FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB Philosophical Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-01-2003, 09:47 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Tucson, Arizona, USA
Posts: 735
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Metaxy
Exactly. If it's not everlasting, then it's like they've never existed afterward.
And? Why should I care whether the tangible benefits brought by my behavior last forever? Again, is there some rule saying I only get to bring about tangible benefits if they last forever?
Dr. Retard is offline  
Old 05-01-2003, 10:07 AM   #12
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Williamsburg, MA
Posts: 18
Default

It's sort of like creating something (a painting or a meal or whatever) no one else will ever see in that in the end, nothing will have changed. The only reason would be an instinct to create it.
Metaxy is offline  
Old 05-01-2003, 10:22 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Tucson, Arizona, USA
Posts: 735
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Metaxy
It's sort of like creating something (a painting or a meal or whatever) no one else will ever see in that in the end, nothing will have changed. The only reason would be an instinct to create it.
Hold on, it's just false that in the end, nothing will have changed. The well-being of the people I benefit will have changed. Sure, this benefit won't last forever. But it existed. Things are different than they would have been, on account of the benefit.

Look at these two numbers:

1000000000000000000000000000
1000000111111110000000000000

These numbers share the same ending. But they're different.

A painting no one else will ever see brings no benefit to anyone but myself. A painting other people see can bring benefit to those other people (if they like it). It makes no difference whether the painting, or its beneficial effects, lasts forever.
Dr. Retard is offline  
Old 05-01-2003, 02:09 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Omaha, Nebraska
Posts: 503
Default Re: Secular Ethics (an Age-old discussion)

Quote:
Originally posted by Metaxy
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.
Nothing is selfless, nothing. When you die for other people, you make the choice that dying would be preferable to living with the guilt of the others' death. The same goes for any other so called "selfless" act. For example, if you saw some people who were about to die, but these people happened to be hitler, the antichrist, and Jay Leno, and you knew they would just cause suffering in the world, you wouldn't want to die with them because you wouldn't feel guilty about their deaths. If you can give me an example of something truly selfless, I would be quite amazed.
Jake
SimplyAtheistic is offline  
Old 05-01-2003, 03:50 PM   #15
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: US
Posts: 5,495
Default Re: Re: Secular Ethics (an Age-old discussion)

Quote:
Originally posted by JakeJohnson
Nothing is selfless, nothing.
Like people who hate themselves but go on living because they deserve the misery?
John Page is offline  
Old 05-01-2003, 03:50 PM   #16
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Williamsburg, MA
Posts: 18
Default

The suicide hotline example! That could be very emotionally draining. The guilt would be bad, but not as bad.
Metaxy is offline  
Old 05-01-2003, 04:08 PM   #17
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 204
Default

Quote:
Surely the act of dying to save several others' lives doesn't actually feel good.
This is the morality of altruism. Sacrificing yourself for the good of others, etc. I am totally against this. I think that is why i read Ayn Rand. Her philosophy, Objectivism, is an individualist philosophy, and doesn't promote self-sacrifice and self-abnegation.
johngalt is offline  
Old 05-01-2003, 04:22 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Omaha, Nebraska
Posts: 503
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Metaxy
The suicide hotline example! That could be very emotionally draining. The guilt would be bad, but not as bad.
Maybe to you, but to the person that chose it, they made the choice that the hotline would be preferable to the guilt otherwise. Or else they wouldn't have chosen it.
Jake
SimplyAtheistic is offline  
Old 05-01-2003, 04:25 PM   #19
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Williamsburg, MA
Posts: 18
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by johngalt
This is the morality of altruism. Sacrificing yourself for the good of others, etc. I am totally against this. I think that is why i read Ayn Rand. Her philosophy, Objectivism, is an individualist philosophy, and doesn't promote self-sacrifice and self-abnegation.
You never intend to have kids, I assume.
Metaxy is offline  
Old 05-02-2003, 03:57 AM   #20
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Tucson, Arizona, USA
Posts: 735
Default

Doing something because you think it will bring about a goal you value is different from doing something because you think it will bring you pleasure.

Everyone, inasmuch as they act, does things because they think it will bring about a goal they value. That's just what it is to be an agent. You can call that 'selfishness' if you want, I guess. But it doesn't square with the normal use of the term, which involves people doing things to bring about their own pleasure.
Dr. Retard is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:04 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.