What are halves?

[decent orange]

Some urges are desireable - the urge to not feel pain, the urge to eat when hungry, etc. Some are not desireable - the urge to lash out when hurt, the urge to be violent over petty grievences, etc. The question is whether an urge is good, bad, or neutral. With regards to things like sexual fetishes, I don't believe they're necessarily inherently evil, not matter how selfish.


Then, why label it as selfish? If the point isn't to say, "It's selfish, and selfish is bad, so therefore it's bad", then what is it?


By what standards?


No worries, I've done it too.


Having a moral code come from outside yourself doesn't remove its subjectivity - after all, there are many, many external moral codes, and you just so happened to pick one of them. While I'm sure you have your reasons, what's to stop you from picking a moral code that doesn't suit your whims?

In other words, why doesn't your criticism of introspective morality also apply to your own selection of an external moral code? How do you know that the moral code you picked, isn't just the one that appealed to your own wants and needs, rather than the one that has any sort of objective substantiation?

No way for you to know if you always trust yourself. Looking back, I see I'm not very good at getting a point across. Every person should not live for themselves. Violence, judgement, hatred, and lies come to be by the self. If I put away my selfishness, it is impossible for me to do evil. You could take advantage, and kill me, and take all I have, but that would be selfish of you, and that is where the evil starts. Whether or not you believe isn't relevant to what I am saying. Evil to Christians arises from doing things for the self 100% of the time.

 

[decent orange]

Some urges are desireable - the urge to not feel pain(Not selfish), the urge to eat when hungry(Requirements are not selfish), etc. Some are not desireable - the urge to lash out when hurt(Selfish and causes more suffering), the urge to be violent over petty grievences(Selfish and causes more suffering), etc. The question is whether an urge is good(Unselfish), bad(selfish), or neutral(Vanity). With regards to things like sexual fetishes(Selfish, although sex is a requirement and not selfish with spouse), I don't believe they're necessarily inherently evil, not matter how selfish .

Then, why label it as selfish? If the point isn't to say, "It's selfish, and selfish is bad, so therefore it's bad", then what is it?

It's selfish, selfish is bad, so therefore it is indeed bad. Because harm was done to the baby, and harm is suffering and not desired by humanity. Some argue that babies in the womb are not alive, but they are alive, this is a fact.

By what standards?

By human standards. The only way I would ever hurt someone is if I get some sadistic pleasure from their suffering (selfish) , or I have something to gain (selfish) from killing, wrongly imprisoning, or defending my personal honor by killing them before they can spead rumors ect ect (all selfish) The only way suffering enters the world by other men is selfishness.

Having a moral code come from outside yourself doesn't remove its subjectivity - after all, there are many, many external moral codes, and you just so happened to pick one of them. While I'm sure you have your reasons, what's to stop you from picking a moral code that doesn't suit your whims?

No sir. Suffering because of selfishness is pretty much all of the evil in the world. Nobody likes to be manipulated, lied to, killed, raped (not the fetish type), or mocked. All of those things happen to people because of somebody else's selfishness. This is not subjective, it exist universally outside of everyone. You can get all weird and say "But there may be that one dude who just loves all that stuff to happen to him." But that is not a realistic argument, evil is clearly defined by those rules. Selfishness causes it, and all those crappy things that everyone hates happens because of selfishness.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

It's selfish, selfish is bad, so therefore it is indeed bad.

This seems to be the centerpiece of your moral code, so I'll address it in detail here, rather than in pieces elsewhere. So, to break it down, there are two premises at work:

• "It's selfish"
• "Selfish is bad"

I disagree with both, but first we need to clear up just what you mean. You label a load of things as 'selfish', when I would not. This suggests to me that your operating definition of 'selfish' is different to mine (not a great leap in deduction, but bear with me).


Given that you're arguing for an objective morality based on these two moral precepts, you undermine your conclusion (that this morality is objective) by having an entirely subjective factor - the definition of 'selfish'.


So there seems to be a disconnect between the word 'selfish' and the word 'immoral' - you can redefine one to marry up with the other, but then your moral code becomes either contrived or useless, you end up putting the cart before the horse.


