguments or reasons, than it must be true!

 

 

 

What uses morality has are irrelevant to the validity of it. Your relativism has no place on this forum. No one cares about your subjective arbitrary preferences. This is a philosophy forum, not post-modern waffle talk.

I don't know what "moralism" is but if you're talking about UPB then your statement that it's only useful for bamboozling gullible people is wrong. People make moral claims and put forward moral theories all the time and being able to distinguish the wrong ones from valid ones is obviously of use. Do you think the defeat of the moral justifications for slavery being proven wrong (itself a proof of objective morality) was useful to the slaves? Do you think Stefan's attempt to defeat the moral theories and justifications around hitting kids will help kids? Do you think the moral theories around free speech, separation of church and state and free market principles helped YOU? 

 

 

"What uses morality has are irrelevant to the validity of it": Maybe so, but what validity morality has, is irrelevant without any uses for it.

 

But you see, if we just reject all of morality, than we don't have to care about people making moral claims, just as atheists don't have to care about people making 'religious claims'. We can fight one religion with a different religion, or one morality with a different morality, but the easiest way to fight them all is just with atheism and amoralism.

 

I will end with a quotation from Max Stirner, which makes the point I'm trying to get across more eloquently than I have been:

 

“As you produce innumerable things by your activity, yes, shape the earth’s surface anew and set up works of men everywhere, so too you may still ascertain numberless truths by your thinking, and we will gladly take delight in them. Nevertheless, as I do not please to hand myself over to serve your newly discovered machines mechanically, but only help to set them running for my benefit, so too I will only use your truths, without letting myself be used for their demands.

All truths beneath me are to my liking; a truth above me, a truth that I should have to direct myself by, I am not acquainted with.”

Why be moral?

 

You don't have a choice, anything you do you rationalise as not immoral.

 

This is true of most moralists. But if you're an egoist, you save yourself the trouble of having to rationalize, because you don't care about the labels 'moral' and 'immoral'.

 If being wrong / right is not sufficient reason then you're not asking a valid question, because asking the question presupposes that being right or wrong is a sufficient answer. See?

 

Sorry, that's just not accurate. If I ask you the question: "What do you prefer, blonde girls or brunette girls," there is no 'right' or 'wrong' answer. Questions can legitimately ask people for their personal opinion, they don't always have to be about some universal, objective truth.

[Guest Gee]

So the egoist defines everything as not immoral and is therefore acting morally at all times.

[Will Torbald]

Guys, I think I understand what egoism means. Here it goes: If you don't believe in cancer, you'll never get cancer. That's it! Just don't believe in it, and nothing will be wrong.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Well, if you state it that way, without any supporting arguments or reasons, than it must be true!

 

I'm pretty sure there's as much argumentation in my response as there was in what I was responding to. If not then please correct me.

 

I thought it was self-evident but if you require more then I'll try. When you debate (argue, propose, etc) you necessarily have to accept certain standards and hold the other person to them. If you make the argument that all men are mortal then you accept an objective standard of truth (otherwise it's arbitrary opinion with no truth value and can be dismissed). We are both bound by this standard (it is preferable) in the debate and must compare our argument and propositions to that standard. Agreed?

So that standard of truth in order to be valid must be universal (true for everyone at all times - given the context). Then by accepting the standard for the debate you must necessarily accept that it is valid and preferable universally. 

 

Maybe so, but what validity morality has, is irrelevant without any uses for it.

 

 

No because a theory can still be valid even if it has no uses. As it happens morality is used all the time. You can formally reject all of morality but it will still exist between people. People will still do evil things and attempt to morally justify them (it's for the greater good, it's natural, she was asking for it, it's the will of God, it violates the nap, it's bad for society, etc). Even giving no justification is itself a justification. You can't escape UPB.

 

 

Sorry, that's just not accurate. If I ask you the question: "What do you prefer, blonde girls or brunette girls," there is no 'right' or 'wrong' answer. Questions can legitimately ask people for their personal opinion, they don't always have to be about some universal, objective truth.

 

It is accurate. When someone asks "Why be moral?" they implicitly accept that if I give a correct answer then that is sufficient. If not then they are asking a question of aesthetics or one that is beyond reason and can't possibly be answered. 

