Not Prince Hamlet

emphryio,

You bring up an interesting point. Essentially, you're describing Egoistic Hedonism, which is a valid way to look at things. That being the case, yes, the difference is what, ultimately, makes the individual happiest. Some people are happier eating meat; others are happier not eating meat.

Jeff

spin

Jeff:
------------------
"Some people are happier eating meat; others are happier not eating meat."
------------------

And that makes the prospective stomach liners just overjoyed.

"Eat me if it makes you happy!"

Alonzo Fyfe

Egoistic hedonism was disproved as a viable psychological theory in the late 1800s.

Not Prince Hamlet

Alonzo,

Really? Can you summarize the disproof? As far as I'm concerned, it's still valid but I'd be interested in seeing if there is a valid proof.

It may have been disproven, but it's also possible that it merely fell out of vogue but wasn't disproven per se.

Jeff

Not Prince Hamlet

*pats Spin on the head.*

Malaclypse the Younger

That would seem to restrict the disproof to Freud (who has since been substantially debunked) or possibly Jung, who seems (to me) an insufferable mystic.

MadMordigan

Egoistic hedonism was disproved as a viable psychological theory in the late 1800s.

Perhaps you can refresh my memory of the disproof. I was pretty drunk in the 1800s.

Malaclypse the Younger

You persist in the fallacious objectification of moral subjectivism. That it makes a particular person happy is sufficient justification for that person. However it is not a sufficient justification for another (moral subjectivist) to approve of that action.

The moral subjectivist merely notes that if all subjective reasons considered it makes a particular person happy to do something and it is pragmatically possible, they will likely do it. It is also true that if that action makes another person unhappy they will disapprove of it, and if they feel it is pragmatically possible to coercively punish or prevent that action, they will do so.

Jeffery Dahmer believed that it made him happy to kill and eat people, he believed (correctly) that he was physically able to do so, so he did it. This is a fact and no amount of moral theorizing can change it. The rest of us felt unhappy about his actions, and we coercively punished him and prevented their continuance. This is a fact as well.

Since all of the opinions referenced above are subjective, the fact that people hold different opinions does not entail a contradiction. The moral subjectivist is not at all puzzled by Jeffery Dahmer, nor is he puzzled by our reaction to him.

[ March 22, 2002: Message edited by: Malaclypse the Younger ]</p>

Queen of Swords

Originally posted by spin:
<strong>
"Eat me if it makes you happy!"</strong>

Why, thank you, I veal.

spin

Malaclypse:
---------------
You persist in the fallacious objectification of moral subjectivism.
---------------

Naaa. You persist in the myth of the renaissance man. You against the universe, as though you are something independent. 95% of what you think has been programmed into you and the other 5% is accident. Subjectivism indeed! You have very few thoughts that you can claim as your own. You're just an object with pretentions.

You "prove" you exist by attempting to separate yourself from your surroundings. All that you have done is alienate yourself, then waffle on about subjectivism.

To understand that the major difference between yourself and the rest of the animals on this planet is your fat head, why not experience what you cause to happen to others: cut off a finger and see what it tastes like. Never know if you anaesthetize the hand well, you might come to like the taste.

If it weren't for the fact that animals have to die for your gut, this subjectivism stuff would merely inspire pathos.

While we are here, tell me the last original thought you've had, that would give anyone the idea that you as an individual exist, and not just the you of the pathetic herd that exerts its existence by destroying half of what it sees, thoughtlessly killing whatever gets in the way.

Subjectivism is the crutch of the alienated.

The herd of the alienated crushes whatever is in its blind path. It doesn't know where it's been. It doesn't know where it's going. And it doesn't know where it is.

When it has the opportunity to choose, it says, I can't, because I've been programmed to do what I do. When told that it actually can, then subjectivism pops up and says, hey, I can choose not to choose, if I want, while shoveling dead animals down its gullet helplessly.

Subjectivism is one of those pathetic attempts at rebellion that you see young children make when they pull away from their parents, fall over and start crying. Nobody doubts that the child exists, perhaps with the exception of the child itself. (Yes, and it's difficult for parents to know when to let go.)

There's just not enough time to observe anything outside one's myopic vision; one is too busy contemplating the collective navel. I guess it's no wonder that one has no respect for anything outside one's own cultural womb. This is existence in the fast lane -- down the asphalted superhighway to oblivion. I e x i s s s t t t t t...........

What's the last thing that passes through an insect's brain as it hits the windscreen? It's asshole.

Subjectivism.