Examples:

• Selfish
  • The urge to lash out when hurt
  • The urge to be violent over petty grievances
  • Sexual fetishes, except sex with a spouse
• Not selfish
  • The urge to not feel pain
  • The urge to eat when hungry
• 'Vanity'
  • Amoral urges

According to this labelling system, your definition of 'selfish' differs wildly from my own, and from any standard dictionary definition I can find.

Take the example of sexual fetishes. Finding something sexually arousing is not something we control - no one wakes up one morning, flicks a switch, and decides to be turned on by breasts, or pectorals, or a house. So to call such urges 'selfish', or to call the acting on such urges as 'selfish', especially when no suffering is caused, seems to me to completely miss the point - how can something be selfish, if it's not done for selfish reasons? How can something be deemed immoral, if it's not selfish?

And, of course, the central question of, why is selfishness the root definition of immorality? You allude to the suffering it causes - so isn't suffering the operative part of immorality, not selfishness?

Because harm was done to the baby, and harm is suffering and not desired by humanity. Some argue that babies in the womb are not alive, but they are alive, this is a fact.

No one argues that they're not alive. What people argue is that what makes the growing foetus a human person has not come into being after 1 week of gestation. Before then, aborting a pregnancy is as moral or immoral as masturbation - that is to say, it's neither.

By human standards. The only way I would ever hurt someone is if I get some sadistic pleasure from their suffering (selfish) , or I have something to gain (selfish) from killing, wrongly imprisoning, or defending my personal honor by killing them before they can spead rumors ect ect (all selfish) The only way suffering enters the world by other men is selfishness.

I can think of far more ways that suffering enters the world than through selfishness, most prominent of which are those things which aren't actually caused by any being. Famine, drought, earthquakes, plague, cancer, etc, all cause massive suffering, but aren't actually caused by any selfishness on anyone's part.

That's what I mean by your moral code being contrived. These are things which cause suffering, yet your moral code only acknowleges those things which are selfish. So you either redefine the suffering caused by these things into meaninglessness (you wouldn't consider the suffering caused by cancer to be of any consequence), or you redefine these acts to be 'selfish' because that's the only way to fit them in your moral code. The latter, besides being contrived, also begs the question as to why they must be forced at all.

Again, it all comes back to what you mean by 'selfish'.

No sir. Suffering because of selfishness is pretty much all of the evil in the world.

That seems to be a gross oversimplification of the complexities of human behaviour. To enforce such a definition, one must label the simple urge to survive as a selfish and, therefore, immoral act - African farmers eking out a living become immoral despots under your scheme. Something about that doesn't strike me as right.

Nobody likes to be manipulated, lied to,

Ever been to a magic show? People pay big money to experience exactly that - manipulation and lies. Why isn't it immoral? Because no one gets harmed.

killed,

Those seeking the right to die would beg to differ.

All of those things happen to people because of somebody else's selfishness. This is not subjective, it exist universally outside of everyone.

You can get all weird and say "But there may be that one dude who just loves all that stuff to happen to him." But that is not a realistic argument, evil is clearly defined by those rules.

Maybe, but the rules are contrived and arbitrary. The example of the fetishist absolutely is a realistic argument - it serves as a counter-example that highlights the inadequacy of your definition. Someone having a fetish for being mocked (say) is peculiar, but it's neither selfish nor immoral.

Selfishness causes it, and all those crappy things that everyone hates happens because of selfishness.

I don't know, cancer seems pretty crappy to me, wouldn't you say?

 

[decent orange]

Examples:

• Selfish
  • The urge to lash out when hurt
  • The urge to be violent over petty grievances
  • Sexual fetishes, except sex with a spouse
• Not selfish
  • The urge to not feel pain
  • The urge to eat when hungry
• 'Vanity'
  • Amoral urges

I made a subtle mistake when replying to your thread. The word 'urge' changes things a little. It is not a selfish action to have an urge. Urges are selfish thoughts.

So,the urge to lash out when hurt, is not a selfish act, but a selfish thought, that persuades oneself to lash out when hurt, which is a selfish action, which brings about harm to someone else, or suffering.

