Cure For Death?

[heyrabbit]

so he committed suicide then. that's not admirable

 

every single decision everyone makes is inherently a selfish decision. it's impossible to be "unselfish". you inherently do what you want whether that means helping yourself, or others, or hurting yourself and others. The decision to shoot yourself in the head is a selfish decision because it's what you think is best for you at the given moment. You can't do what you don't want to do, because deciding to do what you don't want to do is what you wanted to do. you know it's what you wanted to do because you did it.

 

Whether or not your decisions are "good" or "bad" depends on how rational they are and what you value.

 

If you value your life more than the life of some random stranger, then killing yourself for them is irrationally selfish. what if the person whose life you saved was a pedophile?

 

If he gave his life to save his child, that's probably rationally selfish because many parents value their child's lives over their own

 

 

so if you don't value your life over other people's lives, why don't you give me all your posesssoins? you'll be a hero.

 

unselfishness = irrational selfishness = evil. if everyone is irrationally selfish, they're not doing what's in their own best interest which means they're not doing what's in everyone else's best interst

Edited June 21, 2007 by heyrabbit

[ecnarf]

so he committed suicide then. that's not admirable

 

every single decision everyone makes is inherently a selfish decision. it's impossible to be "unselfish". you inherently do what you want whether that means helping yourself, or others, or hurting yourself and others. The decision to shoot yourself in the head is a selfish decision because it's what you think is best for you at the given moment. You can't do what you don't want to do, because deciding to do what you don't want to do is what you wanted to do. you know it's what you wanted to do because you did it.

 

Whether or not your decisions are "good" or "bad" depends on how rational they are and what you value.

 

If you value your life more than the life of some random stranger, then killing yourself for them is irrationally selfish. what if the person whose life you saved was a pedophile?

 

If he gave his life to save his child, that's probably rationally selfish because many parents value their child's lives over their own

 

 

so if you don't value your life over other people's lives, why don't you give me all your posesssoins? you'll be a hero.

 

unselfishness = irrational selfishness = evil. if everyone is irrationally selfish, they're not doing what's in their own best interest which means they're not doing what's in everyone else's best interst

He most certainly did not commit suicide, at least not in the classic sense. This is going to wind up in a semantical debate, but to sacrifice your own life so that others may life is simply not suicide and demeans the memory of those who have done such things.

 

What you're doing here is twisting the meaning of selfish. You're saying that all actions are selfish because that person performs them, a pathetically obvious statement, which you are trying to assign special meaning to.

 

Furthermore, whether or not something is "right" or "wrong" isn't decided by the individual who undertakes them. I find that moral relativism in the extreme. I shouldn't have to list examples of people who thought they were doing the right thing yet are widely considered the most despicable human beings to have ever lived.

 

As for the last part, game theory has done away with such conceptions. Ever heard of a Nash Equilibrium?

[Lauren]

when i'm 100, i better be dead. body and mind. that's all i'm saying.

[heyrabbit]

that sounds like an absolute moralist position. morals aren't absolute-- they're subjective. it's not as if someone discovered a cave one day with a list of morals ( although that's exactly what religion says)

the fact that many of us agree on what is moral does not negate the fact that we decide individually. if the individual does not decide what's moral, then who does?

 

a murderer thinks murdering is moral (good and justifiable

) to him. and it is! it's moral to him. it's an irrational set of morals, but they aren't better or worse than our morals.

 

all actions are selfish. it's literally impossible to do something you don't want to do. deciding to give all your possessions to charity is selfish because you think it's what will make you the most happy at that moment. shooting heroin is selfish because it's what you wanted to do at that moment. the very fact that that you've done anything is testament to the fact that you wanted to do it.

 

whether or not it's "good" or "bad" depends on the extent to which your decisions are rational. eating a whole pizza is selfish but irrational. studying for 10 years in order to achieve happiness later is selfish because it's what the person wanted to do. there is no "unselfish". it's altruism

 

trading your highest value for something of less value is self-sacrifice, which is tantamount to slavery. The truck driver probably gave his life under the premise that he would rather not live than live knowing he caused someone's death. but because of the situation, it wouldn't have been his fault. that makes it an irrational, altruistic, self-sacrificial,"moral" thing to do

 

I shouldn't have to list examples of people who thought they were doing the right thing yet are widely considered the most despicable human beings to have ever lived.

 

the question is: despicable according to whom? you wouldn't have lasted 30 seconds according the morals of the majority during the inquisition

 

 

ive never heard of Nash-whatever

Edited June 21, 2007 by heyrabbit

[ecnarf]

there is no "unselfish". it's altruism

 

Potayto potahto to me.

