End in itself

[Eudaimonist]

so, how would this motivate a person to suffer in another's place?

Since when does "helping random people" imply suffering in another's place? Don't you enjoy helping others?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[daniel777]

Since when does "helping random people" imply suffering in another's place? Don't you enjoy helping others?

yes, and i sometimes enjoy it even when it causes me suffering. do you? i enjoy it when it doesn't. but whether i help people or not isn't dependent on the enjoyment i gain from helping people. my helping people isn't based on a sense of obligation nor is it based on fealings. i do it because i want to do it. i want to do it because that's who i am. (don't confuse "who i am" with "who i want to be" ) i'm who i am becuase of who He has made me to be.

i'm also not saying that other nonreligious and atheists people can't have good ideologies and be moralists. i'm just saying they have nothing to hang it on....especially from a naturalistic worldview.

actually quatona brought up the issue of suffering.

and your question doesn't make any sense...helping people sometimes does cause suffering. my question to you is: how can you get this (taking a random person's place in suffering) from a naturalistic atheistic worldview?

or we can do the christian thing: how do u get this (taking your enemy's place in suffering) from a naturalistic atheistic worldview?

btw: I SAID HAPPY THANKSGIVING..

 

[quatona]

so, how would this motivate a person to suffer in another's place?

"To suffer in another´s place" is not a very common idea in ethics, and I wasn´t aware that this was the ethical maxime that we were talking about. I was under the impression that you were asking about "helping random people".
I personally think that "suffering in another´s place" is a nonsense phrase. But that may well have to do with my understanding of suffering.

and i said HAPPY THANKSGIVING.... (you're supposto say it back because that's what society considers the ethical thing to do.)

Yes, maybe I am supposed to (although we don´t have Thanksgiving here in Germany). Yet, since I haven´t and don´t say that what society considers the ethical thing to do is what motivates me, I don´t seem to understand this remark.
And on another note but by the same token: Society also considers it unethical to say nice things to someone just to put him under pressure to do the same thing in return.

Anyways, I wish you all the best possible on Thanksgiving and on all the other days - I hope you don´t expect me to shout back.

 

[quatona]

actually quatona brought up the issue of suffering.

Yes, but in a completely different line of thought. I said something along the lines of "Seeing someone suffering causes us some kind of suffering too, and by helping this person we reduce our suffering (and hopefully add to the wellbeing of both them and us).

 

[Eudaimonist]

my helping people isn't based on a sense of obligation nor is it based on fealings. i do it because i want to do it. i want to do it because that's who i am. (don't confuse "who i am" with "who i want to be" ) i'm who i am becuase of who He has made me to be.

i'm also not saying that other nonreligious and atheists people can't have good ideologies and be moralists. i'm just saying they have nothing to hang it on....especially from a naturalistic worldview.

I don't see what adding divine creation really adds to the issue. If you are suggesting that God gave you wise desires, my objection is that wise desires are just as possible in a naturalistic worldview, whether they are given by one's genes or through the contemplation of ethics.

and your question doesn't make any sense...helping people sometimes does cause suffering.

And you admitted that it may cause enjoyment as well. This seems to negate the issue of suffering.

my question to you is: how can you get this (taking a random person's place in suffering) from a naturalistic atheistic worldview?

If you engage in charity, and it truly causes your life to be miserable, I'd advise you against that course of action for your own sake. However, I suspect that what you describe as suffering is merely "inconvenience" and does you little real harm. If your purposes provide you with meaning and fulfillment in the long run, I'd say that this may justify them.

btw: I SAID HAPPY THANKSGIVING..

Happy Thanksgiving to you too! I will celebrate mine with family a bit late. It will be next weekend.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[The Nihilist]

Helping others is usually beneficial to society as a whole.

I would argue the opposite. I would argue that it preserves what is weakest in us, and serves as a detriment to the human race. But if you're serious about defending your position, please articulate it a little bit better.

 

[daniel777]

Society also considers it unethical to say nice things to someone just to put him under pressure to do the same thing in return.

along with your line of reasoning, it is ethical here in South Eastern America . and actually that line: " Society also considers it unethical to say nice things to someone just to put him under pressure to do the same thing in return." actually does the same thing it accuses others of doing.

i'm sorry i offended you.

merry christmas.