 

Your example with blonds and brunettes is an aesthetic question. Unless otherwise stated, "Why be moral?" is not.

[Nathan Metric]

You should act morally because "Thou shall pursue virtue" is an axiomatic proposition. Here is the proof.

 

Example 1

 

Moralist: Pursue goodness

Nihilist: Why?

Moralist: Do you want a good answer or a bad answer? 

Nihilist: A good answer

Moralist: If you want a GOOD answer then why are you asking why be good? That's a contradiction.

 

Example 2

 

Moralist: Pursue goodness

Nihilist: Why?

Moralist: Do you want a good answer or a bad answer?

Nihilist: A bad answer

Moralist: Okay, you should pursue goodness because goodness is good. There. There is your bad answer. 

 

Example 3

 

Moralist: Pursue goodness

Nihilist: Why?

Moralist: Do you want a good answer or a bad answer?

Nihilist: Neither I want a truthful answer.

Moralist: Why?

Nihilist: Because I prefer the truth.

Moralist: Why?

Nihilist: Because the truth will aid my pursuit of happiness somehow. 

Moralist: Why pursue happiness?

Nihilist: Because I like it.

Moralist: Why pursue that which you like?

Nihilist: Because it feels good.

Moralist: Why pursue that which feels good?

Nihilist: Because that's how I want to live my life?

Moralist: Why?

Nihilist" Because I wouldn't want to live otherwise.

Moralist: Why live?

Nihilist: Because survival is an instinct. 

Moralist: Surviving is not an instinct otherwise nobody would choose to commit suicide. That which can be negated by choice can't be an instinct. So why live?

Nihilist: Pff....I don't know!

[Nathan Metric]

Well, if you state it that way, without any supporting arguments or reasons, than it must be true!

 

But you see, if we just reject all of morality, than we don't have to care about people making moral claims, just as atheists don't have to care about people making 'religious claims'. We can fight one religion with a different religion, or one morality with a different morality, but the easiest way to fight them all is just with atheism and amoralism.

 

I will end with a quotation from Max Stirner, which makes the point I'm trying to get across more eloquently than I have been:

 

“As you produce innumerable things by your activity, yes, shape the earth’s surface anew and set up works of men everywhere, so too you may still ascertain numberless truths by your thinking, and we will gladly take delight in them. Nevertheless, as I do not please to hand myself over to serve your newly discovered machines mechanically, but only help to set them running for my benefit, so too I will only use your truths, without letting myself be used for their demands.

All truths beneath me are to my liking; a truth above me, a truth that I should have to direct myself by, I am not acquainted with.”

 

Sorry, that's just not accurate. If I ask you the question: "What do you prefer, blonde girls or brunette girls," there is no 'right' or 'wrong' answer. Questions can legitimately ask people for their personal opinion, they don't always have to be about some universal, objective truth.

 

1)If you reject all morality then why are you trying to correct us as though we OUGHT to be correct? If morality is nonsense then why are you expecting someone to have supporting arguments for their beliefs as though they OUGHT to have supporting arguments? If you reject all morality you shouldn't get pissed at people telling you to do something even if they have bad reasons for telling you to do something. Do you see how completely contradictory that is? You don't care about morality yet you seem to care a great deal about having good reasons for believing in something. That is a complete contradiction.

 

2)You do not fight religion with nihilism. Religious people love their God first before they have rational reasons for believing in their God. You cannot convince people to hate God with nihilism. All nihilism is going to do is strengthen people's belief in the necessity of religious faith. And Stirner would be okay in them doing so since it is only self-interest that matters. Not the truth. 

 

3)That Stirner quote proves that a true egoist is not a rational being. A rational being is someone who consistently lives as though the truth matters. "Rational egoism" is a contradiction.

 

4)Saying that questions "don't always have to be about some universal/objective truth" is presupposing the moral significance of the truth. That is a contradiction. 

 

 

 

 

It is accurate. When someone asks "Why be moral?" they implicitly accept that if I give a correct answer then that is sufficient. If not then they are asking a question of aesthetics or one that is beyond reason and can't possibly be answered. 

 

Your example with blonds and brunettes is an aesthetic question. Unless otherwise stated, "Why be moral?" is not.

