Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Metaxy · 05-01-2003, 07:27 AM

I'm technically an Agnostic, because I think it's impossible to be 100% sure of anyrthing, but I'm fairly Atheist-leaning.

The standard argument for secular ethics is we have a natural instinct to preserve our species, which makes us happy.

But what of those selfless activities that don't make us happy, but should be done in principle? Surely the act of dying to save several others' lives doesn't actually feel good.

Metaxy · 05-01-2003, 07:50 AM

Or even the milder example who gets emotionally distressed volunteering for a Suicide hotline, out of love? No emotional payoff there either.

Dr. Retard · 05-01-2003, 07:59 AM

You seem to take for granted that acting in pursuit of your own happiness is automatically justified (just by default), whereas acting for other goals stands in need of special justification. But I don't see why.

Metaxy · 05-01-2003, 08:23 AM

The thing is, everyone's going to be dead anyway in the end, and any positive impact will not have any tangible benefit after that point. So if you don't have an instinct to experience the benefits of your loving actions, why do it?

Dr. Retard · 05-01-2003, 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Metaxy
The thing is, everyone's going to be dead anyway in the end, and any positive impact will not have any tangible benefit after that point. So if you don't have an instinct to experience the benefits of your loving actions, why do it?

Why not?

Is there some rule that says I only get to do something if my instincts tell me to?

(Bear in mind that there's a lot of work on the evolution of altruism; no doubt we actually have 'instincts' to sacrifice for our children)

Metaxy · 05-01-2003, 08:37 AM

Why not to do it is because it has no tangible benefit.

Dr. Retard · 05-01-2003, 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Metaxy
Why not to do it is because it has no tangible benefit.

It has no tangible benefit for you, the agent, sure. But so what? Again, is there some rule that says I only get to do something if I get a tangible benefit out of it?

Metaxy · 05-01-2003, 08:57 AM

The other gets no tangible benefit either, since when they're gone (or even when it's out of their memory) all happiness granted to them will be robbed.

This hypothetical near-sociopathic ethics system I'm describing isn't a self-serving philosophy, really; even your own pleasure has no ultimate benefit, but there's no reason to suppress your desire to seek it because the damage you're doing has no long-term effect either.

Dr. Retard · 05-01-2003, 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Metaxy
The other gets no tangible benefit either, since when they're gone (or even when it's out of their memory) all happiness granted to them will be robbed.

This hypothetical near-sociopathic ethics system I'm describing isn't a self-serving philosophy, really; even your own pleasure has no ultimate benefit, but there's no reason to suppress your desire to seek it because the damage you're doing has no long-term effect either.

Hold on, just because a tangible benefit isn't everlasting doesn't mean it's not a tangible benefit. The Earth exists. It will stop existing. It used to not exist. But all the same it exists. "Tangible" doesn't mean "immortal".

So you need to change your rule: "I only get to do something if it produces an everlasting tangible benefit". In which case, I don't get to do anything! So why should I accept this rule?

Metaxy · 05-01-2003, 09:41 AM

Exactly. If it's not everlasting, then it's like they've never existed afterward.

05-01-2003, 07:27 AM	#1
Metaxy Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Williamsburg, MA Posts: 18	Secular Ethics (an Age-old discussion) I'm technically an Agnostic, because I think it's impossible to be 100% sure of anyrthing, but I'm fairly Atheist-leaning. The standard argument for secular ethics is we have a natural instinct to preserve our species, which makes us happy. But what of those selfless activities that don't make us happy, but should be done in principle? Surely the act of dying to save several others' lives doesn't actually feel good.

05-01-2003, 07:50 AM	#2
Metaxy Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Williamsburg, MA Posts: 18	Or even... Or even the milder example who gets emotionally distressed volunteering for a Suicide hotline, out of love? No emotional payoff there either.

05-01-2003, 08:23 AM	#4
Metaxy Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Williamsburg, MA Posts: 18	Er... The thing is, everyone's going to be dead anyway in the end, and any positive impact will not have any tangible benefit after that point. So if you don't have an instinct to experience the benefits of your loving actions, why do it?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-01-2003, 07:59 AM	#3
Dr. Retard Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Tucson, Arizona, USA Posts: 735	You seem to take for granted that acting in pursuit of your own happiness is automatically justified (just by default), whereas acting for other goals stands in need of special justification. But I don't see why.

05-01-2003, 08:37 AM	#6
Metaxy Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Williamsburg, MA Posts: 18	Why not to do it is because it has no tangible benefit.

05-01-2003, 08:57 AM	#8
Metaxy Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Williamsburg, MA Posts: 18	The other gets no tangible benefit either, since when they're gone (or even when it's out of their memory) all happiness granted to them will be robbed. This hypothetical near-sociopathic ethics system I'm describing isn't a self-serving philosophy, really; even your own pleasure has no ultimate benefit, but there's no reason to suppress your desire to seek it because the damage you're doing has no long-term effect either.

05-01-2003, 09:41 AM	#10
Metaxy Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Williamsburg, MA Posts: 18	Exactly. If it's not everlasting, then it's like they've never existed afterward.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.