Is my happiness more important than your happiness? (egoism)
Is there anything immoral with saying that my happiness is more important than your happiness?
Why should I care that you are happy?
Admittingly, helping others become happy and seeing other people happy tends to make me happy. But there is a difference between that and valuing other people's happiness more than your own.
What could possibly be more important than your own happiness?
There are some problems with this, though. Is egoism is correct, then it means that what is moral is only what makes YOU happy. Most of us would disagree with the assessment that a psycho killer taking pleasure in murdering others is moral because it gives the psycho happiness. However, we can work together if we realize that all of our personal happiness is threatened by this psycho and move to eliminate the threat from society. By co-operating, we achieve greater personal happiness.
But what if you encountered a homeless person on the street, passed out, while on your rushed way to work? Say this homeless person is super fat and you cannot lift him. You also have a disintegrator on you. From the egoism perspective, you would be morally obligated to disintegrate the homeless man because he is in your way and you aren't about to go around him.
All of us would say this is repugnant. But why is this? If it is moral and rational to act in your own self-interest, then why wouldn't you disintegrate the homeless man?
Why should I care that you are happy?
Admittingly, helping others become happy and seeing other people happy tends to make me happy. But there is a difference between that and valuing other people's happiness more than your own.
What could possibly be more important than your own happiness?
There are some problems with this, though. Is egoism is correct, then it means that what is moral is only what makes YOU happy. Most of us would disagree with the assessment that a psycho killer taking pleasure in murdering others is moral because it gives the psycho happiness. However, we can work together if we realize that all of our personal happiness is threatened by this psycho and move to eliminate the threat from society. By co-operating, we achieve greater personal happiness.
But what if you encountered a homeless person on the street, passed out, while on your rushed way to work? Say this homeless person is super fat and you cannot lift him. You also have a disintegrator on you. From the egoism perspective, you would be morally obligated to disintegrate the homeless man because he is in your way and you aren't about to go around him.
All of us would say this is repugnant. But why is this? If it is moral and rational to act in your own self-interest, then why wouldn't you disintegrate the homeless man?
Comments (124)
Haven't you resolved the problem already? "...helping others become happy tends to make me happy." There you are.
Your hypothetical egoist's obligation to disintegrate the super-fat homeless person in order to clear her merry way to work doesn't add anything to the problem or the solution. It just takes us down a rabbit hole where we have to consider several absurd things before breakfast.
Egoism tells me we are responsible for our own happiness. Egoism is only somewhat right. "Somewhat right" because we must live in relationship with other people, and other people contribute to our happiness (or not) and we to theirs (or not). We are "obligate social beings". But Egoism is right in asserting that it is our job to manage our relationships, our interactions, our sense of wellbeing, in as much as we can -- which is something less than 100%.
Systems of morality arise out of our real natures, not absurd Never Never Land agents who are robotic egoists who ruthlessly pursue narrow goals, disintegrating fat people who get in the way. Our real natures are socially and psychologically interconnected. My or your individual happiness can't be separated out from the web of relationships we exist within.
A moral system worth anything will direct us to balance our and others' happiness. We can't morally have it all, and we can't morally deny ourselves everything, either. Why not? Because, maintaining our relationship to others (and maximizing happiness) is an essential moral task. One of the moral objections to suicide is that when you deny yourself everything (including life) you cause suffering and deny some measure of happiness to others with whom you are in relationship.
A moral system worth anything will also assume a certain degree of moral failure--the very thing that moral systems attempt to minimize. So, sure, we will have difficulty balancing everybody's separate needs and wants. And we will have difficulty controlling our own endless wants and wishes too.
No. In one interpretation, the statement could be amoral. Just a description of what is the case, or perhaps implicitly a description of the speaker's own values, which could further be reduced to how the speaker feels.
On the other hand, one could take it to be indicative of something [i]more[/I]: something prescriptive and morally relevant: that one ought to prioritise your happiness over theirs.
In either case, I think that "immoral" isn't the right word to use. I'd reply that I disagree, because I don't share those values, but I don't think that you'd be immoral for having them. On the contrary, it's perfectly understandable and relatable. Just as you value your happiness over mine, I value my happiness over yours. That's generally how we feel towards each other, with the exception of special relationships, like, say, a parent towards their child.
Quoting darthbarracuda
Again, in this case, if you're talking about you and I, then I think that it's more a matter of "do" and "don't", rather than "should" or "shouldn't". Either you care about whether or not I'm happy, or you don't. But even if you don't in the least bit care about whether or not I'm happy, I won't hold it against you, because my relation to you is such that I wouldn't be hurt or offended. I don't think that you're obliged to care about the happiness of every person, regardless. It's just not realistic.
In short, these matters are relative to circumstance.
I think the egoism of which you speak is too extreme to take seriously. Egoism makes sense to an extent, but brutal, unrestrained egoism is a different kettle of fish, and will of course be considered unacceptable to any half-decent human being with a conscience.
On a more personal note, I am at times egoistic, like countless others, and I'll even defend that -ism in certain situations, to an extent. For example, if I find something valuable which is likely to have been dropped by a stranger, and I think that there's a good chance I'll get away with nabbing it for myself at the expense of it's original owner, then I'm the sort of person that's inclined towards taking it. Attempted rebuttals along the lines of "But, what if the shoe was on the other foot?" don't work on me. The shoe has been on the other foot on more than a few occasions, and I relate more to the person that would've acted as I would than the "good Samaritan", so I don't blame them. Dog eat dog, every man for himself, etc.
There was a recent article on the cover of my local newspaper about a schoolboy who handed in a wallet containing about £200 to the local authorities, and it eventually found it's way back to it's owner. Happy ending? Did he do the "right" thing? My first thought was "You idiot!", and then I proceeded to scoff.
This is a far too simplistic view of rationality and self-interest. I have a plurality of values that I am self-interested in preserving, several of which comprise my reluctance to disintegrate obscenely fat homeless people so I have a clear path to walk. For instance, I value my personal freedom to the extent that I value not being in prison, so I might first of all make sure no police or people likely to snitch on me are around when I go about my disintegrating business. From my egoism perspective, I run a calculus of all my self-interests, short-term and long-term, and act accordingly, which may in fact involve a short-term harm (walking around the blob) if I believe it will yield a long-term personal gain (that pretty girl is watching and word is she frowns upon unnecessary disintegration). If you run your calculus and it comes out in favour of disintegrating fat people, you have probably made an error in your mental arithmetic, or you have self-destructive tendencies and will not function well in society.
Perhaps not [I]per se[/I], but it can be the motivation behind a rational pursuit, or be the subject of sound reasoning. Just like altruism.
A few years ago a woman left her purse on a bench near where I was reading on campus. When I got ready to leave, I noticed it, and picked it up. It had a cell phone (2001, candy-bar type) a $100+, and some uninteresting odds and ends. I intended to take the $100, and toss the rest, but I felt very ambivalent: guilty, greedy, and several other contradictory emotions. I kept it for a week, thinking that I would feel better about claiming the $100. I didn't. So I dropped it off at the woman's office on campus.
15 years later I still feel annoyed about not claiming the $100.
Guilt and vague fear overcame greed. I didn't give it back because I cared about her feelings, I gave it back to get rid of guilt feelings. That's what childhood education is supposed to instill: a stiff code of behavior and a guilt mechanism that will last a lifetime. I did't refrain from theft out of any feeling of caring. Had that been the case, I would have returned the purse immediately.
If I were really a "good person" I wouldn't be feeling regret about giving up $100 15 years later.
I wouldn't make a very good egoist.
Shall we have another anecdote? Ok. I once found £10 on the floor at a shop I worked at. I quickly picked it up and put in my pocket, intending to keep it. I then got worried that I might get caught, and reasoned that the risk of losing my job outweighed the benefit of being £10 richer. I handed it in, and it mysteriously disappeared, i.e. stolen by another member of staff. Furthermore, I would have probably gotten away with keeping it, as the security was poor. What's the moral of the story?
Practice makes perfect? It takes balls to be a success?
I would say more, but one of the principles of successful crime is "Keep your mouth shut." Don't discuss the plan, don't discuss the heist, and don't discuss the haul.
