Love sucks???????
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-02-2017, 09:49 PM
RE: Love sucks???????
(16-02-2017 10:15 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  
(16-02-2017 12:24 AM)666wannabe Wrote:  Well, not exactly, but I've come to the realization that the world doesn't need love so much as it needs an obliteration of hatred.

If fact, I always find myself distrusting someone who goes around preaching "love your neighbor". I find myself wondering what he or she is trying to finagle me out of.

Humanist morality is far superior to most religious moralities, for the simple reason that it is not based on the ignorant injunction to "love your neighbor". It is based, most often, on the acknowledgment that other people's right to happiness and freedom from suffering are equal to our own. And that it is, generally, immoral to deny them this right. I say, generally, because there are situations in which it is justified to deny them their rights--such as in defending ourselves or our property.

If there is such a thing as an objective standard for moral behavior, this is it.

My primary objection to religious morality--other than it usually being based on the rantings of a madman--is that it promotes tribalism rather than universalism--an us versus them mentality that, inevitably leads to hatred and distrust for those who are not in the "in" group.

I think that religious morality leads to tribalism, hatred and fear because it holds sacrifice as its standard of virtue and need as its standard of value. Under this type of moral basis You hate the man who has more than you do because he has a moral obligation to sacrifice his wealth and he isn't. He's keeping it for himself. You fear and resent the man who has less than you. You have a moral obligation to sacrifice your wealth and give it to him, but you earned it damn it! So you must grudgingly comply and cheat as much as you can get away with. This is not a recipe for brotherly love and kindness. Also when the group is the standard of the good, then the individual is always on the outside. So he must join a group and fight with other groups for his rights. Force becomes the standard of virtue. My group is more powerful than your group. We have more muscle and more congressmen in our pocket.

Unfortunately, secular morality is based on the same basic principles as religious morality. Selfless sacrifice, the group as the standard of the good, the worship of need. It leads to the welfare state, and group force which leads to the us verses them mentality that you decry. I am not a Humanist because from what I have read about it, it is just a secularized version of the morality of self-sacrifice. At best what we get from it is a mixed system of some individualism and some collectivism, just as we have here in the U.S. But the mixture is unstable and always moves toward collectivism out of a desire to equalize outcomes (evade the law of causality) which is what we see here in the U.S. We are moving more and more towards collectivism and hence tribalism and conflict and judging by the ideas held by the vast majority, we won't be moving towards individualism for a long time to come if ever. Every where you look you see people grouping together to demand the unearned and you see hatred and irrationality spreading like a fungus. It's only a matter of time before it all blows up, that is certain unless people make a radical shift in their thinking.

What is needed is a total break from the morality of selflessness to a full, uncompromising morality of rational self-interest based on man's life, his individual life as the standard of value and reason, production and trade as the standard of virtue. What's needed is a morality of rational self-interest not irrational self- immolation. Then you will have peace and good will and kindness in society that you are looking for. There can be no conflict among men who do not demand the unearned and the irrational (a redundancy, I know) and who don't look at each other as sacrificial animals but sovereign individuals who's rights are absolutes.

I agree that consequentialist philosophy is ridiculous in nature. It leads to collectivism. But I don't think we need to model after Rand. Personally, I'm a virtue ethicist. I think there are certain behaviors that are best fit for each entity.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-02-2017, 12:18 AM
RE: Love sucks???????
(16-02-2017 09:39 PM)Naielis Wrote:  Well that's a good way to shut down a conversation, but I'm here to debate actual issues.

Well then, try doing it without taking us for another drag down that pathetic "how do you know that?" rabbit hole all over again. Humour us, Naielis. Instead of whining about whether something really is objective, how about offering your opinion on self-directed empathetic morality versus religiously-commanded morality?

I'm sorry, but your beliefs are much too silly to take seriously. Got anything else we can discuss?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Astreja's post
17-02-2017, 06:03 AM
RE: Love sucks???????
(17-02-2017 12:18 AM)Astreja Wrote:  
(16-02-2017 09:39 PM)Naielis Wrote:  Well that's a good way to shut down a conversation, but I'm here to debate actual issues.