 

the question is: despicable according to whom? you wouldn't have lasted 30 seconds according the morals of the majority during the inquisition

 

Nor under Stalin in Russia or Mao in China. But that doesn't make them any less despicable.

 

ive never heard of Nash-whatever

 

He was the guy from the movie A Beautiful Mind. Have a look into it, as his was the paper that destroyed the libertarian economic thinking which you espoused above.

[heyrabbit]

they are two different meanings though. the conventional meaning of unselfishness or selflessness is a logical fallacy because you can't not have concern for yourself, or act for someone else. if you have concern for others it's only because in your own best interest first.(even if that means that you feel good because you're a pretentious, altruistic egoist. ghandi, aid workers, save the whales, etc). if you help others it's only because you expect something back in equal value, whether it be love, friendship, intellectual stimulation, whatever. otherwise you're just a smiling idiot running around helping everyone for no reason. Nobody does that. and that's for a reason

 

people generally believe that unselfishness is one of the highest virtues, when it's actually the greatest evil and selfishness is the highest virtue. this isn't because your morals are greatly different from mine, but because societies' general understanding of the word is based on a false premise.

 

 

 

 

mao and stalin have been despicable, but not according to their set of morals.

 

I am a libertarian. i doubt that the movie destroyed libertarian concepts, but I'll check it out. im not a full libertarian anyway. if I had to describe myself, I'd call myself a libertarian-capitalist-minarchist-anarchist Lol.

Edited June 21, 2007 by heyrabbit

[ecnarf]

they are two different meanings though. the conventional meaning of unselfishness or selflessness is a logical fallacy because you can't not have concern for yourself, or act for yourself. if you have concern for others it's only because in your own best interest.(even if that means that you feel good because you're a pretentious, altruistic egoist. ghandi, aid workers, save the whales, etc). people generally believe that unselfishness is one of the highest virtues, when it's actually the greatest evil and selfishness is the highest virtue. this isn't because your morals are greatly different from mine, but because societies' general understanding of the word is based on a false premise.

 

I was following you until you said that unselfishness is the greatest evil. You've got to be kidding that there is no greater evil than unselfishness.

 

mao and stalin have been despicable, but not according to their set of morals.

 

That proves nothing.

 

I am a libertarian. i doubt that the movie destroyed libertarian concepts, but I'll check it out. im not a full libertarian anyway. if I had to describe myself, I'd call myself a libertarian-capitalist-minarchist-anarchist Lol.

 

The movie didn't, his economic paper disproved the notion that every individual working independently for their own individual benefit works for everyone's benefit. The movie used a clever analogy - there's a group of guys and a group of girls at a bar, equal in number. All the guys want to hit on the hotteset girl, but the girl only has interest in one guy. If all of the guys go after the girl, none of them will succeed. They will then proceed to hit on the girls' friends, who won't have any of it because they know the guys really don't like them. If the guys each go after one girl, the odds of everyone getting laid are significantly higher.

[heyrabbit]

no I'm absolutely not kidding. unselfishness is irrational selfishness, which basically means people who act irrationally when they feel that what their doing is "moral" for "society".

 

If people aren't selfish, then they must be acting for...who? society? you know exact'y what happens when people act irrationally out of "the best interest for others." the result is communism, fascism, every religion, everything bad in the world. If actions aren't rational then they are inherently irrational. so essentially what altruism is is nice people doing stupid things. That's why religious people are the most altruistic.

 

 

 

I was demonstrating that morals are defined subjectively (individuals). however, they are defined subjectively based on objective observation. this means that some morals are more consonant with man's nature, i.e. more "right" according to me ( insofar as a person bases his morals on reality)

 

nobody ever said that libertarianism is for the best interest of everyone. it's the opposite of that. what you described is utilitarianism, socialism, collectivism, etc. What some people do say is that libertarianism is more morally justifiable than other systems and I agree with that. it's impossible for everyone to work in their own rational best interest because, obviously, not everyone is rational! the result of everyone acting in their interest is existence, because that's all anyone can do. our government right now is the result of everyone acting in their best interest for however-many-years its been

Edited June 21, 2007 by heyrabbit

[ecnarf]

no I'm absolutely not kidding. unselfishness is irrational selfishness, which basically means people who act irrationally when they feel that what their doing is "moral" for "society".

 

If people aren't selfish, then they must be acting for...who? society? you know exact'y what happens when people act irrationally out of "the best interest for others." the result is communism, fascism, every religion, everything bad in the world. If actions aren't rational then they are inherently irrational. so essentially what altruism is is nice people doing stupid things. That's why religious people are the most altruistic.