 

I would answer this a bit differently.

 

You should act morally because "You should act morally" is an axiomatic proposition in the same way the Law of identity is an axiom. 

 

The nihilist can do one of three things

1)Expect a good answer...which would be self-contradictory

2)Expect a bad answer...which would be pointless since all you have to do is give them a bad answer and you have assuaged their concern.

3)Expect a truthful answer for a completely arbitrary reason (a nihilist by definition possesses arbitrary preferences)

[Torero]

I don't see why egoism is immoral or irrational ("rational egoism is a contradiction")?

 

Wasn't it Ayn Rand herself who said "To know one's own desires, their meaning and their costs requires the highest human virtue: Rationality."?

 

egoism =

1. 
   

   a doctrine that individual self-interest is the actual motive of all conscious action b :  a doctrine that individual self-interest is the valid end of all actions

2. 
   

   excessive concern for oneself with or without exaggerated feelings of self-importance

Egocentrism is something completely different, abusive and the word you may be looking for. It's often forgotten and collectivists use "egoism" instead of "egocentrism" to slander individualism and the (call for) pursuit of self-interest.

 

egocentrism/egocentric =

 

1.having or regarding the self or the individual as the center of all things:

an egocentric philosophy that ignores social causes.

2.having little or no regard for interests, beliefs, or attitudes other than one's own; self-centered:

an egocentric person; egocentric demands upon the time and patience of others.

 

---------------------------------------------

 

Egoism is not parasitical on others; pursuing self-interest is the basis of win-win negotiations.

Egocentrism is parasitical on others; as it's not only the self-interest, but also the lack of eye for others' self-interest; the basis of win-lose "negotation".

[Nathan Metric]

If Rand said that rationality is the highest virtue then she is not an egoist. She would be merely a conditional egoist. Not a true egoist. 

[Anuojat]

I am strongly reminded of Stefan "Look at the form of the arguement not the content first."

 

Becuse by even posting and talking here a person asserts and accepts alot of things. Just like PTB above pointed out.

It seems there was no correct understanding or agreement on that part for everyone.

 

And as for the question itself? Why be moral?

 

If you want to be correct or IF you try to correct others... you are bound to reason evidence and logic and also to truth statements. You are bound to UPB by your preferances and your action and in this case "correct" and "truth" are objective claims about reality. But technically even talking (coherently) with someone asserts that mean one is accepting objectivity of reality and sense validation.

[Max Hartford]

You should act morally because "Thou shall pursue virtue" is an axiomatic proposition. Here is the proof.

 

Example 1

 

Moralist: Pursue goodness

Nihilist: Why?

Moralist: Do you want a good answer or a bad answer? 

Nihilist: A good answer

Moralist: If you want a GOOD answer then why are you asking why be good? That's a contradiction.

 

Example 2

 

Moralist: Pursue goodness

Nihilist: Why?

Moralist: Do you want a good answer or a bad answer?

Nihilist: A bad answer

Moralist: Okay, you should pursue goodness because goodness is good. There. There is your bad answer. 

 

Example 3

 

Moralist: Pursue goodness

Nihilist: Why?

Moralist: Do you want a good answer or a bad answer?

Nihilist: Neither I want a truthful answer.

Moralist: Why?

Nihilist: Because I prefer the truth.

Moralist: Why?

Nihilist: Because the truth will aid my pursuit of happiness somehow. 

Moralist: Why pursue happiness?

Nihilist: Because I like it.

Moralist: Why pursue that which you like?

Nihilist: Because it feels good.

Moralist: Why pursue that which feels good?

Nihilist: Because that's how I want to live my life?

Moralist: Why?

Nihilist" Because I wouldn't want to live otherwise.

Moralist: Why live?

Nihilist: Because survival is an instinct. 

Moralist: Surviving is not an instinct otherwise nobody would choose to commit suicide. That which can be negated by choice can't be an instinct. So why live?

Nihilist: Pff....I don't know!

 

Example 1: Semantic trickery with the word 'good'. When the nihilist asks for a 'good' answer, he is asking for a convincing answer, not for an answer that is morally righteous. And no, they are not somehow, mysteriously the same, just because the word 'good' can be used in both contexts. Linguistic conventions do not alter the nature of the world.

 

Example 2: No one would ever ask for a bad answer, except as a joke.

 

Example 3: This conversation should stop after 'Because it feels good'. Life has no objective meaning; living yourself out for subjective enjoyment is all there is. 

[Max Hartford]

1)If you reject all morality then why are you trying to correct us as though we OUGHT to be correct? If morality is nonsense then why are you expecting someone to have supporting arguments for their beliefs as though they OUGHT to have supporting arguments? If you reject all morality you shouldn't get pissed at people telling you to do something even if they have bad reasons for telling you to do something. Do you see how completely contradictory that is? You don't care about morality yet you seem to care a great deal about having good reasons for believing in something. That is a complete contradiction.

 

2)You do not fight religion with nihilism. Religious people love their God first before they have rational reasons for believing in their God. You cannot convince people to hate God with nihilism. All nihilism is going to do is strengthen people's belief in the necessity of religious faith. And Stirner would be okay in them doing so since it is only self-interest that matters. Not the truth. 

 

3)That Stirner quote proves that a true egoist is not a rational being. A rational being is someone who consistently lives as though the truth matters. "Rational egoism" is a contradiction.

 

4)Saying that questions "don't always have to be about some universal/objective truth" is presupposing the moral significance of the truth. That is a contradiction. 

 

1. Just add an 'if' statement, and the oughts follow: 'if' you want to convince people to come around to your way of thinking, you 'ought' to do all those things. If you don't, then I wouldn't say you 'ought' to do anything at all.

 

2. Never said egoism was most effective way of fighting religion.

 

3. Better a happy being than a rational being is what I say. Who cares about labels?

 

4. No, again, the egoist can care about the truth in certain instances, and ignore it in others. It's unclear what 'morality' (ie. you're good, you're evil, blah blah blah) has to do with any of this.

[Nathan Metric]

1) If there is no objective ought to be correct then why are you trying to correct us?  Either your trying to correct us because being correct is moral or you are trying to correct us for a completely arbitrary reason and I tend to think you fit in the latter. Yo want to go around "correcting" people but you don't actually have a good reason to. You act without thinking. People like you are slaves to things they don't understand. Who knows what devil you are serving.

 

 

2)Yes you did. You just said that atheism and amoralism is how to best fight religion. That is the exact opposite of the truth. Atheism and amoralism does nothing to shake people's love of God rather it makes them love God even more. 

 

3)Why? Please explain why happiness is better than the truth and please do so without invoking arbitrary preferences.

 

4)Ah I see. You want us to conclude this not because the truth has any moral significance but because you want us to change our beliefs for some reason. Max, why exactly should we change our beliefs just because you want us to? I respond to the truth because the truth matters. Because the truth is the prime virtue. 

 

You want us to adhere to the truth because that would make you happy for some reason.

You want to pursue happiness. Okay WHY pursue happiness? 

Because happiness brings you pleasure? Okay WHY pursue pleasure?

Because you wouldn't want to live otherwise? Okay, WHY live at all?

 

Your entire life makes no sense. Your very existence is an arbitrary choice. 

[Max Hartford]

1) If there is no objective ought to be correct then why are you trying to correct us?  Either your trying to correct us because being correct is moral or you are trying to correct us for a completely arbitrary reason and I tend to think you fit in the latter. Yo want to go around "correcting" people but you don't actually have a good reason to. You act without thinking. People like you are slaves to things they don't understand. Who knows what devil you are serving.

 

 

2)Yes you did. You just said that atheism and amoralism is how to best fight religion. That is the exact opposite of the truth. Atheism and amoralism does nothing to shake people's love of God rather it makes them love God even more. 

 

3)Why? Please explain why happiness is better than the truth and please do so without invoking arbitrary preferences.

 

4)Ah I see. You want us to conclude this not because the truth has any moral significance but because you want us to change our beliefs for some reason. Max, why exactly should we change our beliefs just because you want us to? I respond to the truth because the truth matters. Because the truth is the prime virtue. 

 

You want us to adhere to the truth because that would make you happy for some reason.

You want to pursue happiness. Okay WHY pursue happiness? 

Because happiness brings you pleasure? Okay WHY pursue pleasure?