And you admitted that it may cause enjoyment as well. This seems to negate the issue of suffering

but it might not.....what i was getting at is why would someone choose to suffer when it causes no enjoyment?

If you engage in charity, and it truly causes your life to be miserable, I'd advise you against that course of action for your own sake. However, I suspect that what you describe as suffering is merely "inconvenience" and does you little real harm. If your purposes provide you with meaning and fulfillment in the long run, I'd say that this may justify them.

no, i was talking about full blown suffering, something that would cost you greatly...

i see some confusion has arrived so i'll give a scenareo.

there are two people. one is a 11 year old boy. the other is a 35 year old man. the boy was wrongly playing next to a huge pile of rocks, even though his father told him not to. (the 35 yr old man is not the boys father however.)...anyway, the boy got stuck between some of the rocks. if he didn't get out soon he would die.....the 35 year old man sees the child. he knows if he helps the child he will die. he helps the child. from a naturalistic worldview, why would he help the child....now the man has no prior relationship or any prior knowledge of the child. they are completely unrelated. and he didn't transpose the boy onto someone or some idea he knows or previously knows. from a naturalistic worldview, why would he help the boy? would he?

Happy Thanksgiving to you too! I will celebrate mine with family a bit late. It will be next weekend.

good good , i celebrated mine last night. hope your thanksgiving goes well for you and your family .

 

[Eudaimonist]

but it might not.....what i was getting at is why would someone choose to suffer when it causes no enjoyment?

This is an important question since it touches on the heart of some essential differences between different sorts of ethics. Thank you for asking it.

Unfortunately, in modern culture there is a strong influence from the Age of Enlightenment on what is viewed as the complete life of the individual -- what is most often called "happiness". The popular view, and the one often attributed to atheists (that is, when they aren't being tarred with the brush of nihilism), is that happiness is merely a series of pleasures or "enjoyments", essentially a sort of hedonism. The human good is associated with these pleasurable feelings alone, and this leads to a purely instrumental way of viewing the actions of the individual.

Chosen actions are seen as mere means to enjoyments, and not as ends-in-themselves. Reason is seen as "the slave of the passions". The activities of one's life tend to be seen as a means to future moments in time, and not having much value in themselves. It is no wonder that life can seem meaningless in such a scenario, since one's actions are a series of means stopping abruptly in death. The final end seems perpetually out of reach, and is then denied, making one wonder why the means mattered at all.

And yet this is not the only way that naturalists have to look at life. In the eudaimonist view, enjoyment is not the essence of the good of the human individual. It may be one ingredient in the mix, but it isn't the final end of human living.

Chosen actions can be a constitutive part of (not merely an instrumental means to) the ultimate end of human life, which is the flourishing (the personal growth, maturation, and self-actualization) of the human individual across the individual's entire lifespan. As Aristotle said, "One swallow does not make a summer, neither does one fine day; similarly one day or brief time of happiness does not make a person entirely happy." (Understand happiness in this quote to mean flourishing, not mere feelings of pleasure or enjoyment.)

Someone living in the eudaimonist fashion, as I strive to, may appreciate pleasure, and may seek it out in moderation, but this is not what one lives for, nor is it what one values above all else. Enjoyment has a legitimate role to play in the flourishing life, but it not what flourishing is, even if it is normally entailed by this as a byproduct.

Life is much like a work of art. I'm tempted to say that it is precisely a work of art. It is a creation, one's self-creation. If you've heard and understood the expression "diamond in the rough", you will know basically what I mean.

A picture is worth a thousand words:

The final end of one's actions is one's life as a whole: complete, integrated, and harmonious. The integrity of the art work is of paramount importance. This isn't to say that one should never make mistakes, which would be next to impossible. But it does mean that living in truth to one's true nature, which includes one's highest potentials and the logic of one's development, is far more important than mere enjoyment.

And this means that, while in ordinary circumstances one's actions tend to lead to enjoyment and more life ("Live long and prosper, Spock"), there are times in which the best course of action involves putting one's life at risk, including the clear expectation of losing it.