This all assumes access to the necessities of life in the first place, and not a life and death competition for resources, as capitalism tends to promote. When people are trying to survive all morality goes out the window, and it's understandable that it does.
Perhaps you're right that, in general, narcissists tend to be "miserable, unhappy people", (although you haven't supported that assertion), but then narcissism wasn't exactly the topic of discussion. Narcissism isn't the same as egoism or self-interest. And for the record, I don't regard narcissism as virtue. But I can think of counterexamples to your claims, but I doubt that you'd accept them (not that that's necessary).
You might think that, in general, an aid worker, for example, lives a more excellent life than a regular Joe, but I don't see that as necessarily true. It's noble and all, but I just don't think that that in itself makes it a better life. My life isn't worse off for all the times that I decided to spend my time and money self-interestedly rather than altruistically. On the contrary, much of it was time and money well spent.
I'm not arguing that putting the interests of others ahead of one's own is noble or altruistic. I am saying it's a better way to live. It generates calmness and clarity and maturity. Those who are always out to get something for themselves act like children. They are comical, if not absurd. Their life is unexamined.
In a pinch, with survival on the line, we all act that way (or better put who can blame somebody for acting that way). But that's hardly a life worth living.
As to being a subjective judgment, it's certainly a judgment and it arises out of my life, but the OP asks for a judgment, so I'm not going to apologize for that.
Indeed. but it is worth pointing out that self interest is no more rational than altruism. The myth of rational self interest leads to much nonsense. As though assholery is somehow clever and decency foolish.
It's altruistic by definition.
Quoting Landru Guide Us
Yeh, I got that. But that's not necessarily true, nor true for everyone, all the time, regardless of context. Hence, I am replying that it's better for some, but not others.
Quoting Landru Guide Us
These are just crude characterisations. Evidently, altruism won't necessarily generate the outcome that you describe, because there are so many factors to take in to consideration, and only the right combination will produce that outcome.
And it is possible, at times, to be more towards the egoistic end of the scale without jumping to extremes. That one, on balance, is more self-interested than selfless, doesn't entail that one is always out for themselves, comical, acts like a child, or is a psycho killer who'd disintegrate an obese homeless person without hesitation. What's comical are these characterisations.
Quoting Landru Guide Us
I didn't ask for an apology. An acknowledgment will suffice. I think it's more interesting to question the typical assumptions and characterisions which stem from traditional values than to simply spout them out. My main points are that these traditional values aren't set in stone, that there are exceptions/counterexamples, that deviation from these values doesn't necessarily mean that one is worse off, and that much of this is a subjective and relative matter.
OK, then we agree. I think you're right that it's a misconception. Rationality, in this context, seems to boil down to whether or not one acts towards one's interests, whether that be self-interest or altruism. I think we naturally tend to judge others based on our own values, and that that can result in judging the other as foolish if they don't act in accord with our own values, like my initial reaction to someone handing in a valuable lost item, rather than keeping it for themselves.
Not to moralize here (ahem), but had you kept the $100, it would have been theft. There's a difference between keeping abandoned property (as in the person intentionally or through gross negligence gave the property away) and mislaid property (as in simple forgetfulness), especially where the owner of the mislaid property can be easily identified.
Your perusal of her belongings was a bit suspect as well, not clearly being performed to simply to inventory them, but seemingly to assess their practical value to you.
I can say that had I kept the $100 in your situation, I would have forever felt I had done wrong, not just in violating a general moral principle, but for having taken that person's rightful possession.
Years ago, I left my wallet on top of my car. It was eventually thrown from the car near an interstate exit ramp. I was out of town at the time. Someone saw the wallet as they were driving, stopped, got out in the street and got my wallet. They then called 411 (pre Google days) and found my father's phone number. He then called me at my hotel and we exchanged information and this person drove to my hotel with the wallet. He refused any reward.
Wouldn't you have rather have been that person than the sorry ass person you were when you thought about stealing that poor woman's stuff?
I
Amen.
This assumes an ethical subjectivism, where right and wrong are simply personal preferences. As in, it's ok to take your stuff as long as I don't feel bad about it, and it's wrong to take your stuff it it's going to make me feel bad. If that is your position, then why limit it to the return of lost items? Why not simply say that it's ok to randomly punch someone in the face as long as you can live with your conscience and not ok to do that if it's going to cause you internal grief?
What I'm saying is that the mindless pursuit of self interest is in fact immoral and that showing concern and compassion for others is moral. Whether you want to define doing a moral act as rational or not is another matter, but it's entirely possible that rationality isn't the most critical guiding principle in distinguishing right from wrong. That is, if rape, robbery, and murder is my most rational course in some hypothetical situation, that hardly means I ought to do it from a moral perspective.
So, why do we turn from the strait and narrow path which we normally follow? We turn aside from moral behavior the same way we turn aside from sane behavior: our thinking becomes disordered.
Moral disorder isn't an excuse, it's a diagnosis. I regret disordered thinking, or disordered morality, but at the time, it is very persuasive. Delusions can be resisted (provided they do not grow too fast too far), whether that be cognitive or moral delusion.
"My happiness above all else" is the sort of delusional, or disordered thinking that can get out of hand and land us into a moral swamp.
First of all, I don't agree that the comment of mine which you quoted assumes ethical subjectivism, although other comments that I've made in this discussion might well do. In that comment, I describe what I take rational behaviour to consist in, and I go on to talk about what I believe to be the basis in which we tend to judge others, namely in accordance with our own values. I don't think that that's controversial, and it doesn't rule out alternatives to ethical subjectivism.
My position is not the one described by you in the quote above. I wouldn't go that far. But I can relate to it somewhat on a personal basis. That is, I don't claim that right and wrong are simply personal preferences, but in ethical situations, personal preference can be a determining factor of my views, values and acts, and that is probably the case for many, many others as well.
I don't subscribe to ethical subjectivism as a normative view. I don't necessarily apply my own reasoning universally, i.e. to any subject in the same situation. Why would I? If I can randomly punch someone in the face and not lose much sleep over it (which couldn't be further from the truth, as it happens), that's one thing, but why project that universally?
If I didn't have the restraints that I do, then perhaps I would think that it's OK to punch, rob, rape, and murder, and perhaps I'd be in prison right now, but obviously that's not the case. And it's not just the fear of getting caught and punished which acts as a restraint, my conscience does so too. Given that I don't think that way, it'd make no sense for me to endorse others to do such things which offend my conscience.
Whether something is right or wrong is one thing, and whether something is a matter of conscience is another. They aren't necessarily the same thing, but often coincide. In practice, I tend to be guided more by my conscience - amongst other emotion-based influences - than abstract notions of right and wrong.
Quoting Hanover
I don't think that anyone here has endorsed a [I]mindless[/I] pursuit of self interest, so that is beside the point. On the contrary, I for one have already objected to what I called 'unrestrained egoism', which seems to be the same thing that you refer to above.
As for showing concern and passion for others, I wouldn't say that they're good in themselves, irrespective of context, but I don't deny that they can be moral. But I'm under no obligation to show concern or passion for others, and if I'm not as full of concern or as passionate as the next guy, then that doesn't necessarily mean that he lives a better or more excellent life than I do. More moral, perhaps, yes, but morality isn't the be-all and end-all in life, and neither for that matter is the law, to which it seems you attribute more authority and value, in the scheme of things, than I do. There can of course be laws which are unjust, or laws which are just, but are nonetheless worth breaking.
Quoting Hanover
I agree. And I'd go further than just noting the possibility that rationality isn't the most critical guiding principle in distinguishing right from wrong. It [i]is[/I] more a matter of the heart than one of the head, in my view. Rationalisations are usually subsequent.
Eastern European peasants are some of the most moral (and happy!) people I have ever met. A struggle for food, within reasonable limits, is good. The problem for Western, developed societies is that life is too easy - hence people show their real, immoral nature. That's why the US's divorce/marriage ratio is 53%. That's why US is the most depressed country in the world. That's why suicide rates are at 15 per 100,000 population. Because life is so darn easy. People can only do immoral things when life is easy. I am not religious, but the people who wrote the Bible were right: "blessed are the meek".
