|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
18th June 2018, 10:33 AM | #81 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 13,384
|
|
18th June 2018, 12:24 PM | #82 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 13,384
|
|
18th June 2018, 02:16 PM | #83 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
|
Not necessarily. What if my self interest lies against this society? Would it then not be in my self interest to convince others to work against this society as well? What if I prefer the company of a rag-tag band of revolutionaries and criminals over what you'd call "socialized" people, would it then not be completely against my self interest to try to convince them to go work for society instead?
It is hardly a self interest if I'm not allowed to define what's in my own interest. You're just assuming that my self interest is aligned with the result of others working for "the good of society" however that is neither necessarily true, nor true in the actual world. ETA: Consider a slave society where there is a slave owner and a bunch of slaves. It is only in the slave owner's interest to convince others to work for the good of this society, it is in the slaves' interest to not only work against that society but convince other slaves to do so as well on the same basis. People working for the good of society is only good for you if society works for you. |
18th June 2018, 03:35 PM | #84 |
Self Employed
Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 46,649
|
Okay. Then a system that will do it that "isn't morality." I don't care what you call it or what that changes.
I'm interesting in reducing the suffering and increasing the well being of people. If whatever you consider "morality" falls outside of that, I have no time for it. |
__________________
"If everyone in the room says water is wet and I say it's dry that makes me smart because at least I'm thinking for myself!" - The Proudly Wrong. |
|
18th June 2018, 04:28 PM | #85 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 13,384
|
|
18th June 2018, 04:39 PM | #86 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 13,384
|
|
18th June 2018, 04:50 PM | #87 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
|
|
18th June 2018, 04:57 PM | #88 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 22,331
|
But, again, if enough people "get away with it", then their own well being WILL be impacted.
It's not (just) about convincing people that they should support your views, but that objectively it's not even in their own interest if society rules break down. That's why it's called enlightened self-interest, and not "how to con the group into giving you a freebie." E.g., sure, it may sound great if you can get away with killing some from the other group, taking their stuff, and putting your own group above them. But at that point there's nothing to stop other groups from doing the same to you. Society has splintered and lost control of its groups. If you want to know where that leads, look no further than South Sudan. It's not great for any of the groups trying to kill each other. Not only they too can die at any moment (and not just in plain warfare, but targeted murders too,) and their relatives may be caught in something like the Bentiu massacre, but they drove the economy into the ground, half of them live in ruins by now, a QUARTER of the population have been displaced, etc. Nobody who thought they can get away with a little ethnic cleansing when they started the fight is getting any actual benefit from it. They have effectively acted AGAINST their own long-term interests. |
__________________
Springfield Heights Institute of Technology poster child |
|
18th June 2018, 05:43 PM | #89 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 13,384
|
Totally right. Slavery is very likely to be bad for the slave owner as well as the slave, though not to the same degree.
So what? It doesn't dispel the fact that if something is in one's interest, he ought to do it (presuming no objective morality), regardless of harm to others. |
18th June 2018, 05:49 PM | #90 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 13,384
|
Yes, so? If I happen to be in the owner class, perhaps slavery benefits me in the long run. Maybe not, in which case I shouldn't support it, but maybe.
If self-interest is the only issue, then it's not clear that one should be opposed to slavery, depending on his own status. As part of the slave class, I'd think it's a terrible state of affairs. As part of the owner class, I might think it's quite congenial. To argue that slavery is wrong, full stop, requires some independent notion of human rights (which is hard to justify). |
18th June 2018, 05:51 PM | #91 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 16,041
|
Yep, exactly my point.
Quote:
Many people have different answers to that question, which I think is fine, but it does show the difference between a morality that only value's oneself and one that attaches values to other things. |
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together." Isaac Asimov |
|
18th June 2018, 05:53 PM | #92 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 13,384
|
Which is precisely why I said the enlightened self-interested man would encourage others to behave "morally" while behaving however was in his personal best interest.
It's really, really good for me if others take my interests into consideration. I'd like them to do so. Hence, were I an egoist, I would preach altruism. |
18th June 2018, 05:56 PM | #93 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 16,041
|
|
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together." Isaac Asimov |
|
19th June 2018, 03:39 AM | #94 |
Self Employed
Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 46,649
|
|
__________________
"If everyone in the room says water is wet and I say it's dry that makes me smart because at least I'm thinking for myself!" - The Proudly Wrong. |
|
19th June 2018, 04:43 AM | #95 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
|
I'm not arguing that slavery is "wrong" - I find moralizing tedious and intellectually void in general. Recall your assertion that I objected to:
I'm arguing that others working for the good of society is only good for you if society works for you. Consider again the slave society example (though the argument applies equally to any class society) and let's define self interest in monetary terms. Suppose a slave, over a day's work, produces 100$ in value and, say, 10$ of that goes to the slave and 90$ to the slave owner. Then society works against the slave at a rate of 90$/day and for the slave owner at a rate of (90$ * number_of_slaves)/day. The perpetuation of this society is against the self interests of the by far largest group (slaves vs slave owners) hence, if I were a slave, it would be in my self-interest to work against this society and convince other slaves to do so as well, on the same basis (it's in their self-interest too). If I were the slave owner instead then it would indeed be in my self-interest to convince others to work for this society. The term "society" here is nothing but a placeholder for whoever benefits from the existing societal structure. In our example, working for the good of society = working for the good of the slave owner. If we use that substitution in your assertion we arrive at: It is in the self interest of the slaves to convince other slaves to work for the good of the slave owner. The problem with that assertion should be obvious by that point. And I don't think that is enlightened at all. You're just copying the perspective of the slave owners (those who society works for) and pasting it onto the slaves (those who society works against) even though that perspective is against the latter's self interest. You're apparently doing this by using the concept of "society" as an abstract ideal with a certain property (that society works for all, and hence if people work for the good of society they are working for the good of everyone, including the one who convinced them to do so). That philosophy has a bit of an Ivory Tower feel to it, it works all nice and well in abstract ideal concepts but fails when applied to actual class society as it exists. Furthermore, in whose interest is it to consider society as "working for all"? As far as I see it this idea is only in the interest of the slave owners, not of the slaves. Let me give you a practical example from where I used to work. In our depot there was one guy who was really going overboard with taking breaks and generally doing whatever was in his best interest whilst not giving a damn about what the bosses said. It is in my, and the other workers', self interest to encourage him to keep doing that irrespective of what "morality" or "society" might say about that. Let's consider what would happen if he were to stop doing so. Right now the bosses are all focused on him because, even though the rest of us also does that stuff, he just does it on an entirely higher level. If he were to stop then the norm in the workplace would shift in the interest of the bosses and against the interest of the workers. Rather than being occupied with only that one guy, the bosses would start occupying themselves with the rest of us and even our - relatively low-level - stuff would also come under fire. Hence, as an egoist, I encourage others to be egoists. |
19th June 2018, 04:46 AM | #96 |
Maledictorian
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 22,558
|
since when do slaves get paid?
|
__________________
“Don’t blame me. I voted for Kodos.” |
|
19th June 2018, 04:47 AM | #97 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
|
That seems like a reasonably accurate description of current society.
Quote:
|
19th June 2018, 04:49 AM | #98 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
|
The money terms aren't literally money but indicators of economic value. It stands for the food, lodging, and other requirements to keep the slave alive and working. Likewise, when I say the slave produced 100$ I don't mean he literally comes back from the cotton field with a 100$ bill.
|
19th June 2018, 04:51 AM | #99 |
Maledictorian
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 22,558
|
Keeping a worker alive so he can continue working is not the same as paying them - an economic theory that thinks so it plain wrong.
|
__________________
“Don’t blame me. I voted for Kodos.” |
|
19th June 2018, 04:55 AM | #100 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
|
|
19th June 2018, 05:06 AM | #101 |
Maledictorian
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 22,558
|
Cave, you are working from a limited perspective of how to play the game instead of changing the rules - you are trapped in a zero-sum narrative.
As we know empirically is that slave societies are less productive than free ones. That markets need consumers more than they need investors. And that what investment needs is stability more than profit. |
__________________
“Don’t blame me. I voted for Kodos.” |
|
19th June 2018, 05:10 AM | #102 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
|
|
19th June 2018, 05:12 AM | #103 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 16,041
|
I think you have a point, but you also have to take into consideration what the alternatives are.
You might be a member of a marginalised and exploited group, but still in a situation where incremental harms to society won't change that status but will make things worse for everyone (for instance making the society poorer and leading to worse public sanitation and a disease outbreak. That's a made up example, but I think you get the point). You're stuck in bad situation and most small changes that harm the society will only make it worse. Maybe potential large changes (like civil war) will also probably make your situation worse. Similarly even as a member of an exploited group you may be better off when society as a whole has improvements. While those gains may mostly accrue to the privileged classes, at least some gains will improve the lives of even exploited people, though to some extent I think this depends on the degree of exploitation. In the worst situations any gains will just be translated into greater exploitation. But again to take an increased in total wealth that leads to greater investment in public sanitation as an example, that will tend to be a boon for all levels of society. Whether that example is typical of the type of thing we see when society as a whole makes gains or the opposite, I won't argue and if you think the latter, well, I welcome my enlightenment on the subject. I expect that the truth is somewhere in the middle, that some non-trivial fraction of improvements in the wealth of a society will tend to see some non-trivial improvement in the lives of even it's most exploited classes, though in many societies, as I said, that gain may be quickly wiped out by greater exploitation. You brought up slaves and they are probably an example of when that last would tend to occur. |
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together." Isaac Asimov |
|
19th June 2018, 06:53 AM | #104 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 13,384
|
Er, yes, because that's the essence of enlightened self-interest.
Honestly, do have the courage of following your convictions to the clear conclusion. If we have no independent obligation to follow moral strictures, but instead are free to pursue our own self interest, then sometimes we will act in ways which are not in line with societal good, but benefit us alone. Duh. It would be a fairy tale to believe that our personal self interest always aligns with the interest of society as a whole. |
19th June 2018, 06:57 AM | #105 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 13,384
|
I apologize for completely missing your point.
You may be right that there are situations in which encouraging egoism is in the interest of the egoist. I'm not sure how common that is. I'd think that, if I could get away with it, teaching others to consider my well-being would be great, but we are not all as gifted as Creflo Dollar. Anyway, I get your point now and again apologize for the lapse in comprehension. |
19th June 2018, 03:53 PM | #106 |
Self Employed
Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 46,649
|
Oh for the...
I don't care how about 'enlightened self interest.' That's your term, not mine. I'm not interested in playing yet another rousing game of "Slap a label on the opinion and then do nothing but argue against the label." Go stand in a field if you want to argue against a strawman. How about you actually listen to what people are saying rather then tripping on your own feet to label it so you can regurgitate some pre-written Polysci 101 counter against the label. 1. I'm concerned with the real world real being of real world people. 2. Very, very rarely does it require to reduce the well being of someone else to increase your own. 3. We can reduce the scenarios where conflict requires the reduction of someone else's well being to increase their own. 4. None of this is mystical, "transcendent" or any other nonsense. The well being of people is something we can gauge and affect the outcome of. Everything else that gets discussed about "morality" is a creative writing exercise at best. |
__________________
"If everyone in the room says water is wet and I say it's dry that makes me smart because at least I'm thinking for myself!" - The Proudly Wrong. |
|
19th June 2018, 05:12 PM | #107 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 69,914
|
Okay, but why would you want to?
I can think of two reasons: Either it serves your self interest, or you believe in a moral value that transcends your self interest. You're not just rejecting "labels". You're rejecting people actually discussing the subject. So. What would you have us discuss instead? |
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division. |
|
19th June 2018, 05:27 PM | #108 |
Self Employed
Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 46,649
|
Because most people aren't psychopaths nor are they looking for the first excuse they can find to get to be one.
This idea that people have, one that's already been refuted multiple times, that there not only isn't but can't possibly be by definition any logical, real world, or non-metaphysical wankfest reason to just not be a total evil douchenozzle is growing old. Humans simply being social creatures is all the base framework you need to understand why we didn't evolve biologically or develop culturally to just act on wanton acts of selfish destruction. Again I have no intention of entertaining some "Now prove to me that less well being is a bad thing" Bob-hole of moralistic solipsism. |
__________________
"If everyone in the room says water is wet and I say it's dry that makes me smart because at least I'm thinking for myself!" - The Proudly Wrong. |
|
19th June 2018, 05:32 PM | #109 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 69,914
|
Now you're just complaining that people are having a conversation you don't approve of.
Of which you don't approve. So. Which camp are you in? Self interest? Or belief in moral value that transcends self interest? Or some third option? Or so nettled by the question that you cannot answer it? |
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division. |
|
19th June 2018, 06:09 PM | #110 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 16,041
|
If you look through human history you'll find plenty of situations where people did horrible things to each other, some of them institutionalised. Slavery is an example.
I don't think you need to be a psychopath to fail to consider other people's interests to transcend your own.
Quote:
When theprestige asked you why you consider other people's well being, you replied "because most people aren't psychopaths" which is a complete non-sequitur. |
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together." Isaac Asimov |
|
19th June 2018, 06:54 PM | #111 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 13,384
|
|
19th June 2018, 07:14 PM | #112 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 69,914
|
|
19th June 2018, 07:32 PM | #113 |
Self Employed
Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 46,649
|
The simple but apparently grossly offensive to some people idea that questions of human morality doesn't require transcendent knowledge handed down from on high in order to have answers.
Asking some absurd reductionist nonsense like "Where's your proof that living in abject misery is better than not doing that" is like demanding a structural engineer show you proof that a skyscraper standing up instead of falling over in a stiff summer breeze is preferable when he's designing the building. It's like my stock broker losing all my money at the dog track and defending it with "Well you never mathematically and metaphysically proved to me that me making you money was preferable." It's offensive to me because it reduces real human suffering to just a variable in a thought experiment someone wants to pontificate on just to look smart. It's going up to a cancer patient and demanding they justify to you why they value their life more than the cancer cells. |
__________________
"If everyone in the room says water is wet and I say it's dry that makes me smart because at least I'm thinking for myself!" - The Proudly Wrong. |
|
19th June 2018, 07:38 PM | #114 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 13,384
|
Surely, unless there's some objective reason I ought to care about others' suffering, I shouldn't. That others suffer doesn't matter to me, except in those situations in which my own interests are harmed.
Roughly speaking, the question is why be good? You seem to think that people ought to be decent, but aside from appearing decent and deriving the benefits therefrom, why actually be decent? It's not a new question. It's a very old question. It probably hasn't had a very good answer thus far. But it's stupid to pretend it's not a good question. |
19th June 2018, 08:02 PM | #115 |
Self Employed
Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 46,649
|
Well sticking your fingers in your ears and going "La la la la la I can't hear you" all the times people give you objective reasons will do that.
This is basically the "Without God there's nothing to stop me from raping and murdering and pillaging" argument just with everything made vaguer and more euphemistic. Unless you care at least a little about other peoples' suffering and potential suffering societies and social groups won't work and humans are social creatures that need social groups. In what possible universe is that not "an objective reason?" |
__________________
"If everyone in the room says water is wet and I say it's dry that makes me smart because at least I'm thinking for myself!" - The Proudly Wrong. |
|
19th June 2018, 08:11 PM | #116 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 69,914
|
The conversation has moved beyond that point. Try to keep up.
What camp are you in, as far as justifying your own behavior? Enlightened self interest? Or moral value that transcends self interest? Or some third option? Or so nettled by the question that you cannot answer it? |
19th June 2018, 08:22 PM | #117 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 69,914
|
|
19th June 2018, 08:34 PM | #118 |
Self Employed
Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 46,649
|
And know I remember why I stopped posting.
|
__________________
"If everyone in the room says water is wet and I say it's dry that makes me smart because at least I'm thinking for myself!" - The Proudly Wrong. |
|
19th June 2018, 08:39 PM | #119 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 69,914
|
|
20th June 2018, 05:39 AM | #120 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 13,384
|
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|