Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2017 13:18:44 GMT
You say that "I am not saying that we should out rightly start committing crimes", but then go on to suggest embezzling money, which is committing a crime. So something is going wrong with your logic there. You are exactly right. I did made a logically inconsistent statement. Murder or fraud, both are crimes. However, the intention behind writing that was that by committing outright crimes the person will be endangering himself. I mean to talk about paper crimes that a person can get away with and the person knows that he can get away with doing such crimes. Fair enough. I think they are being either stupid or hypocritical. As I said, conforming to social or moral codes IS in your self interest. The only way to think otherwise is to focus entirely on the most immediate form of self interest whilst ignoring the longer term. To say "I have the opportunity to steal this money here and get away with it, therefore stealing it is in my interest" is true, as far as it goes. But it doesn't go far enough. What you need to add is something like "If I live in a society in which people are generally willing to steal from others, then this money that I want to steal will sooner or later be stolen from me, as will everything else I own. And that is not in my self interest." The only way stealing is in your actual self interest is if you steal from others, whilst expecting others not to return the favour. But that's just stupid. Why would they? See above. If this person's intrinsic nature is to seek pleasure and she derives that from having the maximum amount of money, then she should want to live in a society where she gets to keep the money she attains. So if she decides that it's okay to steal then she's just plain dumb. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Oct 22, 2017 13:32:37 GMT
A person comes into this world not by his or her own will. I am not sure why everyone has to bear the obligation to be good to a system/society that the person didn't initially choose to be part of but that was forced by nature on him or her. At the end of the day a civilised society has not always been kind to everyone. There are unlucky people in this world who have to bear the cost of living in a society. There are people who get cheated or harmed by others. As such there may be people who are not bothered about this whole society and obligation debates. Such people believe that this little life is important and they should seek maximum happiness possible. You're luckier if you wind up with a brain that has moral views more or less in line with the norm. Otherwise, the world is going to be more frustrating for you. It's not true or false that there are any obligations. Having obligations is a way that people can feel about some things. However, that's been turned into law or cultural mores in many cases, and you're stuck either at least appearing to acquiesce to those norms or you might find yourself in prison or ostracized. You can try to change them, of course--which is something that I'm often trying to do, because I wound up with a brain that has moral views that are often different than the norm, but it's not very easy to change them. How easy to hard that is tends to be proportionate to just how similar to different than the norm one's views are. |
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Oct 22, 2017 17:14:46 GMT
Creating a civilized society depends upon people being willing to live by basic moral rules. Those who live immorally within society (like those who cheat) are riding on the backs of those who live morally, and are not fulfilling their obligations. Even though this reply is to a quote by Isapop my answer below is for Cinemachinery , CoolJGS☺ , phludowin too. A person comes into this world not by his or her own will. I am not sure why everyone has to bear the obligation to be good to a system/society that the person didn't initially choose to be part of but that was forced by nature on him or her. At the end of the day a civilised society has not always been kind to everyone. There are unlucky people in this world who have to bear the cost of living in a society. There are people who get cheated or harmed by others. As such there may be people who are not bothered about this whole society and obligation debates. Such people believe that this little life is important and they should seek maximum happiness possible. A person coming into this world is offered to live among others who accept the obligation to live morally for the sake of community. When he's mature enough to decide he doesn't like the deal, he can choose to live like a hermit so his actions don't affect others, or go back to his pre-birth state by killing himself. It's true that "civilized society has not always been kind to everyone". Our attempts at civilization are full of imperfections. But we are talking about the broad concept of why we act morally. People are cheated and harmed by the ones who ignore their obligations. And those who think that they should only seek maximum happiness possible need to realize that as more people think like they do, they will more likely end up among the cheated and harmed.
|
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Oct 22, 2017 22:12:38 GMT
We have no moral obligation to live period. Therefore, strictly speaking we have no moral obligation to live a good life.
If one decides to live and participate in existing in this world (as is the norm), then it is in one's interest to value the things of this world and it is in one's own best interests to have a moral sense to do right.
Does this mean I think a suicidal person has license to take others with them when they off themselves?
I think I would phrase the topic question differently and hope that most people have a sense of decency to respect other life whether they decide to continue their own or not. To describe it as a "moral obligation" leads to the difficulties I mentioned above.
|
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on Oct 22, 2017 22:53:21 GMT
In short, yes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Oct 23, 2017 10:57:39 GMT
I have received a few answers saying how it is good for people to work in favour of society or work with good moral values and how doing such a thing makes their own position better. While it may be true for most people, I am not concerned with that. My assumption is that there are few people who cheat and derive substantial gains from their cheating and are permanently better off after committing the act of cheating and I also hold the assumption that the person committing the act of cheating did so in such circumstances that made him fully immune from getting caught in the future. There are people who get away with cheating. Very few do but there are. While it is true that in general people gain a lot by living life in an honest way it is not always the case. general313 I agree that I could have phrased the question in a better way. Anyway, the first part of this post should clear a bit more. |
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Oct 23, 2017 11:08:44 GMT
I like how this guy puts it.. I live as if God exists, something like that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Oct 23, 2017 14:56:41 GMT
My assumption is that there are few people who cheat and derive substantial gains from their cheating and are permanently better off after committing the act of cheating and I also hold the assumption that the person committing the act of cheating did so in such circumstances that made him fully immune from getting caught in the future. No one could deny that there are people who get away with cheating others. But the fact that there are a few who don't live up to their moral obligations doesn't call into question that the obligation is there for anyone who wants to be part of a civilized society. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Oct 23, 2017 16:50:40 GMT
Aj_JuneIt doesn't matter that they had no choice in being born. Once born, they abide by the barest of moral rules for the benefit of society if they have no morals themselves...Or they remove themselves from society to the greatest extent possible. They certainly couldn't have it both ways by not having morals and also enriching themselves by harming others within society. Living a good life means less dependence on a society not obligated to be kind. There are other moral codes that mandate kindness and so the more obvious solution would be to seek those out rather than focus on legal obligations. That would be hypocritical of them since they are seeking maximum happiness within the standards society has set in place so there's no way to ignore them. They are more than welcome to try and get away maximizing that happiness at the expense of others, but if it catches up with them, there is no reason for society to empathize with their plight. Is the seeking of individual happiness worth the risk of losing that happiness? I know what I would say, but since there are plenty of criminals out there, it's always been up to the individual to determine that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2017 16:54:03 GMT
The Golden Rule is pretty much my baseline definition of morality.