Because you wouldn't want to live otherwise? Okay, WHY live at all?

 

Your entire life makes no sense. Your very existence is an arbitrary choice. 

 

1. If you recall, I asked a question (Why be Moral?). People provided answers. I explained why I do not think those answers are very convincing. I'm not trying to 'correct' anyone's logic or anything, just trying to point out that people who do not have a pre-existing reason (self-righteousness, boredom, etc...) to care about universal morality, will not find the result of FDR logic games to be a very convincing reason for changing their behavior.

 

2. Sorry, I should have been clearer: I meant to say one best fights religion with atheism, and moralism with amoralism (egoism).

 

3. You set me an impossible task, so I will set you one too: explain why truth is better than happiness without invoking arbitrary preferences.

 

4. Honestly, the main reason I'm here is because discussing these things is amusing to me. Secondarily, I think that many individuals would be better off if they didn't shackle themselves unnecessarily with moralistic restrictions. If listening to me results in their self-liberation, than I am happy for them. If you see no value in what I am saying, than I do not particularly care if you change your beliefs or not. 

 

"Your entire life makes no sense. Your very existence is an arbitrary choice."  This is very true, yet it is true not just for me, but for every life form that has ever graced the earth with its presence, whether they realize it or not.

[Torero]

Secondarily, I think that many individuals would be better off if they didn't shackle themselves unnecessarily with moralistic restrictions.

 

1 - "how many" is many? and how do you quantify this?

2 - "better off" - what is your definition for "better"?

3 - what do you mean with "shackle"?

4 - "unnecessarily" - on what basis do you discriminate between "necessary" and "unnecessary"?

5 - why would moral behavior be a "restriction"?

 

Also you said "why truth is better than happiness" but there's no contradiction here. Truth is not the antonym of happiness. One can be perfectly happy with the truth. Or unhappy with lies. Or happy with lies and unhappy with the truth.

 

From points 1-5 would follow that if someone gets "happy" by killing other human beings, that person should not be "restricted" by moral "unnecessarily" according to your views?

Or if stealing, raping, deceiving, hitting random people on the street makes someone "happy" that is perfectly fine with you? Even that it makes that victim unhappy?

Even more; you would actively support throwing away the "shackles" of moral "restrictions", "self-liberating" this immoral freak?

 

Don't you have any standards other than "personal happiness" or do you?

[Max Hartford]

 

 

From points 1-5 would follow that if someone gets "happy" by killing other human beings, that person should not be "restricted" by moral "unnecessarily" according to your views?

Or if stealing, raping, deceiving, hitting random people on the street makes someone "happy" that is perfectly fine with you? Even that it makes that victim unhappy?

Even more; you would actively support throwing away the "shackles" of moral "restrictions", "self-liberating" this immoral freak?

 

Don't you have any standards other than "personal happiness" or do you?

 

Everything that you say here could equally be used by a religious person against an atheist. If I advise people not to believe in Christianity, does that mean that I'm totally okay with people doing everything that was forbidden by the Ten Commandments? Of course not: I just find other, more solid ways of convincing them to refrain from acting in certain ways. Just because I advise people not to be bound by moral restrictions, does not mean I cheer on random acts of violence. Such acts reduce the quality of my life and of those I care about, hence I support the use of force (something that is far more convincing to a violent person than philosophical arguments) to try to prevent or disincentivize such acts.

 

And no, I don't have any standards other than "personal happiness", as long as this is taken in a sufficiently broad way so as to include my empathy for the people that I care about.   

[Torero]

Everything that you say here could equally be used by a religious person against an atheist.

 

Irrelevant and highly dubious. Morality from religion and from philosophy are also not mutually exclusive, in many cases even congruent.

 

If I advise people not to believe in Christianity, does that mean that I'm totally okay with people doing everything that was forbidden by the Ten Commandments? Of course not: I just find other, more solid ways of convincing them to refrain from acting in certain ways.

 

"more solid ways"? If you have no moral standards of your own, even actively try to "liberate" people from them, because you call them "restrictions", how can you ever claim that your ways are "more solid" than those of others (in some cases religious, in some not)?

Having no moral standards according to your views is then "better" and "more solid" than having moral standards based on religion.