So there seems to be a disconnect between the word 'selfish' and the word 'immoral' - you can redefine one to marry up with the other, but then your moral code becomes either contrived or useless, you end up putting the cart before the horse.

The essence of the self is not immoral or bad. The essence of the self, or the existence of the individual is only 'immoral' or 'bad' when a person utilizes his energy on his own self.

If you want to think of it in terms of energy, then negative and positive energy. Positive energy being euphoria, and negative energy being depression. Every human prefers the postive, and avoids the negative. The existence of negative isn't bad in itself, it just is what it is, that is negative. So humans who are drawn to one or the other. The one, and also the other, exist.

Happiness is postive, and desired by man. All men prefer happiness over sadness. Therefore, happiness is universal to man. Man cannot cause his negative to become his positive, or vice versa. Universal judgement of mankind is Happiness = good , Sadness = Bad

If every man on earth was fully selfish, every man on earth would suffer and die. If every man on earth was fully devoted to every man other than himself, man would always be satisfied and live. Therefor, man, being a living being whose instinct is to live, and has a preference to be satisfied, by nature is designed to live according to others rather than himself. So selfishness has to be a perversion of nature and also a perversion of man's best interests. Selfishness is then like a disease that kills all of man.

That seems to be a gross oversimplification of the complexities of human behaviour. To enforce such a definition, one must label the simple urge to survive as a selfish and, therefore, immoral act - African farmers eking out a living become immoral despots under your scheme. Something about that doesn't strike me as right.

This makes sense on the surface. But who was so selfish to them that caused that situation? If not a single person was selfish, all of those farmers would merely have to ask someone with more, and he would have all he needed.

Maybe, but the rules are contrived and arbitrary. The example of the fetishist absolutely is a realistic argument - it serves as a counter-example that highlights the inadequacy of your definition. Someone having a fetish for being mocked (say) is peculiar, but it's neither selfish nor immoral.

Some acts of selfishness are not harmful on the surface. But the behavioral type leads to more harmful selfishness. Men learn how to be selfish when they see it nets them more than they would have if they had not been selfish, and seeing that individually, they do not feel the sadness of the other, go ahead with their selfish plans.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I made a subtle mistake when replying to your thread. The word 'urge' changes things a little. It is not a selfish action to have an urge. Urges are selfish thoughts.

How? Are maternal urges selfish? Is the urge to eat selfish? And, even if they are, why does that mean that acting on them necessarily causes suffering?

This isn't a small point, its the crux of your argument - urges are selfish, selfish deeds cause suffering, suffering is bad, therefore selfish is bad.

So,the urge to lash out when hurt, is not a selfish act, but a selfish thought, that persuades oneself to lash out when hurt, which is a selfish action, which brings about harm to someone else, or suffering.

But the urge is uncontrollable, that was what we originally agreed. Even if all urges are selfish (which I don't believe), that doesn't mean acting on the is always necessarily evil. And if that's the case, then your moral code fails.

Yes, sometimes selfish deeds lead to suffering, but not all deeds are selfish, not all selfish deeds lead to suffering, and not all suffering is caused by selfish deeds.

The essence of the self is not immoral or bad. The essence of the self, or the existence of the individual is only 'immoral' or 'bad' when a person utilizes his energy on his own self.

If you want to think of it in terms of energy, then negative and positive energy. Positive energy being euphoria, and negative energy being depression. Every human prefers the postive, and avoids the negative. The existence of negative isn't bad in itself, it just is what it is, that is negative. So humans who are drawn to one or the other. The one, and also the other, exist.

Happiness is postive, and desired by man. All men prefer happiness over sadness. Therefore, happiness is universal to man. Man cannot cause his negative to become his positive, or vice versa. Universal judgement of mankind is Happiness = good , Sadness = Bad

Maybe, but as what makes one person happy or sad isn't necessarily what makes someone else happy or sad, and as one person's happiness may actually be caused by another person's sadness (such as the feeling of Schadenfreude). And, with regards to suffering and selfishness, selfishness can cause happiness, and selflessness can cause sadness - what then? If a selfish deed causes happiness and no sadness, is it still immoral?