 

Come on, dude. No greater evil than unselfishnesss? I shouldn't even have to debate this.

 

Religion is not people acting out of the best interest of others; it is people scared shitless that they're going to hell, elaborately convincing themselves that they don't have any ulterior motives, but are simply doing charitable works so they can go to heaven. To them it's purely rational, introducing the concept of rational relativism.

 

I'm not buying any of this. Your argument is such that any example I list can be twisted around by simply manipulating words and altering perspective slightly so that it is simply yet another proof of yours. It is, at best, a simple case of bringing profundity to where there really is none using fanciful language. What of soldiers serving their country in war? Is it not in the rational self-interest to sit out the war and survive? It sure was the greatest evil society has ever seen that the Allies won World War II because of the irrational selfishness of millions of brave young men signing up and fighting. Of course, I can see you saying that it would have been the greatest evil had the Axis won due to the irrational selfishness of German and Italian young men. Of course, I would agree with the assessment, but the point is that the greatest evil did not come about.

[hum-an-ole]

This is an interesting debate.

[heyrabbit]

hahah. man I gotta reply to all of that now.

 

you don't disagree with me, you just don't understand me. but that could be my fault. you have to think on the level of every individual action. you judge the morality of an action regardless of the result. That's why it's not okay to try to kill someone.

 

 

religion is not necessarily people acting out of the best interest of others; it's people who think (irrationally) that they are acting out of the best interest of others. What makes it evil is the fact that it's irrational (unselfish).You know and I know that it's irrational, but to them it's a good, unselfish thing to do. we've decided that we're right, and we are, because our observations are more objective.

 

There's another example of confusion regarding semantics. Religious people make rational decisions, but decisions which are irrationally rational. i.e. everyone has a reason for doing everything, but that doesn't mean that it's a good reason. There are degrees of "rational". Our opinion on that is more rational/reasonable because it's based on objective observation.

 

 

whether or not the soldiers acted in their rational self-interest depends on the degree to which their decisions were based on objective reality in accordance with their values. People have different values, so not everyone's "self-interest" is the same.

 

for argument's sake we'll make it simple and generalize by saying that soldiers value their lives more than anything, even though that's obviously not always true.

 

okay.

 

If the soldiers thought they had a better chance at life by risking their lives, that's not unselfish because it's what they wanted to do for rational reasons. That makes it a selfish (rational) decision. If they thought that they didn't have a chance at winning, but fought for the Allies because it's what theyfelt they should do - for unidentified moral reasons- then THAT is altruism, unselfishness, selflessness, irrational, etc.

 

See we both think that the allies were (good) because their decisions were rational and moral. The Axis was evil regardless of whether or not they won or lost(you judge the action not the result). This is because their actions were irrationally selfish and immoral - altruistic - for "the good of man" - not based on an objective code of morality. Their losing was a natural consequence of their unselfish, irrational, stupid war. That doesn't negate the fact that it was irrational and unselfish in the first place.

Edited June 21, 2007 by heyrabbit

[ToadMan]

I'm not sure what is going on here, but I;m very confused by your wording:

 

ra

Edited June 21, 2007 by ToadMan

[ecnarf]

Here's an article on altruism and game theory:

 

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID...0D47&sc=I100322

 

religion is not necessarily people acting out of the best interest of others; it's people who think (irrationally) that they are acting out of the best interest of others. What makes it evil is the fact that it's irrational (unselfish).You know and I know that it's irrational, but to them it's a good, unselfish thing to do. we've decided that we're right, and we are, because our observations are more objective.

 

There's another example of confusion regarding semantics. Religious people make rational decisions, but decisions which are irrationally rational. i.e. everyone has a reason for doing everything, but that doesn't mean that it's a good reason. There are degrees of "rational". Our opinion on that is more rational/reasonable because it's based on objective observation.

 

I argued that religion is people acting out of the best interest of themselves, not of other people. In some cases that means they are supposed to do charitable works. In other cases, they live an ascetic life or blow people up. It's not always about other people, but it is definitely about themselves.

 

There's another example of confusion regarding semantics. Religious people make rational decisions, but decisions which are irrationally rational. i.e. everyone has a reason for doing everything, but that doesn't mean that it's a good reason. There are degrees of "rational". Our opinion on that is more rational/reasonable because it's based on objective observation.

 

Well, here you run into a paradox. Religious people will no doubt claim to have "objectively observed" the world and concluded that there is a god. We've both done the same and came to the opposite conclusion. They are completely opposite conclusions. If one is rational, the other has to be irrational. And if we both claim to be rational, what can decide objective rationality? Obviously there will be points on our side for not taking the word of an old man in a funny hat or an even older book with absolutely zero factual or historical basis (fun fact: nowhere outside of the bible is there a single mention of the jews' enslavement by the egyptians). But by your standard of Stalin and Mao not being despicable by their own standards, will it really matter if we consider them irrational but they are oblivious?