Nature made life to be hard and difficult. Man cannot adjust to an easy life. Man was made to toil and work hard. This "when people are trying to survive all morality goes out the window" and of course it's capitalism's fault, is nonsense. All through history most people were just trying to survive, and most people were quite moral, by the standards of their day. So clearly the struggle for survival alone cannot be the cause of immorality.
Comfort is the cause of immorality. When people are comfortable, with all their needs met, they dream the most treacherous of things - the most vain and selfish desires - they desire lots of alcohol, lots of drugs, lots of new highs. They can never get enough - and this you probably call moral - because it doesn't harm anyone (except of course the do-er of the deed). But of course, at the end of the day, the peasant laughs - he doesn't understand any of this - and he spends all his day working - but he's happy.
I don't get how you go from those statistics to the supposed cause being immorality, which in turn, you say, is a result of an easy life. What's the supposed link between high divorce, depression, and suicide rates, on the one hand, and immortality and an easy life, on the other? Seems farfetched. People don't suffer depression, or go to the extreme of committing suicide because life is easy, nor is main cause immorality or the perception thereof. The main cause, I'll hazard to guess, can include perceived hardship, sadness, and a sense of hopelessness.
Quoting Agustino
Claptrap.
Quoting Agustino
Quite right. Which is of course why, for example, the most prominent, perhaps the most brutal, and extremely immoral, terrorist organisation in present times - ISIS - stem from comfy ol' Syria, where they live a cozy, trouble-free life of luxury. And that also explains why the country with the highest murder rate in the world is Honduras: one of the poorest countries in the Western Hemisphere, with 50% of the population below the poverty line in 2010.
I could go on...
No, it's a practice. Altruism is a belief.
Thank you Mr. Pastoral Romantic.
I'm glad you've arranged your life to struggle for food. Wait, you haven't.
My view isn't traditional at all and I'm not invoking any traditional moral view. I don't think that putting the interests of others is noble, or altruistic, or gets you to heaven. I thinks it's a more excellent way to live, conducive to the examined life. In contrast, a self-serving life seems totally unexamined to me.
My interest here is existential, not moral, per say. Or rather, a morality that derives from an existential evaluation of what it means to have a meaningful life. I honestly feel sorry for self-involved people even as they rub me the wrong way.
I'm glad you agree we should disabuse the rich of their comfort for their own good.
I think it is true at all times for all people; it's just not possible when competition for resources is such that people struggle to survive. I don't blame people for the meanness of their existence when survival is at stake (I've been there within the confines of western economics); but I do recognize it is mean.
Are you actually denying that, and like poor Agustino engaging in the romantic view that struggle is ennobling? I hope not.
If you google "altruism" you'll find that the common definition includes both, but I'll just use a synonym instead.
Quoting Landru Guide Us
Sure it is. Your view is that it's good to be selfless, that it's better to be selfless than egoistic, and that being selfless will reap rewards (you'll be happier, more excellent, live a better life, obtain better qualities). You don't get much more traditional than that. It goes as far back, at least, to the teachings of Jesus, and also relates to the ethics of Plato's Republic regarding whether it's better to be just or unjust.
As for the supposed causal link between selflessness/egoism and an examined/unexamined life, respectively - I don't see it. I suspect that that's because it isn't there. It isn't so black and white as you're making out. It's naive to view it as such, as clear virtue/vice. There are grey areas. It's a scale, rather than two separate extremes. Getting the right balance and proportion, in context, is more important than simply seeking one extreme or the other, which can be misguided. I think that this view has something in common with Aristotle, with his Golden mean.
Quoting Landru Guide Us
I don't buy that. I reckon that it's the other way around, in that you set out your "investigation" with moral-tinted glasses, and predictably reach the conclusion that a "meaningful life" coincides with your pre-held values.
Quoting Landru Guide Us
The only part that I'm rejecting as false is your claim that it's true at all times for all people. (That is, "To be selfless is to live a better life" or something similarly worded to that effect).
I understand and acknowledge that people struggling to survive aren't likely to prioritise morality. The starving child that steals a loaf of bread from a relatively well-off baker is excused in my book. But, again, a sophisticated view will take context into consideration. Whether or not an act typically considered to be immoral is excusable given the circumstances will depend upon those circumstances. The struggle to survive typically won't excuse rape, for example.
Quoting AgustinoDo you not have Google on your computer? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/11/07/a-stunning-map-of-depression-rates-around-the-world/ The correlation between depression and poverty appears to be directly related, with Eastern Europe fairing poorly. The US is not on the list of the most depressed nations. Your use of the US as the best example of wealth is also flawed. The Scandanavian nations tend to have higher per capita wealth, yet often fair the best in terms of happiness. You'll note that the happiest nations on this list are all wealthy Western European countries. http://www.businessinsider.com/new-world-happiness-report-2015-2015-4 Quoting AgustinoThe US is 50th in suicide rate. They are far behind many Eastern European nations, and many non-Western Asian nations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate You're spouting off incorrect figures in an effort to make your dubious claim that there is a relationship between comfort and immorality.Quoting Agustino Eastern Europe dominates the world in terms of alcohol consumption per capita. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_alcohol_consumption_per_capita
All of this is just to point out two things (1) you've done no research and have misstated all the relevant facts related to your argument, and (2) poverty does not lead to morality, happiness, and a good, solid life.
Poverty creates all sorts of challenges, many of which lead to failed relationships, drug and alcohol abuse, crime, violence, teenage pregnancy, reduced education, depression, and general hopelessness. There may be a certain vacuousness to the lives of the rich and famous, but no one really believes that those lives are more difficult than those residing in public housing.
US - number 1 in the world!
I do admit that Hanover brought up some information which does put in question some of my claims. Is that bad? Not really, no. I don't want to prove my point on this matter - there's no proving as there's too much uncertainties involved - but merely offering you different perspectives :)
Even if we accepted the WHO data as gospel (and note that the article I cited performed the same DALY analysis as WHO and achieved very different results), it states, "Data on the relative prevalence of major depression among different ethnic groups have reached no clear consensus. However, the only known study to have covered dysthymia specifically found it to be more common in African and Mexican Americans than in European Americans." This is an indication that the poorer minority groups in the US are driving depression stats up, contrary to your claim that wealth is the cause of depression.
To the specific question of whether those in poverty are more depressed than those not in poverty in the US, the answer is clearly that they are, with a rate double those not in poverty. http://www.gallup.com/poll/158417/poverty-comes-depression-illness.aspx
Quoting Agustino
Why don't you want to prove your point?
Yes which is my point. Those studies are biased, many of them. Pretty much all of social sciences are biased because 90% of social scientists are liberal-left-wingers, and most of the studies are undertaken by people coming from developed countries. http://www.irishtimes.com/news/science/why-are-so-many-social-scientists-left-liberal-1.2082755
Let's take a frequently done study. The effect of the frequency of sexual activity on happiness in a population of unmarried females. Most of these studies reveal increases of happiness which match increases in sexual activity. However - they are done amongst population where sex before marriage is considered acceptable and encouraged. Instead of realising that their conclusion (frequent sex leads to more happiness) applies amongst only a certain population group (where sex before marriage is valued and encouraged), they say it applies across all of humanity. But this is not true - sex before marriage in a religious community is often a frequent cause of sadness, thus illustrating that these relationships are necessarily culturally mediated, with no one culture being superior to the other - and therefore no such generalisations can be drawn.
Quoting Hanover
Because data is necessarily biased, and "proving" a point is pretty much impossible. Offering alternatives is what is possible. I have reasons to believe what I wrote, which I could outline, but no way to prove that I am right beyond reasonable doubt.
There's potential problems. The poor of the US are rich in other parts of the world. They may be more depressed because they come in contact with people who have a lot more than them, thus making them feel inferior, etc. It still doesn't follow that they are poor by absolute standards.