But this is losing one's life in order to save it. As I said, the integrity of the artwork is of great importance. People will die sooner or later. It is better to have ended one's life true to one's principles and nature, than to live a long and self-betrayed life. There are things worse than death.

And so, while I don't think that people should throw away their lives too casually, it just might be the case that the act that perfects and completes a particular individual's life is to end up dying to save a child from death. It could be an act of heroic integrity.

This is the answer to your question of how a naturalist might possibly do such a thing and see the act as justified. I personally think it is great philosophical improvement on popular naturalistic notions of happiness and the human good.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[quatona]

along with your line of reasoning, it is ethical here in South Eastern America .

Well, if you derive your ethics from local traditions and habits I see how you find it perfectly ok to do it.

and actually that line: " Society also considers it unethical to say nice things to someone just to put him under pressure to do the same thing in return." actually does the same thing it accuses others of doing.

I haven´t said a nice thing and then voiced my demand for you to say the same in return, so my statement was not "the same" and not the paradox you are attempting to picture it as.

i'm sorry i offended you.

I´m not easily offended. So no problem at all, no harm occured.

merry christmas.

That was such a nice thing to say!
I don´t celebrate christmas though, it doesn´t mean anything to me. But I appreciate every merry day (whether it is during christmas or not), so thanks!
Since you are so concerned with my wellbeing I dare to mention that I´d be happy to see a response to my actual thesis (once we will have discussed to your satisfaction and content that which is actually just distracting from it).

 

[daniel777]

to Eudaimonist

which is what i don't understand. why would a full blown naturalist, accepting all of its philosophical ends, feal the need to improve themselves even to the point of death, where then the improvements become totally worthless? why would they want to improve themselves at all when all is meaningless?.....if enjoyment is the answer, why would the man kill himself for enjoyment and some gain of integrity. when he dies, it's worthless....and where does the desire to be moral and have integrity come from in the first place?

 

[daniel777]

I haven´t said a nice thing and then voiced my demand for you to say the same in return, so my statement was not "the same" and not the paradox you are attempting to picture it as.

lol, ok, this is what you said:

Society also considers it unethical to say nice things to someone just to put him under pressure to do the same thing in return.

so you say you weren't being nice when you said this....therefore you weren't being ethical. either way, if you were being nice or you weren't, you weren't being ethical.

I´m not easily offended. So no problem at all, no harm occured.

then what was your motivation? if offense wasn't your motivation, what was? of course i will expect the answer to be completely ethical.

That was such a nice thing to say!
I don´t celebrate christmas though, it doesn´t mean anything to me. But I appreciate every merry day (whether it is during christmas or not), so thanks!
Since you are so concerned with my wellbeing I dare to mention that I´d be happy to see a response to my actual thesis (once we will have discussed to your satisfaction and content that which is actually just distracting from it).

really, then what holidays do you celebrate so i can pm you on these days...and woud you mind restating your original thesis, i think we're both tired of quibbling over nothing. and this is getting kinda silly. .

 

[quatona]

lol, ok, this is what you said:
so you say you weren't being nice when you said this....

No, that´s neither what I said nor what I meant.

therefore you weren't being ethical. either way, if you were being nice or you weren't, you weren't being ethical.

By standards of whose ethics?

then what was your motivation?

In doing what? You seem to be changing the goalpost so often that I am losing track of what you are actually talking about?

if offense wasn't your motivation, what was?

If offense wasn´t my motive in doing what?
And how the heck did you manage to change the subject from me saying I hadn´t taken offense to an offense you apparently perceived in my post?

of course i will expect the answer to be completely ethical.

Why would you do that? And ethical by which/whose standards? Your local folkore again, by any chance?

really, then what holidays do you celebrate so i can pm you on these days...

No need to do that. Whilst I acknowledge your best intentions, I personally don´t care much for this stuff.

and woud you mind restating your original thesis,

Post #39.

i think we're both tired of quibbling over nothing. and this is getting kinda silly. .