|
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Oct 23, 2017 20:20:15 GMT
I have received a few answers saying how it is good for people to work in favour of society or work with good moral values and how doing such a thing makes their own position better. While it may be true for most people, I am not concerned with that. My assumption is that there are few people who cheat and derive substantial gains from their cheating and are permanently better off after committing the act of cheating and I also hold the assumption that the person committing the act of cheating did so in such circumstances that made him fully immune from getting caught in the future. There are people who get away with cheating. Very few do but there are. While it is true that in general people gain a lot by living life in an honest way it is not always the case. In that case, it's up to society to make sure that people who cheat don't get away with it; or better yet, to create a society where there's no incentive to cheat. But most measures I could think of involve restrictions of freedom or privacy, and some people seem to be allergic to it. Mostly libertarians. On the other hand, who watches the watchers? So I say: Keep government as small as possible, but as big as necessary. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Oct 23, 2017 20:27:58 GMT
I like how this guy puts it.. I live as if God exists, something like that. I act as if God exists and He has just the same views as me. |
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Oct 23, 2017 20:32:24 GMT
What about people who believe self interest is the most important thing and don't confirm to social moral codes. If a person's intrinsic nature is to seek pleasure then isn't it better for her to live this one life with as much happiness as she can derive. In this case, she should live her life and derive as much pleasure as possible; but it's in her best self interest to not do so at the expense of others. As others previously explained on this thread. Let's say this person's happiness is directly related to wealth she possesses. She hasn't got any moral issues with committing fraud that don't endanger her. Now is there any moral obligation to this sort of person from doing things that maximise her happiness in this one precious life that she has got. The moral obligation is that she probably wants to stay out of jail. So she shouldn't do anything illegal. And about "not endangering" her: The money has to come from somewhere. The rightful owners will miss the money. Investigations will be made. And eventually, in a properly regulated system, the truth will come out. Even popular figures like Silvio Berlusconi or Uli Hoeness are not above the law. Another thing about self interest: I believe that everything we do is out of self interest. There's no such thing as a selfless act. Everything we do is for our own benefit. Even if it's just to make us feel good. Like when you work for charity or donate money to non-profit organizations. It makes you feel good. So people can live a life where they act selfishly, and still benefit society. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Oct 23, 2017 20:37:53 GMT
I believe that everything we do is out of self interest. There's no such thing as a selfless act. What are your criteria for something to count as a selfless act? |
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Oct 23, 2017 20:50:17 GMT
What are your criteria for something to count as a selfless act? An act that has zero benefit for you. An act where you are worse off in every way after performing it, physically and mentally. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Oct 23, 2017 20:51:30 GMT
What are your criteria for something to count as a selfless act? An act that has zero benefit for you. An act where you are worse off in every way after performing it, physically and mentally. Per whose judgment re benefits and being worse off? |
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Oct 23, 2017 20:53:31 GMT
An act that has zero benefit for you. An act where you are worse off in every way after performing it, physically and mentally. Per whose judgment re benefits and being worse off? The person. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Oct 23, 2017 21:02:43 GMT
Per whose judgment re benefits and being worse off? The person. Well then couldn't any arbitrary act be either selfless or in one's self-interest? If someone buys a flashy new car for him/herself, but they judge it to have zero benefit for them, and they judge him/herself to be worse off in every way for it, then it's selfless, right? |
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Oct 23, 2017 21:37:10 GMT
Well then couldn't any arbitrary act be either selfless or in one's self-interest? If someone buys a flashy new car for him/herself, but they judge it to have zero benefit for them, and they judge him/herself to be worse off in every way for it, then it's selfless, right? If the posession of the car makes the individual feel good; or if the act of buying the car makes the individual feel good, then it's not a selfless act. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Oct 23, 2017 21:49:01 GMT
Well then couldn't any arbitrary act be either selfless or in one's self-interest? If someone buys a flashy new car for him/herself, but they judge it to have zero benefit for them, and they judge him/herself to be worse off in every way for it, then it's selfless, right? If the posession of the car makes the individual feel good; or if the act of buying the car makes the individual feel good, then it's not a selfless act. If they count that as a benefit, right? Or are you adding that, basically? But in either case, sure. So as long as they judge it to have zero benefit for them, they judge themselves to be worse off in every way for it, and it doesn't make them feel good, then it can be selfless, as could any act. Do you agree with that? |
|