Nothing wrong with using google for factual matters, but for a philosophical discussion, it's lacking. Altruism is a moral system. I think I've made clear I'm not making a moral claim per se. I don't think those who put their interest first are immoral, and have even pointed out that I wouldn't morally judge anybody whose survival is at stake for trying to survive. I might criticize his courage but not his morality. Put another way, I might praise the courage of somebody who puts the interests of other before himself even when his survival is at stake. That's not an uncommon feeling we have all the time.
Putting the interests of others ahead of one's own is a better way to live. It isn't a more moral way to live. So I don't considerate my formulation (which is just the Apostle Paul's in fact) altruism at all.
I think I've made clear that I don't begrudge people pursuing their self-interest. I've simply pointed out that putting others self-interest ahead of one's own results in a better richer way to live. I don't even think that's controversial - I've rarely seen anybody praise somebody for promoting his self-interest, except maybe in the ugly realm of rightwing politics. Even there it's usually rationalized as really a benefit for others (he made a billion dollars producing a really good product!)
In any case, my claim is based on the premise that the unexamined life in not worth living. It is an existential claim, not a moral one. My experience is that self-interested people live unexamined lives and are childish, shallow, and boring. For all I know they may be more moral than others and provide a great benefit to society on a utilitarian level. That's the theory of capitalism at any rate, which is why capitalism tend to produce childish people. My position doesn't exclude working for a future or carrying on the usual business of life. Rather it is an attitude that comes from self-examination the puts this into context.
Finally, I am serious about not morally judging those who are put in situations where survival is at stake, no matter how ugly their actions. You seem ambivalent in that regard. Some Jewish inmates in concentration camps collaborated with the Nazis in order to get an extra piece of bread or to stay alive one more day. An ugly action. (The current movie Son of Saul is about this). But I refuse to morally denounce those people since I can't imagine the horror of their situation, a situation not of their own making. I can judge them as cowards or as unempathetic or or as dangerous to others. But not immoral. Nobody should morally judge others who find themselves in extremis for decision they did not make. Now contrast that with the Nazi victimizers and we have a different calculation.
You should denounce them - a traitor is a traitor. There is no excuse for immoral behavior. Probably I would be a traitor too, if I was in their shoes. But there's no excuse for me either. What is wrong, is wrong.
You're either trolling or you simply not given to moral introspection. Take your pick
This ^
No I am given to moral introspection. But look Landru. If I sell my wife in slavery in order to save my life, I have still done something immoral. The reason why I sold my wife doesn't change that. The fact that I can't stop myself from selling my wife in that case has to do with my own personal weakness, and can in no way justify the action as moral. So a priori both me and you will agree that the action is most certainly not moral. However, we disagree if it's immoral. Notice that there is no disagreement in regards to its morality, we both agree that for certain it's not moral. But there is certainly disagreement in regards to its immorality. Why do you think this is?
Furthermore, extreme situations, such as being forced in a labor camp, are the only situations which show who is truly moral and who isn't. Most of us fake being moral. At least if we fake it, let us not defend the fakery, and admit to the truth. At least that much we can do. Why shall we deceive even ourselves? What is the point of that nonsense? I am immoral. Okay. Not a problem. But let me at least be aware of it, and keep it keenly in mind. It's despicable how so many people pretend to morality, while in truth they are venomous snakes. The world would be a much better place if we didn't RATIONALISE our failings, but admitted them to be exactly that: failures. We've built a culture which only rationalises our failures and nothing else.
You're like Ben Carson blaming the victims of mass shootings for not "rushing" the gun man.
You have no idea what you would do when your life is threatened by somebody with power over you. It's intellectual absurd to claim otherwise. You will do what you do based on where you are in life as you face a horrible situation not of your own making. I would call somebody who sold his wife into slavery at pain of death cowardly or less heroic than somebody who didn't (I think it's curious that this is exactly what Abraham did, whether you are aware of that or not). But not immoral. That's especially true if you lived to do something about it, rather than just got yourself killed and have your wife sold into slavery anyway. That's stupid (but also not immoral). I would save the charge of immorality for the person forcing the choice on you. He's the immoral one.
Your inability to see the difference suggests a very defective moral system.
There is no difference Landru. It's still a failure to live up to my moral standards. I know I won't be able to in those circumstances, but that's because Im a coward, and I admit to it... How can there be a difference? Does being forced to make a decision make it different? Does my life being threatened make it different? What is it that makes it different?
Yeah, well, there we have it. If your moral system can't tell the difference between a Nazi and a Jewish victim struggling to survive the horrors of Nazism, it really isn't worth much. This is what happens once you go down the road of rightwing thinking
One is committing immorality by forcing the other one to make a decision, the other one is committing immorality by sacrificing their family/friends for their own survival. Both are immoral, to different degrees, of course.
Quoting Agustino
There is something wrong with a moral system that allows too much slipping and sliding - rationalizing our way around moral failures, as you put it. There is also something wrong with a moral system that is rigidly black and white, and makes no exceptions.
Naturally, "a commandment like, "thou shall not kill" can not be provided by the law giver with amendments and lists of exceptions. No killing, no stealing, no lechery, no blasphemy PERIOD -- never, under any circumstances -- Is the way commandments get stated. Or laws, or moral principles. The amendments and exceptions are added by the scholars--and these are critical additions.
The scholars can say, "Never kill, except to protect the life of a spouse or child or yourself; never steal unless starvation is the alternative. If you are compelled to commit blaspheme to save yourself, it won't count against you.." and so on."
The scholars, in service to the spirit of the law giver, recognize that there are circumstances so dehumanized, so hellish, that no moral decision can be made by the victim. The concentration camp was one such place. Such places do not merely coerce one into violating one's morals, they obliterate the boundaries of all morality. Indeed, they obliterate the boundaries of the human as well.
Most of the bad situations we might find ourselves in won't be quite as bad as Auschwitz, Treblinka, or another Nazi hell hole. But we could still find ourselves in situations where the boundaries of morality and humanity were eroded enough to make moral decisions practically irrelevant.
Further, a moral system worth it's salt will provide for failure. Nobody is perfect, everybody is quite flawed. Failure to live up to the law giver's high standards will be epidemic and endemic. The wise law giver recognizes this, and provides for forgiveness and reconciliation.
Some people like the Puritan revivalist Jonathan Edwards (1703–1758) expressed the hard assed approach to morality quite well:
I can imagine you in a Puritan's clerical garb, uttering these sermons of unbending wrath, atheist though you may be.
If that was all there was for the Abrahamic believer (or for anybody else), severe demands that are difficult to achieve and a God who was all about scorching wrath, religion wouldn't have any followers, except a few insane fundamentalists in the Christian and Moslem branches. These folk don't have time for mercy, forgiveness, understanding, exceptions, suspension of the rules when one is in hell, and so on. It's all about failures and punishments -- kind of an S&M set up.
And it doesn't make any difference whether one is an atheist or not. Atheists can be every bit as much a rigid hater and unforgiving bastard as someone from Alabama, the Islamic State, the Taliban, or Saudi Arabia. I assume your atheism resembles the psychological state of your pre-atheistic period of belief-- it must have been pretty grim. (See Bertrand Russell for a discussion on the relationship of one's religion to one's atheism.)
Since you, yourself, are going to fail at achieving perfection, you might as well install a system of forgiveness and mercy for yourself, and those who deal with. People will d-i-s-a-p-p-o-i-n-t you, I swear to Wotan. Get ready.
We twa hae run about the braes,---We two have run about the slopes,
and pou’d the gowans fine;---and picked the daisies fine;
But we’ve wander’d mony a weary fit,---But we’ve wandered many a weary foot,
sin' auld lang syne.---since auld lang syne.
Thanks, Happy New Year to you too! :)
Quoting Bitter Crank
I think you are confusing an attitude with a system, and attempting to systematise an attitude, which is something that is impossible. I will explain later on in this post.
Quoting Bitter Crank
A law cannot provide for an abnegation of the law. That has to do with an attitude of the law-giver and law-enforcer.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Quite the contrary. I was raised an Orthodox Christian, and the religion, if you have read Dostoyevsky's Brothers Karamazov for example, emphasizes forgiveness and love much more than God's wrath. In fact, in Orthodox Christianity, both sinners and saints go to the same place after death: the only difference is in the manner in which they percieve it, so the torment of the sinners is self-inflicted and not imposed by God. The sinner will merely percieve God's love as a scorching fire; but he can always stop, even after death, and become closer to God.