Well then, try doing it without taking us for another drag down that pathetic "how do you know that?" rabbit hole all over again. Humour us, Naielis. Instead of whining about whether something really is objective, how about offering your opinion on self-directed empathetic morality versus religiously-commanded morality?

Religious morality is generally founded in a worldview. I disagree with religious ethical systems because they are largely deontological with a god as the moral authority. I consider myself a virtue ethicist. I think deontology could be a way to frame morality, but certainly not with the gods of any religion dictating moral law. I'm not sure what self-directed empathetic morality even is. It seems to me that the most popular brand secular humanist morality is just "yeah let's be nice". There's no theory behind it all. Also, it's important to ask how people know things. Otherwise you could let a lot of assumptions and bare assertions slip by.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-02-2017, 06:42 AM
RE: Love sucks???????
(17-02-2017 06:03 AM)Naielis Wrote:  I consider myself a virtue ethicist.

How do you determine what virtues to value?

Quote:It seems to me that the most popular brand secular humanist morality is just "yeah let's be nice". There's no theory behind it all.

Which extreme of society would you prefer to live in:
a) people generally act decently to each other but have no theory at all to explain why they act the way they do
b) people have a very well-defined theory about behavior but do not treat each other decently

Quote: Also, it's important to ask how people know things. Otherwise you could let a lot of assumptions and bare assertions slip by.

I do not disagree with that and I'm certainly not saying that we should refrain from trying to develop a theory for why one ethical system outperforms another but it isn't necessary to have the theory before moving ahead with what works. It is important to ask and to question assumptions but it isn't always important to be certain before moving ahead.

We have a great deal of empirical data showing that people are generally happier and more prosperous when they are being nice to each other than when they are oppressing and killing each other. That's enough to say that we should move in that direction even if we can't explain why it works.

You live in a world where things are rarely as cut and dried as you seem to want to make them. Let a little ambiguity in. Not having an absolute answer isn't nearly as important many think it is.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like unfogged's post
17-02-2017, 07:21 AM
RE: Love sucks???????
(17-02-2017 06:42 AM)unfogged Wrote:  How do you determine what virtues to value?

Well this is completely dependent on how virtue is defined. I would say all virtues are are a perfect state based on the nature of a given entity. I'm certainly not capable of explaining this is as much depth as true philosophers though. Here's some reading on the subject: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-virtue/

Quote:Which extreme of society would you prefer to live in:
a) people generally act decently to each other but have no theory at all to explain why they act the way they do
b) people have a very well-defined theory about behavior but do not treat each other decently

Well I would prefer society A, but this seems to suggest morality is based on my preference.

Quote:I do not disagree with that and I'm certainly not saying that we should refrain from trying to develop a theory for why one ethical system outperforms another but it isn't necessary to have the theory before moving ahead with what works. It is important to ask and to question assumptions but it isn't always important to be certain before moving ahead.

I agree we don't certainty on everything.

Quote:We have a great deal of empirical data showing that people are generally happier and more prosperous when they are being nice to each other than when they are oppressing and killing each other. That's enough to say that we should move in that direction even if we can't explain why it works.

You live in a world where things are rarely as cut and dried as you seem to want to make them. Let a little ambiguity in. Not having an absolute answer isn't nearly as important many think it is.

But the very question about morality is whether people being happy is the standard at all. This Sam Harris style ethic seems to just assume everyone is a Utilitarian. Now I understand your desire to move away from certainty. The yearning for certainty can cause people to jump to conclusions. But I still maintain that epistemic certainty is required at the foundation of a worldview.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-02-2017, 10:48 AM
RE: Love sucks???????
(16-02-2017 08:07 PM)mordant Wrote:  
(16-02-2017 01:10 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  It is unclear how acting in ones rational self-interest consistently could be destructive.
Depends on whether a person understands the scope and implications of "rational self-interest" or not. I believe in rational self interest too, but understand that part of what's in my rational self-interest is to promote the kind of civil society I want to live in, which means, being kind and generous to others so that I get the social reciprocity I need as a human, which is to say, I'm hypersocial relative to other species.

