What do you believe?

[OldTrees]

No one I know thinks they are a moral saint.
Everyone I know has an opinion on what makes something right or wrong.

I personally think that theft is wrong. However I occasionally illegally watch episodes of my favorite show.

So it is possible to do what you think is evil despite your belief.


So far Bloodshadow has not defined what his views of moral/immoral are, just that selfishness and greed tend to motivate people to do more of the acts that are immoral than the ones that are moral.

[QuantumT]

Anyone else find Bloodshadow's stance pretty contradictory? I mean he basically defines necessary levels of greed and selfishness as evil and by proxy says all living things are evil. He is alive and is evil by his own admission. Why would someone who admits hes evil think he has any say on what is or isn't moral or good?

From his perspective, it's just a matter of simple logic that's separate from whether or not you're good or evil.

Where I disagree with what he said is that I think 3 (see post on motivations) is the most important, as opposed to the least. I think that this is demonstrated merely by our own existence.

[Bloodshadow]

Anyone else find Bloodshadow's stance pretty contradictory? I mean he basically defines necessary levels of greed and selfishness as evil and by proxy says all living things are evil. He is alive and is evil by his own admission. Why would someone who admits hes evil think he has any say on what is or isn't moral or good?

By your logic, nobody has any right to judge others, because there is no such thing as a purely good human being. OldTrees basically said what I'm going to say, so I won't type it all out again.

As you can see in this post (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,15339.msg209543.html#msg209543), my personality can be divided into six distinct components. One of the components, the black one, represents my greed and selfishness. I am fully aware of my own "evil" tendencies, but that does not take away my right to judge others. I can judge those people who are more greedy and selfish than me, but I will not judge those who are less.

Where I disagree with what he said is that I think 3 (see post on motivations) is the most important, as opposed to the least. I think that this is demonstrated merely by our own existence.

I think we can all agree that rule #1 (self-preservation) is the most important one, because that's what makes you protective of your own wellbeing. However, as civilization develops, we no longer have to worry too much about our survival, so instead we became more focused on gaining resources (rule #2). Rule #2 becomes more prominent, and the other two rules become less significant. Rule #1 is deeply ingrained in our minds, but rule #3 is not as deep, so comparatively rule #3 gets weakened more than #1.

I have another moral issue that I would like to discuss. If you're suffering, but someone else is suffering more than you, does that take away your right to think "my life sucks"? Furthermore, if you're happy, but someone else is suffering, does that make you selfish because you're gloating in your own happiness instead of trying to help the suffering person?

[OldTrees]

I have another moral issue that I would like to discuss. If you're suffering, but someone else is suffering more than you, does that take away your right to think "my life sucks"? Furthermore, if you're happy, but someone else is suffering, does that make you selfish because you're gloating in your own happiness instead of trying to help the suffering person?

Let me answer by presenting my opinion on Duties and Prohibitions.

We often refer to rights both positive and negative.
Positive rights (if they exist) beget Duties in others to fulfill our positive rights.
Negative rights (if they exist) beget Prohibitions in others to prevent their infringing our negative rights.

All actions that are not prohibited or that prevent you from doing your duty are permissible.

Of all the rights I think we have, I can boil it down to 1 negative right from the theft of our time/life.
Yes, I do not believe that people have a positive right to life. Only a negative right to life.

Let us consider the interaction between a hypothetical positive right and the negative right to time.
The positive rights of others makes a demand on the time of the person infringing on the negative right to time.
Therefore no positive rights exist if the negative right to time exists.

Since all actions that are not prohibited or prevent you from doing your duty are permissible and duties do not exist, all actions that are not prohibited are permissible.

So any action that does not deprive another of their time/life (or what they are entitled to through voluntary trade of their time/life) is permissible.

So you never had a positive right to say "my life sucks" however unless doing so would deprive another of time/life, it is permissible.
In the case of the selfish (amoral term meaning looking out for the self) act of making yourself happy it is permissible provided doing so does not deprive another of time/life.

In fact, under my definitions of moral and immoral less than 10% of selfish acts preformed are immoral. (This is why I disagree with your assessment)

The above is the judgement based on my world view.

I would be interested in hearing what makes something moral or immoral in your mind. "What makes an act immoral?" This is an important philosophical question that too view people think about in-depth. This makes finding other opinions on the matter so valuable. (Hence my persistence)

[QuantumT]

I think we can all agree that rule #1 (self-preservation) is the most important one, because that's what makes you protective of your own wellbeing. However, as civilization develops, we no longer have to worry too much about our survival, so instead we became more focused on gaining resources (rule #2). Rule #2 becomes more prominent, and the other two rules become less significant. Rule #1 is deeply ingrained in our minds, but rule #3 is not as deep, so comparatively rule #3 gets weakened more than #1.

I actually disagree. I think rule #3 is much more important than you give it credit for, because my genes aren't going to survive very well if all I ever care about is myself (I guess another way to look at this is that rule #1 reinforces rule #3).

I have another moral issue that I would like to discuss. If you're suffering, but someone else is suffering more than you, does that take away your right to think "my life sucks"? Furthermore, if you're happy, but someone else is suffering, does that make you selfish because you're gloating in your own happiness instead of trying to help the suffering person?

Not entirely in my opinion. What I think also has to be taken into account is how you're doing with respect to the average.

For example, if I'm in a car wreck and my leg gets amputated, I'm still allowed to think that my life sucks even though some people die in car accidents.

On the other hand, if I'm a spoiled brat who didn't get the car I wanted for my 16th birthday, then not so much.

And for the happiness one, I think that depends as well. I can get into that later maybe.

[Bloodshadow]

I would be interested in hearing what makes something moral or immoral in your mind. "What makes an act immoral?" This is an important philosophical question that too view people think about in-depth. This makes finding other opinions on the matter so valuable. (Hence my persistence)

I have a very hedonistic world view. In my opinion, an act is immoral when it satisfies both of these two criteria:
1) The act inflicts pain onto others.
2) The person either intends to inflict pain, or is apathetic about inflicting pain.

For example, a psychopath brutally torturing someone is obviously immoral, because the psychopath intends to inflict pain. Kidnapping and selling children is immoral, because the kidnapper wants money but does not care about the pain inflicted upon the children and their families. Wounding/killing someone in self-defense is not immoral, because although pain is inflicted, the person did not intend to inflict pain, and will most likely feel very bad about inflicting pain.

Don't go snarky on me if you find a hole in my logic. I really hate that. I try to find simple, elegant solutions and generalizations in everything, but neither me nor my logic is perfect. Do I really deserve to be deleted from existence if I made a mistake and didn't consider absolutely everything?

[OldTrees]

@Bloodshadow
That is a well thought out theory. You have made my day! (Considering it is 3:00am where I am that is a full 21hrs!)

Using pain as a standard is a well established and sound principle. I would recommend looking into Utilitarianism for more theories that use pain as a standard although they differ from your view.

You however have done two things that I have never/rarely seen. That does not mean they are wrong, just new to me.
1) You only mention pain/suffering and leave no mention of pleasure/benefit. (possible a side effect of how I asked the question but maybe the pleasure/benefit side of the equation is insignificant or irrelevant in your opinion.)

If an act creates an equal amount of pain and pleasure in others and the consequences are intended is it immoral?

2) You claim that an act is immoral if it is intended to create pain and if it does create pain. The considering both the intentions and the consequences while each subset ignores the other is new.

What about when someone intends to inflict pain but fails to do so. Was the attempt immoral?

Thank you for your answer it helps me answer your questions.

[Bloodshadow]

What about when someone intends to inflict pain but fails to do so. Was the attempt immoral?

Thank you for not going snarky on me when you found a hole in my logic. Allow me to fix that hole right now.

An act is immoral if it satisfies the two criteria below:
1) The act is capable of inflicting pain upon someone.
2) The person either intends to inflict pain, or is apathetic about inflicting pain.

This way, the act can be immoral even if it fails.

If an act creates an equal amount of pain and pleasure in others and the consequences are intended is it immoral?

I don't really see how this is possible. However, if the person is apathetic about the pain he or she inflicts, then the act is immoral. If the person shows remorse then the act is no longer immoral.

According to your theory, we only have "negative rights". We are not obligated to give others pleasure, but we are obligated to not give others pain. Thus, only pain is considered in my criteria.

My logic still has a pretty big hole. If a person is suffering, and you do not try to help him/her even if you're fully and easily capable of helping, then is the act of not helping immoral? We are obligated to not give others pain, but are we obligated to attempt to relieve the pain of others if the attempt does not bring pain to ourselves?

[QuantumT]

My logic still has a pretty big hole. If a person is suffering, and you do not try to help him/her even if you're fully and easily capable of helping, then is the act of not helping immoral? We are obligated to not give others pain, but are we obligated to attempt to relieve the pain of others if the attempt does not bring pain to ourselves?

What exactly qualifies as 'pain' to me? If something just takes away from me financially somewhat, does that count as pain? What if it's just inconvenient?

Note: I'm not trying to point out holes in logic or anything. I'm just asking an honest question.

[xKelevra]

I'm an atheist. I think that we're born, we live, then we die.

There's been absolutely no proof of a greater deity and the fact that there are so many gods that people believe in, I think that they've all been made-up by humans.

[QuantumT]

We're born, we live, then we die. I've accepted this.

I don't think anyone is debating that. That isn't very helpful in figuring out how to live your life though.

[Bloodshadow]

What exactly qualifies as 'pain' to me? If something just takes away from me financially somewhat, does that count as pain? What if it's just inconvenient?

Do you know what hedonism is? Look is up. "Pain" is basically anything that you don't want, anything that you feel negatively toward.