 

Just because I advise people not to be bound by moral restrictions, does not mean I cheer on random acts of violence.

 

But if you have no moral standards, on what basis do you discriminate between "good" and "bad" acts? I didn't use the word "cheering", I used "having no problem with".

 

Such acts reduce the quality of my life and of those I care about, hence I support the use of force (something that is far more convincing to a violent person than philosophical arguments) to try to prevent or disincentivize such acts.

 

So only if it affects your life and those of others?

 

Imagine 2 people, let's call them Bonnie and Clyde, and they beat a homeless guy without family, friends or anyone else caring for him to death, just because that increases the personal happiness of Bonnie and Clyde, that would thus be no problem at all for you?

 

And no, I don't have any standards other than "personal happiness", as long as this is taken in a sufficiently broad way so as to include my empathy for the people that I care about. 

 

Again: your world thus doesn't get farther than yourself and the people you care about. So any violence/theft/rape against someone you do not care about but increases the "personal happiness" of the perpetrator is "ok with you".

 

Then I don't understand your "I think this is the best answer so far" on my point of reciprocity in the original thread about this question. Because that was about people in general, not the small circle of people I (or you) care about.

 

I suggest you refrain from abusing the word "egoism" as it is "egocentric" what you display. The crucial difference has been explained before.

[Nathan Metric]

"Why be moral" is a completely insane question. Either you want a good answer (which is a performative contradiction) or you want a truthful answer for an arbitrary reason (bad logic). 

 

Truth is better than happiness because "Truth is the prime virtue" is an axiomatic proposition and "Happiness is the prime virtue" is not axiomatic. "Truth is the prime virtue" is axiomatic for the same reason the Law of Identity is an axiom. 

Proof for the Law of Identity

Realist: A is A

Nihilist: No it is not!

Realist: Ah, so you're agreeing with me! (The realist is treating the nihilist's argument to be something other than what it intends to be for those too stupid to understand the dilemma)

 

 

Now here is the proof that "Truth is the prime virtue" is axiomatic.

 

Scenario 1. Nihilists does a performative contradiction.

Moralist: The truth is the prime virtue

Nihilist: Why? 

Moralist: Do you want a truthful answer or a false answer. 

Nihilist: A truthful answer.

Moralist: Why?

Nihilist; Because the truth is the prime virtue (Nihilist contradicts them self)

 

Scenario 2: Nihilist uses arbitrary logic to question the assertion.

Moralist: The truth matters.

Nihilist: Why?

Moralist: Do you want a truthful answer or a false answer?

Nihilist: A truthful answer.

Moralist: Why?

Nihilist: Because I  prefer the truth.

Moralist: Why do you prefer the truth.

Nihilist: Because it has to do with my pursuit of happiness.

Moralist: Why pursue happiness?

Nihilist: Because it feels good.

Moralist: Why pursue that which feels good?

Nihilist: Because I wouldn't want to live otherwise.

Moralist: Why live?

Nihilist: Pff...I DON'T KNOW!

 

Of course, the nihilist might say "so what? why does it matter that the nihilist's very choice to exist is arbitrary?" It matters because he is acting hypocritically. 

There is also no moral equivalence either. The moralist understands perfectly why they exist and why they act the way they do. A nihilist chooses to live for an arbitrary reason and lives in a particular lifestyle for an arbitrary reason. 

[Nathan Metric]

Example 1: Semantic trickery with the word 'good'. When the nihilist asks for a 'good' answer, he is asking for a convincing answer, not for an answer that is morally righteous. And no, they are not somehow, mysteriously the same, just because the word 'good' can be used in both contexts. Linguistic conventions do not alter the nature of the world.

 

Example 2: No one would ever ask for a bad answer, except as a joke.

 

Example 3: This conversation should stop after 'Because it feels good'. Life has no objective meaning; living yourself out for subjective enjoyment is all there is. 

Example 1: What is a "convincing answer" other than a good and/or truthful answer? Look if you are going to expect us to logically defend our position on morality then you better have a logical reason for your position. There are only two options: a) You expect a logical answer because that which is logical is virtuous or b) you expect a logical answer for an arbitrary reason. If you want anything else you must want an illogical answer and if you want an illogical answer then you have no business whatsoever criticizing us for having apparently illogical reasons for believing in objective morality. That would be utter hypocrisy. 