 

Their losing was a natural consequence of their unselfish, irrational, stupid war.

 

This is where you've lost me. Their losing was because of the superiority of the American, British, Canadian and Russian armies. It was by no means a "natural consequence" - it was brought about by immense sacrifice. Now, invading Russia was the height of stupidity. I can't say for sure that the Germans would have definitely won were it not for the invasion of Russia, but the outcome of the war would have been vastly different.

 

Furthermore, how can the war be called unselfish? Germany wanted, in part, more land and to get back at the rest of Europe for the embarassment of the Treaty of Versailles. It was in the selfish interest of Germany to pursue that course of action. The Holocaust? If we assume that Hitler genuinely thought that the world would be a better place without the Jews, then it was, on some sick level, altruistic. But I find it hard to believe that the holcaust was genuinely considered a wise and rational economic policy. Simply a massive slaughter on a scapegoat for the Germans' economic woes and the result of two thousand years of Christian anti-Semitism.

[Azalroth]

Alright I can't be bothered to read all that shite.

 

Death happens...deal

[Lauren]

i think it kind of devalues life if you can life forever.

[ecnarf]

i think it kind of devalues life if you can life forever.

So much for "that's all I'm going to say" and conversing at beyond a kindergarten level.

[Ravenous megin-sane]

if life could go on for ever and ever, then how would you define living?

[Lauren]

i said 'that's all i'm saying' and i meant for that specific reply.

 

adam, i am sorry nothing i do can please you. i try to reply using my brain and thats not good enough for you. i keep it simple and it's not good enough. i give my opinion and you don't like it. i throw out an idea and it's not good enough. i get the point, nothing i can say will make you happy. so you can stop criticizing everything i write here.

[Shiri]

I don't want to prolong my life. Everybody has to die from something, sometime, right? I'd like to keep it that way.

[Azalroth]

I really like your views! You need to move to Canada lol

[heyrabbit]

we only disagree symbolically, not principally.

 

there are multiple definitions of the same words. the dictionary is really only useful for spelling. you have to figure out,on your own, the proper context for each meaning of each word

 

The reason why you disagree with me is just because my use of the word "selfish" is your understanding of the word "unselfish" and vice versa. I disregard the conventional meanings of certain words that I feel do not make any sense.

 

I do not subscribe to the fallacy that says that the religious/reason argument is a paradox. i.e. that the argument is somehow equal and unsolvable-- it's not. most people believe this idea either consciously or subconsciously.(You'll hear people say things like, "why bother arguing? it's pointless because neither of you can prove anything!") Well, what's the point of you arguing a scientific point if I'm completely mystical and incredulous?! The criteria for deciding what's more objective isn't simply deciding that you're objective. Like anything else, you have to qualify and quantify your argument with evidence and in accordance with the laws of logic, nature, and the principles of science. If you're interested in knowing the truth and and proving it, that's "the point". Although if you're debating with someone incredulous who believes in this "equality paradox", or whatever you want to call it, then there is no point in arguing anything because everyone's argument is equally valid!

 

This is what philosophy and science is. In many cases it's extremely hard to analyze and judge what's more objective, but religion is probably the greatest exception to that. religious belief is the antithesis of objective reality, (subjective faith), and there's absolutely nothing objective about it. There is nothing to argue about because there is no evidence, as you know.

 

 

 

in the case of stalin and mao, all I'm saying that everyone forms their own moral code. the only application of the knowledge about them is whatever you decide to do with it. it only "matters" insofar as you decide that it matters. If you decide that it effects you, according to your code of morality, then do something about it. My point is that there is no absolute morality for the very reason that Mao doesn't think he's despicable, stalin don't either and you disagree with them, and I disagree with you. i.e. everyone forms their own morality.

 

 

The axis lost because of the individual stupidity of many of its members and because of the selfishness of many individual allies. You can't say that an entire group is unselfish or selfish, because the collective is just a bunch of individuals.

 

You're not wrong in suggesting that the axis' decision to battle was objective rational in the sense that they had a reasonable chance. The point is that even if you say that the Axis had a 99% chance of victory, the conflict they initiated was based on their own gross irrationality and prejudice. essentially what I'm saying is that, "they started it". Kids often say this, and parents think it's immature. But kids are highly perceptive in terms of morality because they've yet to be tainted and influenced by culture. They have a good sense of objective morality. The Axis did start it first because of their own stupid, irrational, subjective dogma. That's why kids are so indignant when "He started it!". It's because it's objectively immoral.