Ever since I was young, I was always against this system though - it gives a license to sin to people. It basically says "Look, it doesn't matter if you sin in the end, because we all sin; so don't fret about it, focus on God's love, and everything will be fine". So my attitude has never been religious. Morality is prior to religion, and is required for the proper functioning of society. My moral views came prior to my religion.
I think that the fact that you think my religious views were quite grim, and hence my post-religious views are grim implies only the fact that you think people can only emphasise the value of a rigid morality if they are to begin with religious. You think morality, in the traditional sense, requires religion. That one is motivated by religion to believe so. I don't think that at all. Quite the contrary, I disagreed with priests and everyone: God could not have given people a license to sin; that he did give them such a license is to my ears an abomination.
Quoting Bitter Crank
No system of forgiveness and mercy can exist without becoming a license to sin. Forgiveness and mercy are practical attitudes that a law-giver and law-enforcer have to adopt in order to avoid unnecessary sacrifices of valuable people. But you cannot put these in the law. This was, in truth, Jesus's point. A wise ruler will forgive, but he will uphold the law as it is: unforgiving - "I have not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it"
If I sell my sister into slavery, this should not be forgiven. Whether she decides to forgive me later on or not, doesn't change this fact. Depending on the circumstance she may decide to forgive me - but this is grace - not that I deserve to be forgiven, because I don't (and the fact that I don't is really important). People nowadays behave immorally so often because they think they have a license to do so - they expect to be forgiven. This is nonsense. A society simply cannot be structured on no principles like this. So forgiveness must never be introduced into the law. People should never expect forgiveness. Forgiveness should be the result of someone's grace and mercy, not anyone's right.
So no - I shouldn't install a system for forgiveness and mercy for myself. If I fail, I fail, and deserve the punishment that the law demands. In fact, I want to be punished in that case. If I'm not, I'll be exceedingly glad and thankful to the person who has forgiven me. But I won't expect them to. This not expecting to implies admission that I have done wrong, and repentance for my actions, which means that in the future I will change my ways and not do the same wrong again (that is also how I re-interpret the biblical teaching - I should at one point talk about the role I think religion plays and ought to play in society - one forgives because the person in question has internally changed so as not to commit the wrong again - not forgives for forgiveness sake).
And yes - some people will disappoint, others won't. I've met both kinds. Depends among whom you keep company. Typically those who expect to be forgiven are the most likely to do wrong from what I've noticed. Those who never expect to be forgiven, the least likely, and the most likely to change their ways if they do.
But you haven't actually provided any evidence which supports that assertion, and I can think of possible counterexamples. I think that that claim is reflective of your own judgement, rather than a state of affairs. We would be closer to reaching an agreement if you would add a few qualifications to these sort of claims, but it seems that you're unwilling to do so, and your claims therefore remain false.
Quoting Landru Guide Us
I completely agree, provided the action-in-question directly relates to the agent being in a situation where survival is a stake, like your example, where if one doesn't do such-and-such then their survival is at stake. Given that I can empathise with an egoistic viewpoint, I understand why someone would prioritise their own survival - even to the detriment of others.
The point that I was making with the example of rape was that unrelated acts are a different kettle of fish. Finding oneself in extremis is not sufficient grounds to excuse any act, including unrelated acts. More details are required in order to consider a possible exception. Hence, I'd judge it to be wrong for one of those Jewish inmates to rape another one, unless, for example, the former was coerced into doing so at gunpoint, which would be more excusable.
The question presupposes objective morality. I see morality as inter-subjective and negotiated. Given that, the answer is that I can't see anything wrong with you feeling that your happiness is more important to you than mine is (and vice versa), so long as we can both agree upon guidelines by which to resolve conflicts that occur when your desires are at odds with mine. You know, things like "do unto others", "sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me", or more formally like constitutions and legislation.
I think I have. Regard narcissists like Trump or Lindsey Lohan. They are childish boring fools, and don't even know it.
The unexamined life is not worth living. Are you actually going to disagree with that?
So if a robber holds a gun to your head and you give him the money, you're committing the immoral act of abetting a robbery? Oh the absurdity of imposing morality on people in extremis.
Like Ben Carson you would have rushed the Wehrmach and let them torture you to death before you would do anything immoral in a concentration camp. Right.
My principle: There is no moral way to act when you are beaten, tortured, threatened with death. There are no moral choices in that situation. Just suffering. Now some courageous people act courageously even in extreme situations. We should acknowledge that. But that has nothing to do with morality.
Quite. I think we have brought clarity to the fact that we don't think alike about morality. On the other hand, my guess is that we are more or less equally moral, civilized, and decent people. Neither of us are likely to sell our sisters into slavery, and neither of us are likely to hold up the corner convenience store and kill the hapless clerk--even if we were destitute.
It is a bit difficult to determine the relationship between "religion", "formal ethical teaching", and "social pressure".
Religion doesn't have to emphasize morality. If the religion involves animal sacrifices to the gods as a way of appeasing the gods, the morality of the worshippers need not be a major focus. Temple prostitution was part of the fertility cult of the Baal worshippers , so often denounced by the Prophets of Israel. The prostitutes weren't "hookers" -- they were more like priests. (There were male prostitutes as well.) Rites and rituals don't have to model ethical behavior.
I hope people get ethical instruction somewhere along the line--as a sideline of church activity, through reading books about ethics, paying attention to professional standard of conduct, or in Philosophy classes. Not sure what The People are actually getting in the way of ethical instruction.
Our behavior is certainly guided by social (and peer) pressure. There is an unwritten consensus about what flies ethically, and what does not. At a rather low level, we enforce the principle of 'first come first serve' by berating people who break into line or jump ahead several places. "Codes of Silence" contribute significantly to the way police behave. Killing young black men suspected of... something... does not lead to abrupt ostracism, being reported, criticized, or identified as a wrong-doer--most of the time, at least. The police community has established an ethic of mutual protection.
Social and peer pressure can have an odd relationship to the morality and ethics most of the members of a group might have been taught. "Mutual protection" is normally a good thing, but we don't necessarily like it when it is a gang practicing mutual protection, and enforcing a "no-snitching" policy. What the police are doing in some cities isn't much different than following a gang's "no snitch" rule.
When children play games, they tend to enforce some sort of concept of fairness -- one not derived from Biblical stories. Maybe they get the rules from the Cub Scout Handbook.
However we obtain guidance, most of us do seem to behave in a more or less similar and acceptable manner. The demonstrations against police killings in Ferguson, MO and Baltimore, MD, et al, and the various reactions to the demonstrations reveal that there are significant discontinuities in the common morality / ethic / peer group assumptions about proper behavior. The actions of terrorists reveal extreme differences in moral understanding -- greater differences than that revealed by most criminal behavior.
As someone who is rather selfish, who tends to be interested in their own projects rather than the people around me (at least in a practical sense), I mostly agree with Landru in this instance. The thing about helping others is that it means the interests of at least two people (more depending on the number of people who are helped) are fulfilled. It's more productive (in the sense of immediate events and relationships) than people doing their own thing. It forms connections and support which wouldn't be there in a world in which people only cared about themselves.
The important thing though, and this is what Landru hasn't talked about, its actually in the interests of both people involved in these instances.
When helping others becomes a burden, when the individual is losing out on some important project because they are helping others, it's no longer in the helper's (perceived?) interest. That's what so unbearable. The problem is not the loss of a sacred right to have no responsibility, to be able to do anything (as egoism might have us believe), but rather the inability to do what matters a great deal to an individual. Characterising this as a mere "getting to do what you want" is a crass understatement of what's going on. What is actually at stake is the specific action someone feels they are meant to be doing.
Even if I accept those examples, a few examples doesn't come anywhere near the amount of evidence that you'd require to support your claim that putting the interests of others ahead of one's own is a better way to live. There are also no doubt people who've been worse off due to selfless acts. If I were to give away all of my possessions, then I wouldn't be better off. If I were to donate one of my organs, then subsequently suffer serious illness as a result, then I wouldn't be better off.