If every man on earth was fully selfish, every man on earth would suffer and die. If every man on earth was fully devoted to every man other than himself, man would always be satisfied and live. Therefor, man, being a living being whose instinct is to live, and has a preference to be satisfied, by nature is designed to live according to others rather than himself. So selfishness has to be a perversion of nature and also a perversion of man's best interests. Selfishness is then like a disease that kills all of man.

I disagree. For one thing, selfish or not, all humans do suffer and die. I don't think it follows that selfishness is a perversion of nature - it's just a category of action.

If I eat, I eat for my own pleasure, for my own survival; at its core, it's a selfish act, and one motivated by a very basal urge (which you assert means eating is a selfish act). What I disagree with, is the leap that says, "Because it's selfish in thought or deed, it's therefore immoral".

This makes sense on the surface. But who was so selfish to them that caused that situation? If not a single person was selfish, all of those farmers would merely have to ask someone with more, and he would have all he needed.

And then what would those people eat? The point is no one has anything to eat. The farmers' selfish acts aren't immoral, they're necessary.

Some acts of selfishness are not harmful on the surface.

Then how can selfish thoughts or deeds be unilaterally declared to be evil? Surely it's harmful deeds, whether selfish or not, that should be declared evil? After all, not all harmful deeds are selfish, and as you admit, not all selfish deeds are harmful.

 

[decent orange]

Somehow we are not connecting. I get what you are saying (I think). But you keep changing what I'm saying in your responses. For example, a maternal instinct is not selfish, the mother has her child in mind. She has her child in mind when she has the urge to take care of it. You could translate urge any way you want. You could say, "I have an urge to love you, and give you everything I have.", that is not a selfish urge.

Perhaps I went a little to deep with the selfishness. But if for some reason, an act of selfishness ended up good for someone or something, selfishness is always bad in the end. Generousity, charity, kindness, gentleness, understanding, patience, ect ect, are good attributes that will never do anyone harm.

And as for your stance on morality being subjective, it still works out the same. I'm Christian, so I have Christian morals. Not everyone believes in Christianity, but Christianity is in a prediciment in these times, because people who call themselves such, have accidentally trapped us in a situation where we have become an exclusive club, when originally the faith was designed for wide acceptance and kindness. (I'm thinking along the lines of the 'If you love everyone around you, you're surrounded by your loved ones.' type of mentality.)

Now, philosophical arguments and opinions are very interesting and satisfy the imagination, but in the end they are vain. Whether or not I'm correct, your you are doesn't make a difference.

I'll state this as opinion even though I view it as fact, but I believe that nothing of ourselves is good for ourselves. That does not mean that nothing of ourselves isn't good for somebody else. In-fact, if you shift the gears of your mind selflessly from yourself to somebody else, for their good, then everything that comes from you is good to that person. If you do that to every single person that you see, nothing but goodness can come from you.

Yes, you need to eat to live. Have sex to make babies. Do it! But it is better to have someone else with selflessness to give it to you, so you are continually giving to each other, not worrying about what the self needs, but being filled by what the other who is equally as selfless as you sees that you are in need.

This is basically what Christianity is all about. Whether or not people believe the Bible, doesn't change the fact that this is an absolute truth. Even though the loudest sect who call themselves Christians has inadvertantly made a seperate war-like Christianity, that doesn't mean that the philosophy in the book is not true. Infact its exactly true, even an honest athiest should be able to see this if he/she is not blinded by their hatred for the fake christians who yell at them on their way to their college class.

Selfishness leads to slow but certain death. Selflessness leads to life. You will physically die either way, but wouldn't it be nice to live while you are alive? There is a divider between every person and every other person, one can choose himself or everyone else. If you love yourself you only love one person and only one person will love you (yourself), but if you love everyone else you love billions, and are surrounded by billions of loved ones. This is why I say selfishness is bad. But then again I'm religious, and you're not (which is okay), so you are less inclined to reject knowledge and power for the more delicate and meaningful things in life. Life is delicate and meaningful, death is meaningless and vain. We just can't agree, and we both know why, but I guess that's just the way its gotta be.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Somehow we are not connecting. I get what you are saying (I think). But you keep changing what I'm saying in your responses. For example, a maternal instinct is not selfish, the mother has her child in mind. She has her child in mind when she has the urge to take care of it. You could translate urge any way you want. You could say, "I have an urge to love you, and give you everything I have.", that is not a selfish urge.