I wasn´t me who started and insisted on discussing your holiday wishes ethics. I just felt it was important to you for some reason, so I answered to it. I wasn´t aware that you yourself found it silly and about nothing. At first you seemed to make a big issue of it, with all caps and several repetitions, and that usually suggests the idea to me that someone is about to make an important point.

 

[daniel777]

No, that´s neither what I said nor what I meant.

LOL, ok fine. at this point i don't care what you mean....sorry, but i have to be honest.

By standards of whose ethics?

oh, i was under the impression that you thought being nice is ethical, i apologize for the misconception.

In doing what? You seem to be changing the goalpost so often that I am losing track of what you are actually talking about?

do you like turkey?

If offense wasn´t my motive in doing what?
And how the heck did you manage to change the subject from me saying I hadn´t taken offense to an offense you apparently perceived in my post?

i'm just that good.

Why would you do that? And ethical by which/whose standards? Your local folkore again, by any chance?

i'm sorry, to me you seemed to be a striver for ethical superiority.

No need to do that. Whilst I acknowledge your best intentions, I personally don´t care much for this stuff.

well then, i hope you have a nice day.

I wasn´t me who started and insisted on discussing your holiday wishes ethics. I just felt it was important to you for some reason, so I answered to it. I wasn´t aware that you yourself found it silly and about nothing. At first you seemed to make a big issue of it, with all caps and several repetitions, and that usually suggests the idea to me that someone is about to make an important point.

LOL, ok. thankyou for your deap concern. and it won't hurt my fealing from now on if replying to holiday greatings doesn't fall into your ethical standard. (has anyone ever told you, you need to lighten up.)

btw. merry christmas

 

[quatona]

LOL, ok fine. at this point i don't care what you mean....sorry, but i have to be honest.

No problem at all. As long as you don´t pretend you care. Would it be correct to assume that you had lost interest long ago already?

oh, i was under the impression that you thought being nice is ethical, i apologize for the misconception.

No, not really. It´s more like I think that being downright unnice is unethical.
But, anyways, I was not aware that this was not a contest in behaving ethically and an attempt in mutual character assassination, but rather an abstract discussion why people don´t kill and murder despite not believing in a god.

do you like turkey?

Yes, I do.

i'm sorry, to me you seemed to be a striver for ethical superiority.

I hate it when I come across as something I am not. Can you give me a hint what about my statements gave you this idea?

well then, i hope you have a nice day.

Maybe a teenie-chatroom would be a better suited place for exchanging this sort of small talk you seem to be so font of?
I notice that you asked what my actual point was, but have ignored it when I gave you the post#. But I guess the "I don´t care what you mean" above covers it. The sudden change of mind from one post to the next is a bit confusing, though.

(has anyone ever told you, you need to lighten up.)

Occasionally people give me unasked for advice as to how and what I should be or do (and lightening up has, on rare occasions though, one of these advices. On others it has been the very opposite). I tend to interprete these advices as a statement that the person makes about himself rather than a statement about me.

I guess our moods just don´t translate well to each other, be it due to cultural differences, the language barrier, different age or whatever.

btw. merry christmas

The foru.ms chatroom is right on the start page, btw.

 

[daniel777]

To put it simple:
People have a tendency to imagine they were in the situation of another person. Thus, they feel a bit like them. If the other suffers, they experience a glimpse (or more) of this suffering, as well. People don´t like to suffer.

just for you: ...ok....agreed....but only on the people who can afford to help the suffering without causing greater suffering to themselves then was at first caused by the realiztion of the others' suffering....you seem to have defined my word "random" as a single distinct group...i actually meant a collection of many distinct groups. latter this filterd down to the scenareo i offered previously.

LOL and, about the happy thanksgiving thing...i'm done quibbling with you on this subject. also, i like to chat outside of chatrooms; so i will.

 

[quatona]

just for you: ...ok....agreed....but only on the people who can afford to help the suffering without causing greater suffering to themselves then was at first caused by the realiztion of the others' suffering....

I am working from the assumption that nobody ever will do something that he expects to enlarge his own suffering. Whatever someone does is an attempt of reducing one´s own suffering.
Insofar I see no problem with your qualification.

you seem to have defined my word "random" as a single distinct group...

