You sound an awful lot like one of those Christians who claim one should be concerned about the welfare of others even if it is at their own expense!
I don't know how you've gotten that out of what I had written. I'm saying that mistreating others is not just at their expense, but at one's own as well.
Mark, you say Jeremy should consider certain things, but why should he?
Because it is in his best interests. There is a natural human good that is preferable to the alternatives precisely because he is a human being.
You are assuming that he values or is going to agree with what you value.
I don't assume anything. I regard the human good as real and beyond mere agreement or opinion. If he doesn't understand what that good is, then he lacks skill at living a human life. It's his loss.
Then, sadly, he will act in ways that are self-destructive and he won't be doing what he is ethically obligated to do.
What if he determines to live out of pure self-interest?
I don't know what you mean by "pure self-interest". Perhaps you mean to ask me what if he intends to steal other people's iPads anyway? Then he will reap the consequences, both external and internal.
Jeremy is a rational being capable of judging his desires for their appropriateness to his life. Of this he is sure.
But who says Jeremy needs to follow long term rational courses of action?
You?
No, human nature determines this. We can't live on pure desire or instinct. We, as human beings, need to understand the world in conceptual terms and to reason from our understanding in order to produce both material and psychological values and thereby find well-being as human beings. That's part of what makes us the species that we are. There is no substitute for this.
What if he has determined to live for no more than five years?
Then he will be missing out on a longer, and probably better, life.
You assume that Jeremy will agree that he needs to follow long term rational courses of action, but he may not.
I do not assume this. I would ask Jeremy to use his brain to consider that. I might not reach him, but then no one can guarantee agreement. Not even you.
Nothing obligates him to follow long term rational courses of action if he decides it is not in his best interest to do so.
Yes, he is obligated, because it actually is in his best interests to do so.
If someone doesn't become a Christian, does that mean that she has no ethical obligations to follow the Golden Rule? I don't see how obligation requires agreement.
The last is real rich. You claim:
By giving in to this desire, simply because it is a desire, he is weakening his ability to exercise the rational virtues that he needs to live a successful life.
That is hilarious. You think it weakens him. Maybe he thinks it strengthens him.
And he would be mistaken. That is the stuff of Greek tragedy.
You think exercising rational virtues will cause him to live a successful life, but your definition of successful may be totally different than his.
I don't care what his definition of success is.
Your argument only works if he holds your views.
No, it doesn't. My argument in no ways depends on his agreement. You are trying to paint me as a subjectivist, when I am not that.
You are claiming things and assuming that Jeremy will agree with your claims, as if they are an appeal to some standard which Jeremy should know is worthy of abiding by.
No, I am hoping that Jeremy will listen to reason and come to a wiser understanding of his life.
Yes, you are misrepresenting my argument.
I agree with Archaeopteryx that Jeremy sounds like a psychopath or other sort of damaged individual. There is no reaching such people with rational arguments. He will unfortunately remain ethically stunted his whole life with that attitude. It's his loss.
eudaimonia,
Mark