In my experience, too many people think that their rational self-interest is what makes them feel pleasure and ease in any given moment and never demands delayed gratification or personal sacrifice. It is the flip side of what you are pointing out, that to some people humanism is all about delayed gratification and personal sacrifice to the point of imbalance, rather than understanding it as 666wannabe (and I) do.

In other words I really don't see an inherent conflict between humanism as I understand it and rational self interest as I understand it; it is a question of balance and motivation and awareness of the nuanced dance between the two; I see them as facets of the same thing.

But then again I am an introvert who is suspicious of institutionalized formulations. I don't go to humanist meetups or Ayn Rand book clubs, I just take from each what I consider useful and ditch the rest.

Yes I agree. Such a system would not work currently because for the last couple of hundred years the intellectuals have been on an all out assault on reality and reason. Kant is the philosopher who killed the enlightenment and has led to the destruction of United States and the world because he set out to rescue the morality of altruism and self sacrifice and he knew what he had to save it from was reason. So he set out to undercut the mind and he did a great job of it.

We'd have to start by teaching young people what reason is and how it works. We don't do this today. We teach them instead that reason is impotent, reality isn't real or at best it's a realm of shifting chaos. We can't be certain of anything. What's true for some is not true for others. The vast majority go to church sunday schools and learn that "wishing makes things so", i.e., the primacy of consciousness view of reality which is a false view of reality. You combine the influence of religious teaching and Kant and his various derivatives and it's no wonder why people don't understand and shun the idea of rational self-interest. I know for a fact that in all my schooling including philosophy classes in college, I was never once given a definition of reason. It was just taken for granted that I knew or it wasn't important to explicitly define. How different my life would have been if I'd been taught Objectivism as a young child instead of irrational mysticism. If I'd been taught the objective theory of concepts and the objective theory of ethics Instead of "you can't be certain of anything" and "the good is to live for others, not for your own sake" my life would have been greatly improved. For one thing I wouldn't have wasted over 30 years of my life with Christianity.

Would you say that Humanism supports the welfare state, socialized medicine, food stamps and subsidized housing? Would Humanism be in favor of laissez faire Capitalism? Are these things compatible with Humanism as you inform it?

I don't go to any meetups either. I'm very much an introvert. I've never met another Objectivist except for online. I have met some Humanists and I've read quite a lot about Humanism and that's what informs my understanding of it.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes true scotsman's post
17-02-2017, 10:59 AM
RE: Love sucks???????
(16-02-2017 09:49 PM)Naielis Wrote:  
(16-02-2017 10:15 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  I think that religious morality leads to tribalism, hatred and fear because it holds sacrifice as its standard of virtue and need as its standard of value. Under this type of moral basis You hate the man who has more than you do because he has a moral obligation to sacrifice his wealth and he isn't. He's keeping it for himself. You fear and resent the man who has less than you. You have a moral obligation to sacrifice your wealth and give it to him, but you earned it damn it! So you must grudgingly comply and cheat as much as you can get away with. This is not a recipe for brotherly love and kindness. Also when the group is the standard of the good, then the individual is always on the outside. So he must join a group and fight with other groups for his rights. Force becomes the standard of virtue. My group is more powerful than your group. We have more muscle and more congressmen in our pocket.

Unfortunately, secular morality is based on the same basic principles as religious morality. Selfless sacrifice, the group as the standard of the good, the worship of need. It leads to the welfare state, and group force which leads to the us verses them mentality that you decry. I am not a Humanist because from what I have read about it, it is just a secularized version of the morality of self-sacrifice. At best what we get from it is a mixed system of some individualism and some collectivism, just as we have here in the U.S. But the mixture is unstable and always moves toward collectivism out of a desire to equalize outcomes (evade the law of causality) which is what we see here in the U.S. We are moving more and more towards collectivism and hence tribalism and conflict and judging by the ideas held by the vast majority, we won't be moving towards individualism for a long time to come if ever. Every where you look you see people grouping together to demand the unearned and you see hatred and irrationality spreading like a fungus. It's only a matter of time before it all blows up, that is certain unless people make a radical shift in their thinking.

