Quote:
Originally Posted by Inuzuka Skysword
It is because you are focusing too much on the topics I used and not on the actual point I was trying to convey. I used religion because that seems to be an issue where all sorts of people tend to be real logical. Those who believe in subjective reality will sometimes argue using logic to disprove a God. Of course, they believe logic to be flawed.
|
I'm going to address this again later; god and morality are not two things I can personally think about in the exact same manner because they're clearly different things that have to be approached with entirely different arguments.
Quote:
|
Well, do you decide who is more important than you and who isn't. If you do, you trust your own rationality and judgment over everyone else's. This makes you selfish. You can still be selfish and give to those in need, or even die for a loved one. The point is, selfishness is doing what you will to do and doing things because you have reasoned them. If it is better for you to put your own life on the line for a spouse, or a really good friend because you they are a high value in your life, then you are still being selfish.
|
Selfish, by definition, isn't doing what you do by your own justification. I don't know what dictionary you've been reading but all these and my own basically say selfish is caring for ones self.
selfish - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
selfish definition | Dictionary.com
Quote:
|
They can exist. Just like creationism, Scientology, and the Mayan calendar thing. They are concepts that exist. They are not reality. If logic is a way to observe reality, then only one morality can be right. If reality is objective, there must be an objective morality. This is because we can still use logic to observe this thing (morality) in reality. This logical morality is the objective reality. However parts of it differ due to what one's goals are. The skeleton is the same meaning the only reason you can have for your morality being what it is would be that you reasoned it out using your own mind.
|
See, you're comparing religion and morality again despite your constant claims you're not trying to. They're two entirely different things! Religion can be argued from a scientific and historical perspective to disprove that. All history proves to us is that ethical standards are constantly progressing and morality is ever-changing (which makes it hard to be objective if its constantly evolving.) It used to be acceptable to hit your wife, own slaves and shoot a man if he questioned your integrity. It isn't anymore and I don't know how you'd even begin to apply science to morality seeing as everyone has their own individual thoughts and it would be a constantly progressing study that never stayed the same and couldn't be replicated in study because the people you're studying wouldn't be the same.
Quote:
|
Giving is perfectly fine as long as you have a reason to give it to them. If you give to someone you don't know, then what reason do they deserve charity over the other millions of kids who need it? There would be no reason. If you know a person in need, and you value them, then it is still moral to give to them. You have no duty to give to them. You do it because you have reasoned it out. It is selfish in this way because you put your own interest (in this case your interest would be that person) over everyone else's interests (other people, other things, etc.)
|
If you look at that with that much scope then of course it appears selfish because you're valuing your own over everything else but giving to everyone in need is impossible (unless you have enough to give) so of course you have to limit your charity to what is probable. There is reason and justification for being charitable (which isn't a synonym with selfish though in this case I guess it is) in that case.
Quote:
|
It is rape. I am forced into a rape situation, and I let it happen, I am still coerced. This makes what I did involuntary, rendering the idea of my action to be irrational.
|
You LET it happen which is making it consensual, if you do nothing to stop being raped (because you're "selfless" even though you're grossly misinterpreting what being selfless means) it isn't rape anymore it's just sex.
Quote:
|
I have a hard time grasping how one can logically say that one has the right to someone else's life. That is my main problem with people. When some new tax comes out to tax more of the rich to give to people they don't even know, I have a huge problem with it. I have a huge problem with people reaching into my pocket and telling me I must care for a person I do not want to care for. Yet the majority of voters, including democrat and republican, somehow get away saying that they do it so that the good of all is achieved. There is no reason why everyone deserves a "right" to health care and such if it takes away my right to manage the money I worked for just like I have no "right" to walk into a poor man's house and take all he owns. If I am to give to people I would like to do it rationally and voluntarily, not because I have a gun to my head. Especially when the money I could be giving could be going to some waste of space blowing their money on crack and alcohol while their children starve. Not all people are equals. Some people are better than others because they have worked for it. At birth, all humans are equal, but eventually all humans become individuals and begin to think with their own brain. Some make irrational decisions that lead to their destruction, others make rational decisions that lead to financial success. Some are born in an environment where the struggle to be rational and to achieve financial success is harder. If they make it out of that situation and become a successful rational business man, they completely deserve every penny they earn and have proven that they are a monumental human being
|
Oh boy we've been over this and I don't feel going over it again. Do you know why the country failed before congress had the power to levy taxes? Maybe you should study American history before running around proposing Anarcho-Capitalism. It offers all the answer as to why your idea of a government would completely and utterly fail.
Quote:
|
The philosophy of altruism, believes that the crack-addicted, children-starving man and his hardworking son who ended up becoming a business man are both equals. Those who propose this philosophy believe that the hardworking business man should have to give money to his father who almost starved him to death (and granted, he also gives towards those in a familiar situation to his and etc.). Then the father can go by more crack and still be considered to be equals with his hardworking son. This is a bunch of bull****.
|
And you think the polar opposite, a selfish concern only for yourself, is any better?