And, again, narcissism is not the subject of this discussion. The myth of Narcissus is actually a good way of emphasising the difference between narcissism and self-interest, because his falling in love with his own image is narcissistic, but not in his self-interest.
Quoting Landru Guide Us
That's a separate issue from whether or not being selfless is a better way to live, but yes, I do disagree with that, because I recognise that these things are not absolute. Your view is too simplistic. I for one happen to prefer the examined life, but that's just me, and doesn't say much.
Well, we have found the root of our disagreement. I assert unapologetically that it is part of the human condition that the unexamined life is not worth living.
I don't know how you can really disagree since if one didn't examine their life, how would they know it's worth living. They have condemned themselves to Socrates' judgment by their failure to examine their life.
To me this is the basis of philosophy, and hence every philosophical question, including the morality of selfishness. So we'll have to leave it there.
Someone does not have to know that their life is worth living in comparison to another, to live well. Some people live well without engaging a process of "examination". For them, examining their life is not required to live well, and may only serve as a pointless (or even damaging) distraction.
Examining things is no doubt the basis of philosophy. Philosophy is a critical project. The problem is that ethical action is not. It's it's own state of existence, which may be present without the critical examinations of philosophy. Sometimes people just do good and know what is good.
But it isn't difficult to think of counterexamples to the claim that the interests of at least two people are fulfilled by one person helping others. Granted, if both people mutually help each other, then they'll both be better off; but that doesn't support selflessness anymore than self-interest, because one could be motivated by either the former or the latter in that situation and achieve the same result. Whereas if one person is selfless and helps another, and that other person is self-interested enough not to return the favour, then, all things being equal, that person has gained something of benefit and not suffered any loss, whereas the selfless person has arguably suffered a loss, depending on what the help consisted in, and whether it was worth it.
And, again, no one here is arguing in favour of people that only care about themselves. What's with these irrelevant straw men? I know it's easier to attack a more simplistic, extreme characterisation of selfishness, but what's the point in doing so? OK, let's assume that you're right that there wouldn't be connections and support in such a world, and, by implication, such a world is worse off. So what?
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
Agreed. That can be an indication of excessive selflessness, and wouldn't make one better off. Based on the above comment, it seems you agree more with myself than Landru, as Landru hasn't made any such qualifications. I'm arguing in favour of a more balanced, more sophisticated, view.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
I'm glad that you acknowledge that such a characterisation is crass. I'm not arguing in favour of this sort of crass egoism-without-restraints.
Your argument relies on the mistaken assumption that knowing whether or not one's life is worth living is necessary for a life to be worth living.
I also don't share your mistaken assumption that being self-interested is, in itself, indicative of an unexamined life, so I reject any argument containing such a premise as unsound. I find it obvious, contrary to your prior assertion, that a self-serving life [i]does not[/I] entail a life totally unexamined. Can you really not think of a counterexample to that overblown claim of yours? I could level the same charge with regards to being selfless (viz. that it's indicative of an unexamined life), but that wouldn't be productive either. The issue doesn't hinge upon whether or not an unexamined life is worth living. That seems more like a red herring.
It is for the person, and that's the sense that counts. A "third party" conclusion that a life is meaningful isn't relevant to whether my life is worth living to me. And for it to be worth living to me, I must examine my life. Thus the unexamined life can never be worth living.
You are making a category error, as if the meaning of one's existence is empirical, when it is existential. Dasein ist je meines - existence is always my existence.
Living well is not the same as a life worth living. For a person to live a life worth living, it has to be worth living for that person, not for some third-party observer (who does not and cannot live that life), and that requires self-examination.
Nope, you're just confusing two separate things: that life is worth living and knowledge or awareness that life is worth living. You therefore fail to account for those cases in which life is worth living despite lacking that knowledge or awareness.
If, for you, life is only worth living with that knowledge or awareness, then, that is fine. But, again, this is reflective of your judgement, rather than a fact about life.
I don't find that to be an instance of abetting a robbery. Nor do I find giving a thief my own money to be something morally wrong. Let me give a better example:
Let's say a robber breaks into my house, and puts a gun to my head demanding I tell him where my sister is hiding because he wants to kill her. He tells me that if I tell him, he will spare me. If I don't, he will kill me, as well as look for my sister. Supposing that I cannot lie and must necessarily tell the truth, or refuse to say anything, what should I do? I should refuse to say, even if this means I will die. However, in real life, I most probably will not refuse to say, and will tell the robber where my sister is. Why? Because I am too weak to uphold my moral values. But that doesn't mean that I shouldn't uphold them.
Quoting Landru Guide Us
No, probably I wouldn't have sufficient courage. But that is said to my shame, not as a way to justify that the action is somehow not immoral just because I do it, and because I was forced to do it.
Quoting Landru Guide Us
Why do you think that in the face of great suffering people cannot act morally? You think someone who, in self-sacrificing fashion, gives up his food so that a starving child may have it in a place like Auschwitz, you think that person is morally equivalent to one who kills a child so that he may take his food and survive?
I agree with this remark. However, it must be added that someone who lives a good life without examining their life can only live a life worth living accidentally, as opposed to by choice.
I don't believe in an objective morality, so whether you should or shouldn't isn't as straightforward for my position, but I think that one could quite persuasively argue in favour of doing what is sensible, or doing what's in one's best interest, which, arguably, means that you should tell the robber where your sister is.
That said, as a general point, it does seem that failing to abide by one's own moral values is a vice. But what if those moral values are misguided? Wouldn't it be better in that case, at least from a consequentialist viewpoint, to take actions contrary to those moral values?
I'm not confusing them at all, Sapientia. I'm distinguishing them for the reasons stated. You haven't responded to that but I'll give you one more chance:
Whether a life is worth living is not empirical. It always means is my life worth living to me. Thus it is an existential question, which can only be determined by me examining my life. Thus if my life is not examined by me, it is not worth living.
Special pleading won't save your contradictory moral claims.
Quoting Agustino
Don't avoid answering the important part :) I didn't special plead to avoid your point, I actually tackled it by means of another example, which I would agree with.
Sorry, Agustino, it's just special pleading - complying with a robber under threat of death isn't abetting a robbery but complying with a murderer under threat of death is murder (or whatever).
These sort of absurd contradictions is sufficient evidence that your moral claims have no force. I won't get into rebutting the Gish Gallop of claims that follow.
Very well - that doesn't matter. Because I agreed to what was essential in your point, namely that I wouldn't act that way in some situations. But I asked you a question, which has to do with your position more than with mine.
I think I've been clear: it is our human condition that most people will do anything necessary to stop somebody from torturing them or killing them or abusing them under pain of death and bodily injury. It's not a weakness. It's who we are. To moralize that, particularly from a false claim that the judge of morality is stronger than those weak people, is not only obscene, but probably immoral in itself. It's blaming the victims.
Now some people are impervious to threats of death for whatever reason (though nobody is impervious to torture). So they may resist. We conventionally call that courage - though it may be they simply don't care about life, or have a death wish, or are unrealistic or deluded about death and pain, or lack imagination, or are wired in a funny way. In any case, I have no problem calling them courageous, and recognizing their uniqueness, whatever the source. But they aren't more moral since the alternative isn't immoral.
Read the ending of 1984. It illuminates the limits of morality in the face of power.
The judge of morality doesn't have to be stronger than those weak people. He can be just as weak as them, and yet identify that it would be better if he was stronger.
Quoting Landru Guide Us
I say it is a weakness, in-so-far as it would be better if we were different. Would you disagree with the statement "it would be better for someone to act morally under the threat of death/torture"?
Quoting Landru Guide Us
What do you think about the Auschwitz situation I presented? Personally I feel very strongly that one of those people is morally superior to the other - one was willing to sacrifice himself to protect others, while the other was willing to sacrifice others to protect himself.