The confusion probably lies in saying "Urges are bad". At least we now agree that that's not true.

Perhaps I went a little to deep with the selfishness. But if for some reason, an act of selfishness ended up good for someone or something, selfishness is always bad in the end. Generousity, charity, kindness, gentleness, understanding, patience, ect ect, are good attributes that will never do anyone harm.

Sure they do. Unintentionally, indirectly, but harm can be done by charity, etc.

And as for your stance on morality being subjective, it still works out the same. I'm Christian, so I have Christian morals. Not everyone believes in Christianity, but Christianity is in a prediciment in these times, because people who call themselves such, have accidentally trapped us in a situation where we have become an exclusive club, when originally the faith was designed for wide acceptance and kindness. (I'm thinking along the lines of the 'If you love everyone around you, you're surrounded by your loved ones.' type of mentality.)

Now, philosophical arguments and opinions are very interesting and satisfy the imagination, but in the end they are vain. Whether or not I'm correct, your you are doesn't make a difference.

I don't understand; I think there's a few typos in there. But if whatever it is you believe should be able to be demonstrated, or at least justified; otherwise, what's the point? Remember, we're takling about what morality is, what's good, what's evil, etc. Your position is that selfishness is the benchmark, the barometer for evil and immoral deeds - selfish deeds cause suffering, so selfish deeds are evil. My position is that this isn't the case - not all selfish deeds cause suffering, and not all suffering is caused by selfish deeds. Thus, 'selfishness' cannot be the barometer of evil.

I'll state this as opinion even though I view it as fact, but I believe that nothing of ourselves is good for ourselves. That does not mean that nothing of ourselves isn't good for somebody else. In-fact, if you shift the gears of your mind selflessly from yourself to somebody else, for their good, then everything that comes from you is good to that person. If you do that to every single person that you see, nothing but goodness can come from you.

Yes, you need to eat to live. Have sex to make babies. Do it! But it is better to have someone else with selflessness to give it to you, so you are continually giving to each other, not worrying about what the self needs, but being filled by what the other who is equally as selfless as you sees that you are in need.

This is basically what Christianity is all about. Whether or not people believe the Bible, doesn't change the fact that this is an absolute truth. Even though the loudest sect who call themselves Christians has inadvertantly made a seperate war-like Christianity, that doesn't mean that the philosophy in the book is not true. Infact its exactly true, even an honest athiest should be able to see this if he/she is not blinded by their hatred for the fake christians who yell at them on their way to their college class.

Selfishness leads to slow but certain death. Selflessness leads to life. You will physically die either way, but wouldn't it be nice to live while you are alive? There is a divider between every person and every other person, one can choose himself or everyone else. If you love yourself you only love one person and only one person will love you (yourself), but if you love everyone else you love billions, and are surrounded by billions of loved ones. This is why I say selfishness is bad. But then again I'm religious, and you're not (which is okay), so you are less inclined to reject knowledge and power for the more delicate and meaningful things in life. Life is delicate and meaningful, death is meaningless and vain. We just can't agree, and we both know why, but I guess that's just the way its gotta be.

We disagree because I'm unconvinced that selfishness absolutely always causes suffering. Selfishness is rarely moral, but it's by no means always immoral.

Remember, the original discussion was about the objectivity of morality - you claimed that 'selfish deeds are immoral' is an objective and universally acknowledge code for deciding what's moral and what's immoral:

"Goodness is universal and not subject to opinion. Things are good by being desired and pleasing while at the same time not being received to satisfy selfishness or given to glorify the giver in a selfish way. So killing someone's enemy because it will allow them to collect insurance on the dead person is not good for the evil person who desires that even though they might think it's good. Expecting something after giving is also not good even though in reality the giver really does deserve something, because to want is not good."

I disagree that this is a useful definition for morality - which means it rather is subject to opinion. Even if I agree with all of what you said, that would only mean that you and I agree on what 'good' is, not that it's objective.