 

Example: 2: You have proven to be a sophist so I expect the worst from you. 

 

Example 3: Why!!!!!!!!!!? Why should the conversations stop at it feels good? Make up your damn mind. If you're going to be a nihilist at least be consistent with your nihilism. A true nihilist (if there actually was such a thing) would believe there is no moral significance in pursing pleasure. In a nihilist universe there is no such thing as "should". 

[Max Hartford]

 

 

 

So only if it affects your life and those of others?

 

Imagine 2 people, let's call them Bonnie and Clyde, and they beat a homeless guy without family, friends or anyone else caring for him to death, just because that increases the personal happiness of Bonnie and Clyde, that would thus be no problem at all for you?

 

 

Again: your world thus doesn't get farther than yourself and the people you care about. So any violence/theft/rape against someone you do not care about but increases the "personal happiness" of the perpetrator is "ok with you".

 

Then I don't understand your "I think this is the best answer so far" on my point of reciprocity in the original thread about this question. Because that was about people in general, not the small circle of people I (or you) care about.

 

I suggest you refrain from abusing the word "egoism" as it is "egocentric" what you display. The crucial difference has been explained before.

 

I address these points in a blog post I wrote. I will quote the relevant passage here:

 

Every time one member of society engages in an individually beneficial action that has bearings on the rules governing the social order, it becomes more probable that this kind of behavior will become a more general behavior amongst members of society. This is so due to the addition of the actor to the number of citizens engaging in that kind of action, and due to the possibility of imitation by other citizens who see that this kind of action can be beneficial to individuals. For example, if the actor is deciding whether or not to mug a man in the street and steal his wallet, he should consider what would happen if more and more people in society started doing that. Security of person and property would become less secure, which would result in a less productive, less prosperous, less peaceful, and more fearful society for everyone. The actor was looking to benefit himself materially with his action, but his material interests and other interests would be hurt if his action became generalized and performed by more and more people in society. Now, this effect is of course only a probabilistic effect (there is no guarantee that others will imitate the action), and should be discounted by the actor accordingly. Nevertheless, the reality of the effect remains, as demonstrated by phenomena such as the impoverishment caused by widespread interest group politicking, and must be taken into account by any rational egoist intent on advancing his self-interest.

 

 

On these grounds, I would object to Bonnie and Clyde beating the homeless man to death, because it inches the scales towards a more brutish social order, which I would not want.

[Max Hartford]

 The moralist understands perfectly why they exist and why they act the way they do. A nihilist chooses to live for an arbitrary reason and lives in a particular lifestyle for an arbitrary reason. 

 

Really? Moralists know the meaning of life? What is it then? And please, please do not say that the meaning of life is to live in such a way that we avoid performative contradictions at all costs! Because then I could just ask: why avoid performative contradictions? And off we go round and round again.   

 

 

Example 3: Why!!!!!!!!!!? Why should the conversations stop at it feels good? Make up your damn mind. If you're going to be a nihilist at least be consistent with your nihilism. A true nihilist (if there actually was such a thing) would believe there is no moral significance in pursing pleasure. In a nihilist universe there is no such thing as "should". 

There is such thing as should, but only if attached to an 'if-then' statement. My implied 'if-then' statement for why the conversation 'should' stop there is: 'if we don't want to keep asking why indefinitely and bore everyone present to death, then we should stop the conversation at subjective enjoyment."

 

I don't actually like labeling myself a nihilist, I prefer the term egoist. The egoist is satisfied with self-enjoyment as an ultimate end of life, despite the fact that there is no 'moral significance' to it. Is it an arbitrary choice, from a logical perspective? Absolutely. But the egoist takes pride in the fact that he lives according to his own arbitrary will, rather than subordinating himself to a mere idea (The Truth). There is something exhilarating, and very self-liberating about the egoist attitude: I recommend you give it a try sometime.   

[Nathan Metric]

The meaning of life is this: do what you should do rather than what you want to do and what you should do is live as though the truth matters. 

 

Why avoid performative contradictions? That is an even more insane question than why be moral. if you demand good logic from your opponents and then are okay when bad logic is employed to defend your own position you're just a hypocrite and nobody should take you seriously. That is the worst kind of sophistry. 

 

There only "shoulds" in life are conditional ones by the logic of nihilism. Saying that the conversation should end at "it feels good" only makes sense in relation to your arbitrary preferences. In relation to counter-preferences it has no meaning whatsoever. 

 

Perhaps, there was a reason why Molyneux avoided addressing "why be moral" in his book. Perhaps it is ultimately a waste of time to try to explain to a complete sociopath why they should be moral.

[Max Hartford]

The meaning of life is this: do what you should do rather than what you want to do and what you should do is live as though the truth matters. 

 

Why avoid performative contradictions? That is an even more insane question than why be moral. if you demand good logic from your opponents and then are okay when bad logic is employed to defend your own position you're just a hypocrite and nobody should take you seriously. That is the worst kind of sophistry. 

 

There only "shoulds" in life are conditional ones by the logic of nihilism. Saying that the conversation should end at "it feels good" only makes sense in relation to your arbitrary preferences. In relation to counter-preferences it has no meaning whatsoever. 

 

Perhaps, there was a reason why Molyneux avoided addressing "why be moral" in his book. Perhaps it is ultimately a waste of time to try to explain to a complete sociopath why they should be moral.

 

I don't demand good logic from my opponents, I simply suggest that their responses be persuasive. What do I mean by persuasive? Just what the Merrium-Webster dictionary defines it as: "able to cause people to do or believe something". In certain contexts, good logic is the most persuasive thing (ie. in the sciences that try to describe how the world works). In others, good logic is not very persuasive (ie. when talking about what ultimate ends people would do well to pursue). The fact that you call it a 'waste of time' to try to explain your reasons to a vast group of people whom you label "sociopaths" is testament to the fact that your approach is not very persuasive for people outside of the small world of FDR.

[Nathan Metric]

WHAT??? So let me you get straight. You want to be persuaded and what persuades you in one instance has nothing to do with what is persuasive in another instance? Why? Why would a pure egotist want to be persuaded at all? Persuasion is in the materialistic sense reality forcing data upon your senses which in turn are converted into electrical signals which then cause chemical reactions in your brain so as to change your behavior. So really letting yourself be persuaded is being a slave to persuasion. Only an inconsistently egotistical person would allow themselves to be persuaded at all since persuasion is slavery.

 

And let's tackle this whole issue of being a "slave to an idea" thing. It doesn't matter whether you're an egotist or a non-egotist. You're still a slave to something. Either you're a slave to something outside yourself (with me I am a slave to virtue) or you're a slave to your own ego. Either way you are still a slave. Max Stirner was a self-contradictory person. He wants to not be slave to an idea when clearly he is a slave to his own ego which is an idea. 

 

You already said that you find logic in science persuasive so let me offer an ultimatum.

Either you can be a slave to your ego for an arbitrary reason

or

you can be a slave to virtue for a logical reason. 

 

Either way you are a slave to something so it all comes down to logic or illogic. Do you want to live logically or do you want to live illogically? 

If you want to live logically then you have to agree that you ought to act morally since acting morally is what is logic demands of you. 

If you want to live illogically even despite the fact that you already find logic in science attractive then there is no hope for you. If you are not even consistent in regard to your own preferences then I am afraid there is no possible way anyone can convince you and nobody can help.

 

You're like a customer shopping at a store not being able to decide what they want in the store. You pick up one thing, starting walking to the register, decide then that you don't want the thing you were looking for, drop it, and then repeat the cycle over again. You're the equivalent of Sisyphus trying to role a stone up a hill for eternity.  The only difference being is why you are condemned to this fate. You are condmened to this fate by your own volition rather than because the Gods have made it so. 

[Max Hartford]

 

 

And let's tackle this whole issue of being a "slave to an idea" thing. It doesn't matter whether you're an egotist or a non-egotist. You're still a slave to something. Either you're a slave to something outside yourself (with me I am a slave to virtue) or you're a slave to your own ego. Either way you are still a slave. Max Stirner was a self-contradictory person. He wants to not be slave to an idea when clearly he is a slave to his own ego which is an idea. 

 

 

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.