Quoting Landru Guide Us
Why do you think this necessarily is the ending? I believe that man can end it differently in the face of power. It is indeed exceedingly difficult, and few are the ones who can, but why would you think it is impossible? By most accounts, Jesus on the cross said "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they're doing!" - showing that in terrible pain and suffering, he was more concerned about the fate of his killers than about himself - something truly glorious about man, that he can harbour such goodness in him. And historically, if you read for example, Viktor Frankl's Man's Search for Meaning, you'll see that there were prisoners in Auschwitz who did give their last remaining portion to save a fellow prisoner. There were prisoners who risked their lives to save loved ones. There were prisoners who sacrificed themselves for the good of the others. Why do you think this is impossible? In my mind, this is the most admirable thing in man, and no action can be greater than this. The people who have it in them to maintain their goodness in the face of the greatest terrors, they are the only real people, the only ones worthy to be called human beings. All the rest of us, we are merely animals and worms, who deserve to perish as we do. People who are in many regards moral cowards, like myself with many things, do not deserve the contemplation of any sort of eternal life or heaven. Putting such people in Heaven would make Heaven itself miserable. Earth is sufficient for us. Let Heaven be for those who truly deserve it.
Better to be miserable being who we are, than happy being who we're not :)
I disagree that goodness has to be in my self-interest to be goodness. I identify many things which aren't in my self interest, which are in fact damaging to my self-interest, as good. So your theory seems to me to be, prima facie, false.
Quoting Sapientia
It would be better to identify what the correct moral values are if that is the case.
Conflating "what is better" with what is moral is another mistake, among many, that you are making
Hard to see how this claim would survive even cursory scrutiny, and the examples already given seem to do that. But in any case it is yours to defend. You certainly haven't convinced me that this vague claim provides any useful moral guidance or doesn't lead to absurdities.
Is morality anything more than being good, with being good defined in a manner which doesn't necessarily include self-interest?
The problem is that sometimes there are no good options. Sometimes people are putting in a situation where they cannot do good. Ever presence of personal responsibility is actually what gives Landru's argument force here. Since YOU are the one who make a difference in situations where you are coerced, what happens is on YOU. It's up to you whether the Nazi's get the information, which will lead to the murder of many people, or not. A good outcome (that is one without immorality) is impossible. Do you die and leave you friends and family without yourself and anything you provide them? Or do you condemn many other people to horrible deaths? Either option is morally bankrupt.
Where your ignorance lies here is not that the suggested actions are immoral or have bad outcomes, but rather in the supposition that a person in question made a decision to take the good outcome as opposed to a bad one.
The bank robber gives you the choice between the evils of dying or handing over someone else's money. A torturer gives you the choice between the evils of betrayal or continuing pain (and frequently the loss of yourself to the world, to you friends and family, though mutilation and death). The example Landru gave are exactly of this type. You are ignoring them for the convenience of your power worship. What you are interested in here is not moral responsibility nor goodness/badness, but rather expressions of power and authority. The extent of your analysis goes merely to getting to a point of being able to shout out how terrible someone is and call for their punishment.
Well, you're confusing the relationship between them, at least. There is no logical dependency of one on the other. (Unless your argument is an argument by definition, in which case, I reject your definition). And I [i]have[/I] responded. It's up to you whether or not you wilfully ignore it. In short: nope. Your assertion 'P' doesn't warrant any more than a dismissal or an assertion '~P'. Or are you trying to shift the burden of proof? But additionally, as others have also noted, there are counterexamples to your claim, and your position fails to acknowledge them. That is good enough reason to reject it.
I can empathise with such a feeling. I think that it has been ingrained in many of us. But I can also empathise with the feeling that the former should not have sacrificed something so valuable, namely his own life, for the sake of others; and that the latter's actions, though most will judge them to be far from admirable, are acceptable given the circumstances.
But I didn't make that claim. It doesn't have to be, but it can be, and in some cases, is.
Quoting Agustino
I'm not ruling that out. It's just that there are some such things which I might not identify in the same way as you.
Quoting Agustino
But what seems to you to be my theory is actually a misunderstanding on your part.
Quoting Agustino
I think you're right. Although, I don't interpret "correct moral values" in the same way as, say, "correct answers to mathematical questions". If I did, maybe I'd be an Error Theorist.
Oh man, now you cast yourself as arbiter of the value of the lives of others! What's next in your litany of arrogation?
Sure it does Willow. It describes Dasein's life. And Dasein is always my Dasein. That's true for you too. But if you don't think it is, then don't examine your life and don't determine whether it's worth living. It's OK with me.
The relationship between them is the difference between the ontic and the ontological. Whether that's logical or not hardly matters. My position would be that logic arises out of the difference.
I would think moral philosophy is the inquiry into what is right or wrong (not good) from the perspective we find ourselves in at the time. Defining that as "being good" is the type of thing at issue in the inquiry, and a bit old fashioned and Platonic. But again, I'm not claiming that putting the self-interests of others ahead of one's own is necessarily moral. I'm saying that it's a better way to live. I don't think the distinction is that hard to grasp. Indeed, it would have been - and was - considered immoral in Roman antiquity, not to mention stupid. The Roman authorities generally thought that Christians were immoral for helping the poor and weak (not to mention a threat to the state, not to mention stupid).
There is no particular relationship between living an examined meaningful life, and living a moral one. Though I could of course define the former as the latter. Still, I'll resist that. It seems to me that morality is historically contingent and not on the same level as existential structures.
I'll look up what that means later, after work.
Quoting Landru Guide Us
It does matter. You have implied that [i]whether a life is worth living[/I] is dependent on whether one [i]knows whether one's life is worth living[/I]. That is about logical necessity. It implies that it cannot logically be otherwise, i.e. that the contrary is logically impossible.
But not only is it possible, there are, and have been, actual cases in which one's life is worth living [i]despite lacking that knowledge[/I].
The one way that I see that you can legitimately make that claim is if you include the knowledge of whether one's life is worth living [i]as part of what it means for a life to be worth living[/I]; but that's begging the question, and, as I said, I'd reject that definition.
Quoting Landru Guide Us
You'll have to elaborate for me to better understand, but at first glance, that seems wrong and absurd.
I like the way you frame this, but I think that you make an obvious oversight here. It is not just an existential question, but more specifically it is an entirely subjective question, which is the only reason that the "to me" element matters. Can we not also ask from my point of view if your life is worth living? Or from the point of view of society in general? When Socrates said "an unexamined life is not worth living", I think that is rightly interpreted as a general statement, not a personal existential statement. Is it inherently false because of that?
Surely, according to most currently held western moral formulations, an individual should have a significant say in the value of their own life, but is there a particular reason that we should assume that their say should be absolute or necessary?
Existential questions aren't subjective per se; rather analysis of an issue as "subjective" is only possible because we have existential structures. Not to put too fine a point on it, but invocations of the subject is on a different level than I'm discussing. Or to put it another way, I'm denying the subjective-objective dialogue is useful to this issue. Happy to discuss why in more detail, but basically it assumes existential meaning (the examined life) is derivative of that dialogue, while I argue the opposite is the case.
I am saying that people regularly make category errors when speaking about morality, by ignoring the grammatical implications of a point of view. By saying that your life is worth living "to you", you are clarifying which grammatical point of view you are referring to. What you are failing to do, insofar as I can see, is justifying why that should be the primary or only point of view by which it is appropriate to consider whether your life is worth living. The fact that it is an existential question is both obvious and uninteresting to me. It's irrelevant to what I'm trying to ask you about.
I don't know how you haven't just made my point. If you don't want to examine your life, that's your business and I'm not trying to convince you to do otherwise. But by the very fact that you find such an examination uninteresting and obvious means that you don't care about the meaning of your life. And so, you can't argue to me that your life is worth living.
If you now turn around and protest, that your life is meaningful to you, then you must admit that you examined it, and hence have made my point again.
You have it all wrong, almost backwards, in my view.
There is no need to examine my life and evaluate it as being worth living, I merely have to feel that it is worth living for it to be, by definition, worth living.
I have no doubt at all that there are very many people who think very little about their lives, who are of a naturally upbeat disposition, and who if asked, despite the fact they never think about it, but just based on their immediate feeling for their life, would say "Of course my life is worth living". If you wanted to say that despite their feeling their lives are not worth living, then it begs the question 'Not worth living for who?'
I agree - a life does not require examination to be worth living.
First, one may hold that a life, as a unique existence, is inherently worth existing whether the person is capable (yet, or ever) of a deliberate self-examination or not.
Second, a life may be spent in many ways that do not allow for much time (or any time) for examination. For instance, the peasant couple tilling their land, tilling their lord's land, raising their children, fulfilling their unchosen and chosen obligations--living their lives as well as they could--were the foundation of the medieval (and later) society. I would not think that these two people who had no leisure until they were worn out and near death that "Unexamined, your lives were not worth living."
Many die too soon. This was true in the past, and it is still true today. People do die early. 19, say. They had not lived their life yet as adult agents. Are their lives to be dismissed as "not worth living"?
Claiming that "the unexamined life is not worth living" is easy to do, and it's easy to assume that the results will be favorable to one's reputation. Presumably, the examination process one should do is systematic and thorough. It's a bit elitist--and wasn't the source of this axiom the philosophical elite we like to mark as the anchor of the western intellectual tradition? The overworked, harried, tired, suffering person, pausing briefly to wonder how they can keep going on, and concluding that they just have to keep going on, because others' lives are dependent on their continued labor, may have done all the self-examination they have time to do.
I have, over the years, spent quite a bit of time examining my life. I had the necessary leisure, the inclination, the preparation, and the motivation (like, trying to figure out what I wanted to do, to be; why I wasn't happy; whether what I wanted was worth wanting, and so on). It wasn't a waste of time, certainly. But introspection and "the inward life" is just my game. Some people are so disposed and a lot of people are not. Those who are not, and don't spend a lot of time in self-examination, are not perforce living inferior lives.
Then you've examined your life, however cursorily. Your feelings are about your life, are they not? And you've examined them to determine that they tell you that your life is worth living, correct? If you haven't, then what are you talking about?
Sure, I have examined my life and I know that the feelings I already had prior to that examination were what determined whether life was good or not prior to that examination.
I am able to extrapolate from examination of my own and others' lives the knowledge that people are able to, and routinely do, feel that life is good or bad without needing to reflect philosophically on the issue.
Yes. MY life has been examined. Yes, there are lives that are worth living which have not been examined, either by 'feeling' ok about it or by taking the Minnesota Multiphasic Life Examination Inventory.
Look, it's perfectly alright if lives worth living have not been examined. We don't HAVE to prove some long-dead Greek correct.
So you can't preflectively tell the difference between generally feeling good and generally feeling bad?
You didn't say "generally." You said, about your life. So how do you tell the difference and what does it entail, if it's about your life? I can't imagine this doesn't require examining your life, if only in the sense of whether a future life is something to look forward to or not.
You don't have an immediate general feeling about your life?
Not even sure what you're asking or what it entails.
I do care about my life, which means I've examined it and my future or past or present are issues for me. You seem to be talking about an issueless life. Ironically, even that requires examination.
Time travel emotions?
In short, you've got it backwards.
And what does caring about life entail? Come on, you can say it.
Sapientia has already answered this misunderstanding in a way that should clear up your ongoing confusion, but just in case...yes, I am claiming that before I was self-reflexively aware that I cared about my life and where it was going that I cared about it and where it was going.
I would say that most people care about their lives and where they are going, even if many of those are mired in dysfunctionality and cannot get their shit together. If you want to say that therefore most people live examined lives (i.e. do philosophy), then you have so broadened the notion of 'examined life' and 'doing philosophy' as to render them indistinguishable from 'unexamined life' and 'not doing philosophy'.
You have shifted categories.
One involve evaluating your life. The other evaluating somebody else's. The latter is not at issue in this topic and is not and cannot be the same type of examination. The former is existential. The latter is a form of empirical knowledge accrued by apply a standard (of your own).
Obviously these two can diverge, and do diverge, which is why only the former is relevant here. What do you care whether I or somebody else evaluates your life as not worthwhile, if you think it is - and vice versa. If you think your life isn't worth living, no amount of empirical data provided by me will change that. Your examination of your life is not empirical.
I think you're stymied. Now, what does the feeling that your life is worth living entail? Describe it without examination of said life.
If you think the feeling cannot exist without being described then you are, quite simply, wrong. Phenomenology and modern neuroscience both bear this out. I suggest you might benefit from reading some Damasio; I would start with Descartes' Error and The Feeling of What Happens.
1. Theological
God created man, and in the act of creation something ‘in his own image’ consecrated his life as worth living and invested it with meaning. (At least to some extent, this would apply to all creation, since god created the cosmos and as I understand the concept, would not make something of no value or no meaning.) All lives are, by design, worth living.
The secular version of this involves sort of “a creation” by nature, sort of. God is replaced by the mechanisms of physics, chemistry, biology, geology, climate, evolution, and all that. dIn the end we arrive on the stage, but without a blessing, without grace. We are just one more species (granted, an exceptional creature.
2. Economic
Wealth is distributed unevenly, and some individuals have a plethora, and some have a dearth of resources. Those with little must devote themselves to acquiring the minimum means of life, which is likely to require most of or all their energy and time. Time is as much a good as materiel. Free time is a luxury. In a hard scrabble life, education is a luxury as well.
A wealthy person can afford Spode china, rare Swiss watches, art by masters, mansions, and all sorts of good things. A poor person can not afford these goods. We would not judge a life as inferior if it lacked material luxuries (or would we?) and we should not judge a life as inferior if it lacks the temporal luxury of free leisure and education which also requires time away from survival activities (or would we?).
Social
Trough literacy, education, and leisure, some people have the opportunity to both examine their lives and to develop standards by which to conduct an examination. Should we expect the school drop outs who are barely literate, extremely stressed by their life circumstances, possibly drugged or drunk, screwed too often and in too many ways, to have the wherewithal to examine their lives? And if not, should that life be considered not worth living? Being handed a horrible life from infancy foreword is a misfortune, not a failure.
Psychological
Resources and leisure are needed to develop luxury skills. Those who are required to perform maximum effort to survive will not have left-over resources and leisure to engage in the luxury of leisurely self-examination. Where does a person without resources obtain the idea and the standards for a self examination that would, supposedly, make their life worthwhile?
“The unexamined life is not worth living” is not programmed into our genes, ready to be expressed at any moment and instigate an auto-inventory. We acquire the concept and the standards through study. No study, no acquisition.
Practical
Billions of people use all of their energy, time, and talents to raise their families and to give their children whatever advantages they can. Sending children to school in countries where education is not free requires still more labor and time. In case of drought, floods, frost, plant disease, crop failure, unemployment, epidemics, etc. the difficult task of support and furthering one’s children’s lives become still more difficult and demanding. Even if the parent is capable of self examination by acquired standards, they may decide that they simply can not pause for the extravagance of thinking about life’s worth.
Neither the examined life nor the unexamined life is elitist. Rather, people do what they are able to do. Some have time, some don’t. Some have resources, some don’t. Some have a social circle in which self-examination may be fruitfully discussed, some don’t. The majority of people on earth, will probably not live an examined life.
Examine your life if you want, if you can, if you have the time, if you have some idea of “how” to examine your existence, and what to do about it if you are not satisfied. Otherwise, don’t. Just carry on the best you can, and maybe the opportunnity will present itself later on.
That would be a pointless exercise. Like John said, the feeling that my life is worth living doesn't depend on my describing it - even if doing so [i]does[/I] imply an examination. And in any case, I have not denied that I have examined my life. Quite the contrary. So what exactly are you trying to prove? I have in fact pointed out that I prefer a life of examination, hence my interest in philosophy. But I've also pointed out that the leap to a general claim is unwarranted.
Quoting Landru Guide Us
That's evidently false, in spite of your proclaimed surety. How absurd to claim that a feeling depends on a description of it, meaning that you can't have one without the other.
Quoting Landru Guide Us
What are you talking about? Put it plainly or not at all. I don't want to jump to the conclusion that you're merely echoing an obscure Heideggerian phrase of faux significance in a context in which it is out of place, but you have been unwilling to explain yourself clearly, in a manner in which I can readily grasp, and I simply don't care enough to study Heideggerese.
Yes.
Thoughtful response.