Actually, and although I found it to be a tad unprecise, I tried to interprete it as broadly as you made it.

i actually meant a collection of many distinct groups.

I´m not sure I really have an idea what "the desire of helping a collection of many distinct groups" might mean. I can´t think of any desire of mine that this would be an accurate or halfway matching description of. Maybe you can give me a concrete example for this desire?

latter this filterd down to the scenareo i offered previously.

I´m afraid I don´t know which scenario you are talking about. Post# would be sufficient.

LOL and, about the happy thanksgiving thing...i'm done quibbling with you on this subject. also, i like to chat outside of chatrooms; so i will.

That´s your prerogative. My prerogative is not partaking in it if I don´t feel like it.

 

[daniel777]

I´m afraid I don´t know which scenario you are talking about. Post# would be sufficient.

47

I am working from the assumption that nobody ever will do something that he expects to enlarge his own suffering.

well, of course, i'm operation from the knowledge that people do...you know people do intentionally suffer, and not all the time for their own benefit.

I´m not sure I really have an idea what "the desire of helping a collection of many distinct groups" might mean. I can´t think of any desire of mine that this would be an accurate or halfway matching description of. Maybe you can give me a concrete example for this desire?

it means that any and all distinct groups can fit into the statement, more than just one group.

That´s your prerogative. My prerogative is not partaking in it if I don´t feel like it.

also, i heard you like turkey. i'm chatting now. and i'll be thrilled if you don't quote this, because it will be the first thing i've written to you that you haven't if you don't. have a nice day.

 

[quatona]

47

Well, I can only speak for myself. I don´t know what I would do in that scenario (being the man, that is). Whenever I have done anything that came faintly close to heroism to the observer, I found myself reducing my suffering or preventing suffering that I expected to experience in case I would act differently.
You would have to ask someone who has gone through this specific scenario.

well, of course, i'm operation from the knowledge that people do...you know people do intentionally suffer, and not all the time for their own benefit

You would have to ask those for their motivation, then. i´m not much of a mindreader; I just know that I used to like it when my actions were considered altruistic and tended to fool myself into believing tht myself, whilst actually I was acting in my own best interest.

.it means that any and all distinct groups can fit into the statement, more than just one group.

Still not sure what groups you have in mind. Your example was about two individuals. Maybe you give an example in regards to groups (if you think this difference is of any importance, that is).

 

[daniel777]

Well, I can only speak for myself. I don´t know what I would do in that scenario (being the man, that is). Whenever I have done anything that came faintly close to heroism to the observer, I found myself reducing my suffering or preventing suffering that I expected to experience in case I would act differently.
You would have to ask someone who has gone through this specific scenario.

actually it was the story of the cross put in different words. the belief in this scenerio that ends with the man dying is central to christianity.

You would have to ask those for their motivation, then. i´m not much of a mindreader; I just know that I used to like it when my actions were considered altruistic and tended to fool myself into believing tht myself, whilst actually I was acting in my own best interest.

here, i'm a christian and i'm saying that i'm going to serve God regardless if he saves me or not. not in order to appease my own non-existant fealings of worthlessness but because HE deserves me. not i him or anything i have, even enjoyment itself.

so i would say that my motivation is his pleasure....

and i guess you would say i'm lying to you.

but i guess it stops here, if you have no further questions...i'm afraid it's not something i can prove to you in mere words.

Still not sure what groups you have in mind. Your example was about two individuals. Maybe you give an example in regards to groups (if you think this difference is of any importance, that is).

the wording might not have been good, but i meant two people from any combination of any conceivable people group.


also, i am absolutely thrilled you didn't re-post my previous last comment. i was kind of expecting you to just re-post the statements and not comment....must have torn you apart. good night, i'm going to bed, maby i'll get back with you tomorow.

 

[granpa]

"I am working from the assumption that nobody ever will do something that he expects to enlarge his own suffering."

"well, of course, i'm operation from the knowledge that people do...you know people do intentionally suffer, and not all the time for their own benefit."


for the benefit of their subjective self or for the benefit of their true self?