 

*(notice that when we were children we were admonished to feel guilty and responsible for any incident, fight, or for "tattling", no matter who started it or who was more immoral in their actions. *

 

Parents also say "two wrong's don't make a right." Yes they do! If the second "wrong" is defending yourself against the first immoral wrong-doer.

 

 

Saying that they lost because of the allies isn't entirely untrue, but it's analogous to saying that murders go to jail because of police officers. it says nothing about the morality and rationality of each individual action. We can generalize by saying that the group is selfish or unselfish, but you have to remember that it's because we've analyzed certain individuals attitudes, intentions, knowledge, intelligence.

 

 

 

If we assume that Hitler genuinely thought that the world would be a better place without the Jews, then it was, on some sick level, altruistic

 

he DID think that. and that's precisely what makes it irrational, unselfish, and altruistic.

Edited June 21, 2007 by heyrabbit

[sodamntired]

if life could go on for ever and ever, then how would you define living?

if live could go on forever, how would you define death?

[ecnarf]

See, here's what I don't get. You're using unselfish and altruistic as synonyms for irrationality; where you were saying a few pages are there was no unselfishness, only rational and irrational selfishness, you're consistently using unselfish.

 

Take the Hitler and the Jews argument: he no doubt wanted them all dead for selfish, irrational reasons. But selfishness and irrationality does not make someone unselfish. Why the need to consistently redefine words? To say that he was selfish, irrational and altruistic would suffice, but throwing unselfish in there is just confusing and semantical.

 

I do agree that for every example I've listed, there are aspects of the given behaviours that are inherently selfish in a way that merely appear unselfish (used in the typical sense). In what few scientific postulates there are for the basis of most common human "morality", there exists a core of selfishness - if I am nice to this person, they will be nice to me, and so on.

 

I do not subscribe to the fallacy that says that the religious/reason argument is a paradox. i.e. that the argument is equal -- it's not. [rest of paragraph]

 

Oh, absolutely. I may not be able to "prove" there is no god, but logical exercises can sure as hell disprove religious belief by showing the fallacies and inconsistencies within them. Provided that you are dogmatic (an only slightly ironic use of the term) in applying logic and use a mathematical basis for it, there is no difficulty in showing that atheism is inherently more rational than any belief in a theistic god or other supernatural claims taken on faith.

 

The axis lost because of the individual stupidity of many of its members and because of the selfishness of many individual allies. You can't say that an entire group is unselfish or selfish, because the collective is just a bunch of individuals.

 

How does that follow? If people are collectively being unselfish or selfish in a group... that makes the group selfish or unselfish.

 

Saying that they lost because of the allies isn't entirely untrue, but it's analogous to saying that murders go to jail because of police officers. it says nothing about the morality and rationality of each individual action. We can generalize by saying that the group is selfish or unselfish, but you have to remember that it's because we've analyzed certain individuals attitudes, intentions, knowledge, intelligence.

 

Because of police officers and the laws that they enact. Criminals are brought to justice by people. Jailtime isn't a natural consequence of comitting a crime, as there is no law of nature requiring it nor is there an omniscient deity out there to catch criminals and put them into jail. It's a human process. Obviously the individual police officer is of little consequence, but the collective group of police officers, lawyers, judges, etc., are what make it all happen.

 

You're not wrong in suggesting that the axis' decision to battle was objective rational in the sense that they had a reasonable chance. The point is that even if you say that the Axis had a 99% chance of victory, the conflict they initiated was based on their own gross irrationality and prejudice. essentially what I'm saying is that, "they started it". Kids often say this, and parents think it's immature. But kids are highly perceptive in terms of morality because they've yet to be tainted and influenced by culture. They have a good sense of objective morality. The Axis did start it first because of their own stupid, irrational, subjective dogma. That's why kids are so indignant when "He started it!". It's because it's objectively immoral.

 

You don't have to justify your use of the "but he started it!" argument. It's a simplistic way of phrasing it but you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who thinks that WWII was not an entirely justifiable war, even though we didn't know that the Holocaust was going on until the soldiers reached Germany. The reason war was declared was selfish - Europe would no doubt have been taken over, and it was a rational response. Selfishness does not necessarily make something unjust.

[little miss sunshine]

I haven't read this entire thread but I would just like to state that this is probably the most idiotic thread I've seen in a long time.

[Sparq]

...this is probably the most idiotic thread I've seen in a long time.

Thank you so much. In retrospect, I shouldn't have bothered.