What is needed is a total break from the morality of selflessness to a full, uncompromising morality of rational self-interest based on man's life, his individual life as the standard of value and reason, production and trade as the standard of virtue. What's needed is a morality of rational self-interest not irrational self- immolation. Then you will have peace and good will and kindness in society that you are looking for. There can be no conflict among men who do not demand the unearned and the irrational (a redundancy, I know) and who don't look at each other as sacrificial animals but sovereign individuals who's rights are absolutes.

I agree that consequentialist philosophy is ridiculous in nature. It leads to collectivism. But I don't think we need to model after Rand. Personally, I'm a virtue ethicist. I think there are certain behaviors that are best fit for each entity.

Well then if you think this why not adopt the Objectivist theory of ethics because this is precisely what it is based on, that there is a specific means of survival best fit to man according to his nature as a rational being and any other course of action is destructive of his life. Actually Objectivism starts with the concept of values, not virtues as it's base of ethics. The fact that man needs certain values to succeed given his nature as a biological organism that faces the fundamental alternative between life and death. First we must identify what these values are and then discover what virtues are required to get them.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-02-2017, 11:03 AM
RE: Love sucks???????



Don't let those gnomes and their illusions get you down. They're just gnomes and illusions.

--Jake the Dog, Adventure Time

Alouette, je te plumerai.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Old Man Marsh's post
17-02-2017, 12:26 PM (This post was last modified: 17-02-2017 02:01 PM by Astreja.)
RE: Love sucks???????
(17-02-2017 06:42 AM)unfogged Wrote:  Which extreme of society would you {Naielis} prefer to live in:
a) people generally act decently to each other but have no theory at all to explain why they act the way they do
b) people have a very well-defined theory about behavior but do not treat each other decently

I was thinking something roughly along the same lines: For all their rules and regulations, the various religions haven't done a particularly good job when it comes to applied morality. You can't make someone act decently towards others if they don't actually want to.

In the real world, theory, worldviews and the best of intentions all tend to break down when they come into conflict with our emotions and whatever motivations we carry around below our threshold of awareness. Perhaps we should be encouraging more self-reflection and more self-actualized mature behaviour, rather than inundating people with a bunch of rules.

I'm sorry, but your beliefs are much too silly to take seriously. Got anything else we can discuss?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-02-2017, 04:52 PM
RE: Love sucks???????
(17-02-2017 10:48 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  If I'd been taught the objective theory of concepts and the objective theory of ethics Instead of "you can't be certain of anything" and "the good is to live for others, not for your own sake" my life would have been greatly improved. For one thing I wouldn't have wasted over 30 years of my life with Christianity.
Well I believe you can't be certain of anything in the sense that you would be able to demonstrate 100% objectively and beyond the slightest doubt that it is so. But I believe you can be plenty certain ENOUGH for practical purposes. I'm 99.9999% sure of a lot of things, including that there are no gods. I'm 75 or 80% sure of a lot of things, and particularly when those things aren't terribly consequential, that's plenty certain enough. In fact, being 55% certain is fine for many purposes, such as what kind of food I might like to order in tonight.

I think postmodern thought is a classic example of overthinking. It is true that we can't be absolutely certain of anything; it also doesn't matter. What matters is what has utility in achieving one's goals in a sustainable and organic way, which means, in a way that balances your needs against the needs of others and of society as a whole so that society doesn't become a miserable place for most people to exist. It matters in what helps me to be more rather than less content, even if I can't achieve the state of unmitigated bliss that some feel depressed that they can't constantly have despite it being biologically impossible.
(17-02-2017 10:48 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  Would you say that Humanism supports the welfare state, socialized medicine, food stamps and subsidized housing? Would Humanism be in favor of laissez faire Capitalism? Are these things compatible with Humanism as you inform it?
I think that humanism doesn't inherently dictate methods or politics anymore than atheism does. It promotes a certain ethical and compassionate stance that many try to fulfill via progressive politics, but I don't see it as requiring a particular approach, only a desired outcome.

Humanism simply ascribes importance to human needs and values rather than imagined divine needs and values. It affirms that humans have much in common. It seeks rational ways to solve human problems. Nothing about that dictates particular methods.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes mordant's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: