User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 58

  1. #11
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 93JC View Post
    ...

    I'll buy that.




    He killed himself rather than face punishment at the hands of the Allies. Couldn't I assume that was the 'happier' choice given the circumstances?

    I think your hypothesis is too broad. You can justify any action.
    Hmm, I think you've come up with something interesting. If I can make myself happy at the expense of the misery of nearly everyone, am I justified in doing so.

    I would say yes. In most cases, however, this is not possible. Hitler, for example, was going to be punished for making the lives of many others miserable. Hence, for this reason, the choices he has made did not conduce to his long term happiness.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  2. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,226

    Default

    He was to be punished only if he lost. What if the Nazis won? I would say if he had won his choices were perfectly conducive to his long-term happiness. And for obvious reasons that doesn't jive with me.

  3. #13
    ThatGirl
    Guest

    Default

    I actually agree with most of what you said Bluewing.

    But for me, and I can only reference myself, it is not really a matter of them or I but more weights of all aspects. Happieness is usually not a considerable factor on either side.

    I also disagree that the consequence is self involved.

  4. #14
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 93JC View Post
    He was to be punished only if he lost. What if the Nazis won? I would say if he had won his choices were perfectly conducive to his long-term happiness. And for obvious reasons that doesn't jive with me.

    If the nazis won, and doing what he did TRULY conduces to his long term happiness, he has made the right decisions.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  5. #15
    Senior Member reason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    1,211

    Default

    SolitaryWalker,

    You go about this all wrong.

    Does your conclusion actually solve any of the problems which people are usually interested in when they discuss ethics? NO!
    A criticism that can be brought against everything ought not to be brought against anything.

  6. #16
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by reason View Post
    SolitaryWalker,

    You go about this all wrong.

    Does your conclusion actually solve any of the problems which people are usually interested in when they discuss ethics? NO!
    My conclusion provides a guide for people to rely on when discussing ethics. Namely to strive to do what they think conduces the most to their long-term happiness. Many ethicists, to their own detriment, fail to keep such a perspective in mind. This is something that they should be interested in if they wish to be successful at ethics, or to concoct a lifestyle that will benefit them. An activity is only desirable to the extent that it profits us. I offer a heuristic with regard to how ethics could be made to profit us, it is in the best interest of the ethicist to accept it for his ethical inquiry to be benficial to himself.

    My thesis is that most people start from the wrong foundation when they attempt to build their ethical system, namely, value-centered thinking. I have shown why that is the wrong foundation.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  7. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,226

    Default

    All you're doing is advocating hedonism.

  8. #18
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 93JC View Post
    All you're doing is advocating hedonism.
    Correct. What is the problem with that?
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  9. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,226

    Default

    You're arguing anyone should do anything they want if they can get away with it. The only thing keeping a hedonist in check is fear of reprisal or retribution. You're saying that if for example we knew each other in person, and I happened to despise you and think that my life would be better if yours ceased, that I should go ahead and kill you if I knew I could get away with it.

    That's about as scary as Christians who believe they shouldn't murder someone for the simple reason it says so in the Bible.

  10. #20
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 93JC View Post
    You're arguing anyone should do anything they want if they can get away with it. The only thing keeping a hedonist in check is fear of reprisal or retribution. You're saying that if for example we knew each other in person, and I happened to despise you and think that my life would be better if yours ceased, that I should go ahead and kill you if I knew I could get away with it.

    That's about as scary as Christians who believe they shouldn't murder someone for the simple reason it says so in the Bible.
    There is one additional component to it however. Suppose we live in a village of the populace of 20. I kill you exactly under the circumstances that you describe. Imagine, for instance, if the 18 other people in the group were outraged by what has happened. They do not know that I killed you, they are just deeply disturbed by a death in such a small community. Imagine that as a result of this the community falls apart. I have hitherto relied on the community for my needs, perhaps such as housing, or food. Now the community no longer exists as a result of my connection.

    Hence, the additional component to consider is how your actions may impact society. You want to make sure that when you injure people for your benefit, the injury inflicted upon the society by and large does not do such significant harm to the society that it will not be able to function adequately enough for you to benefit from society.

    To give you an example that is closer to home, consider the case of a lawyer or a politician who can completely destroy the economy within his state, but make himself very rich as a result. He should seriously consider whether or not this action is worth performing, even if he is confident he can get away with. The reason why should make such a consideration is because it may be imperative for him to profit from a well-functioning society, and if he destroys it, he will not be able to do so.

    --------------------------------------------------------

    As a general rule, we only want the intellectuals to be informed of my ethical thesis and we only want them to use this as the foundation for their ethic. Because only the wise can be trusted to be self-serving in a way that does not completely destroy society. The common folk are irrational and if they were advised to be hedonistic, they merely would behave in a chaotic fashion. This would lead to disorder in society which is a problem because it is imperative for all of us to profit from a well functioning society. Value centered thinking must be imposed upon the philistines because this is the only way we can get them to behave in an orderly fashion.

    Quote Originally Posted by 93JC View Post
    That's about as scary as Christians who believe they shouldn't murder someone for the simple reason it says so in the Bible.
    Scary? Indeed. But what is an ethical flaw with such thinking? There is no reason to reject a maxim unless something undesirable follows as an entailment of such a maxim.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

Similar Threads

  1. The Nature of Ne -- a metaphorical visual
    By spirilis in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: 03-20-2009, 01:55 AM
  2. Replies: 10
    Last Post: 10-25-2007, 01:35 AM
  3. The Nature of Generosity
    By Mycroft in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 52
    Last Post: 10-08-2007, 05:53 PM
  4. A Note on the Problem of Induction
    By reason in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 09-19-2007, 08:47 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO